Is this good or bad? it's the only picture there is. If it's good what should i offer for this...
-
-
From the poor pics i would say it,s good, in that condition i would only buy
it if it was very cheap
Mametz -
A heavy worn piece,i would say around 250.Comment
-
Hard to tell as to originality from the one photo. The blade appears to be mounted upside-down since the maker-mark should be on the reverse side of the hilt, not on the obverse. This could mean that it's a parts dagger or that someone took it apart and re-assembled it incorrectly...? It also looks like the upper screw at the scabbard throat is missing. Really can't say more as-is.
Br. JamesComment
-
Makermarks on the front of a blade are COMMON to early daggers! I don´t want to know the number of by "experts" disassambled daggers only to turn the original mounted blade...
The distance of the mm which placed it viewable below the eagle/swaz is an additional hint that it was original factory assambled this way (but there are also originals with the mm even hidden by the eagle/swaz).
Greetings, daggers.Comment
-
An interesting response, Daggers. I was not aware that "Makermarks on the front of a blade are COMMON to early daggers" -- this is the first I've seen reference to such a fact. Many thanks,
Br. JamesComment
-
Looks like an original dagger, in this condition 250 tops IMO, it's definatly a heavily worn piece, as for the maker mark position, most likely someone took it apart and just put the blade in backwards, Ive seen this MANY times and even right from vets estates, not a big deal on a common piece like this.
FritzComment
-
Thanks, Fritz, and perhaps I am just overly-suspicious here, after more than 50 years of collecting and study?! I can assure you that in all my years in this hobby, I have never once been enticed to take a dagger apart for any purpose, and the reason for that is because I have always been afraid that I would either strip the threads in either the crown or on the tang, or that I might inadvertently force sections of the piece back together and thereby damage the entire artifact. So I have fastidiously steered clear of dis-assembling any dagger that I have ever owned. So, when I hear of a vet bring-back that shows evidence of having been taken apart at some point over the decades -- while supposedly having always been in the possession of the vet -- I immediately start to wonder why a vet would feel the need to take that dagger apart??
In my experience, daggers that have been taken apart normally fall into two categories: either they have been disassembled by an overly-curious collector, or they have been stripped down in order to pirate parts or to replace period parts with post-war parts, thereby creating a Frankenstein...a parts dagger. I always encourage other collectors never to take a dagger apart for any reason, and I am sensitive (perhaps overly-so) to anything that appears to be a parts dagger. I am only interested in genuine period artifacts and I live under the assumption that other collectors feel the same...and sometimes I am surprised to find it otherwise!
Br. JamesComment
Comment