I would like your opinions on this dagger, thanks for your time. Ralph Arndt
-
-
Last Photos -
photosComment
-
More photosComment
-
There are a couple of things that concern me about the dagger as a whole which leads me to believe this may be a parts piece.
Among other things, I'm concerned about the font of the letters & numbers which do not match the numerous examples I have in my files. The crossguards have an interesting finish on them, almost like they've been steel-wooled at some point.
I do like the tang mark on the blade which looks correct. The NPEA frog also looks legitimate.
One question I'm always interested in, is the seller known & reputable?Comment
-
Family piece.Comment
-
Arndt's NPEA
While I don't have the piece in hand, it does appear to be a good one. These crossguard mark fonts only appear on a few of the very first issue Spandau pieces: See Raif Siegert's new book on NPEAs and a dagger from the John Merling collection. These fonts only appear on a few of the initial low single and double digit ones.
The scabbard MAY be a repaint, but can't tell from the photos. The frog is a good one and the guards DO appear to be marked internally. The tang mark is correct and looks good. JMO.Comment
-
Ron,
I did think that it possible because the issue number is so low that perhaps it was an earlier font used at the school before the later daggers were issued/stamped. What gave me pause is that I have pictures in my files showing an SP dagger with a lower number than this one showing the regularly seen font & numbers. The question is why would the stampers originally use one set of dies, alternate & then alternate back to the original dies?
It's nice the dagger has a family provenance which helps ascertain some degree of originality but the font thing still puzzles me.Comment
Comment