transitional Eickhorn SS dagger logo

[all1knew]

Hello all,

Is this a correct logo? The second photo posted is an original with the absence of "original" but with the maker name. The first is missing both the maker name and "original" on it. Any help?

William Kramer

[all1knew]

According to Dave/dblmed the 941/39 SS logo is correct.

[all1knew]

additional pics of the rig.

[all1knew]

Nicotine patina.

[tobau]

Fake

[Rheingold]

Tobau is right.

-This is not a eick etch pattern.
-Motto to far down.
-Finish of this blade....and a few more.

[addyfie]

Im no expert but i dont like much about this dagger at all JMO

[andrea]

Hi williams, I m sure as you post it, that is not a surpise also for you, but as before stated by Reihngold to many mistake on it,I hope you had not buy it.
Andrea

[Serge M.]

Fake

I concur.


-wagner-

[all1knew]

Hi williams, I m sure as you post it, that is not a surpise also for you, but as before stated by Reihngold to many mistake on it,I hope you had not buy it.
Andrea

Nope, came across it at a resale shop in Chicago and just getting a second opinion. Thank you all for the help.

William Kramer

[james m]

The 1938 Eickhorn etch without the word "Original" as depicted in the above documentation is correct. I have an example of an SS dagger that has been examined by many collectors and dealers and deemed correct. The blades were made for Eickhorn by Carl August Hartcopf and his raised logo CAH appears on the tang.
Having said that; I don't like the etch shown in the 1st closeup above.
Jim

[Craig H]

[Ron Weinand]

While this Eickhorn TM did exist during the TR for a short time, this one is not the same as the original. Motto too far down the blade and crossgrain is not as an original would be.

[zozole]

Thats a bad one William...

[777]

Yes, this kind of logo existed and can be seen in referrence books, but ... well, the rest of the dagger is sooo bad