I agree, the inscription appears dark in comparison to the wear on the blade.....Perhaps intentionally darkened to make easier to read(?)....Also, what's with the greenish (oxidation?) color on the cross guard.....It doesn't look natural IMO....Bodes
I agree, the inscription appears dark in comparison to the wear on the blade.....Perhaps intentionally darkened to make easier to read(?)....Also, what's with the greenish (oxidation?) color on the cross guard.....It doesn't look natural IMO....Bodes
The green is verdigris from a leather vertical hanger most likely.A good testament to the daggers age but it will damage the nickel fittings in time.Is there a number stamped on the bottom crossguard by the blade?
The green is verdigris from a leather vertical hanger most likely.A good testament to the daggers age but it will damage the nickel fittings in time..............................
I got the same "problem" on an SS with a vertical hanger. I've removed it from the scabbard fittings.
There is a scabbard not shown as this is being offered on an auction site somewhere....as a friend brought this to my attention also....the upper scabbard fitting..( Not shown ) was loaded with what looked more like melted green crayon. For this particular dagger I would like to see an in hand inspection. The darkened motto verses the overall condition as specified does leave some doubts. Hopefully the scabbard could appear for this thread. Regards Larry
Just an observation based on my own personal experience with buying inscription daggers: buy the dagger, laying out the big bucks -THEN you'll get the 'lurking' nay-sayers coming out of the woodwork condemning it as a fake. They like to wait until you've brought the piece before they strike....
I know what Kiwitedferny is referring to -- sad to say -- but the reason behind the lateness of some (negative) comments on a piece may be a good example of what we have in this thread. At the beginning, Mike presented us with just one photo of the reverse of an SA M-33 bearing a full Röhm dedication, and apparently that's the only photo he has yet been able to obtain. Later that same day he told us that he expected to receive some additional pix and would share them when they arrived. This has not yet happened, now three weeks later, so we may assume that the seller never sent the additional pix which Mike had requested. For me, this would be the end of any further consideration of a piece.
But what I believe happens more often than we'd like to think is that a collector shares pix with the WAF community as he is able, but does not receive much in the way of in-depth response because the pix initially provided are simply too vague to say much about. So, receiving no or very few negative comments on the piece, the author of the thread goes ahead and buys the piece and he then posts several much better pix of the item he now has in hand...and that is where the negative criticism begins. Of course, the author has already bought the piece, and now he receives a lot of sharp comments such as "fake" or "phony" or "not worth the money" or "I wouldn't want this junk in my collection," but now it's often too late...
A sad scenario, of course, but this may be what is as work here.
Hi guys
Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy dismantling an 1840's
square style hand hewn log cabin to reconstruct on my property.
There were some better pics in PDF form, but my
schedule was full and didn't get them posted. It was sold today but
I didn't bid on it. I felt comfortable with it, but just too many irons in the fire.
If any one is still interested in the pics I could possibly post them
on Monday.
Again sorry for bailing on the thread
Comment