New SS Blade Maker Mark

[Frogprince]

With my thanks to both, what aroused my curiosity is because the other “E” “W” marked example I checked clearly has a relatively deep recess for the blade in the lower face of the crossguard. That I did not see with this example in the one reasonably clear image that showed the corrosion on the side of cross guard (or in other more blurred one). And both aluminum and zinc have white oxides. With the in hand weight of aluminum at very roughly 2/3 less than that of nickel silver, which itself is roughly 10% heavier than zinc and I was hoping Garandguy would give a first hand report one way or the other. So maybe there was more than one version? FP

[The Red Baron]

With my thanks to both, what aroused my curiosity is because the other “E” “W” marked example I checked clearly has a relatively deep recess for the blade in the lower face of the crossguard. That I did not see with this example in the one reasonably clear image that showed the corrosion on the side of cross guard (or in other more blurred one). And both aluminum and zinc have white oxides. With the in hand weight of aluminum at very roughly 2/3 less than that of nickel silver, which itself is roughly 10% heavier than zinc and I was hoping Garandguy would give a first hand report one way or the other. So maybe there was more than one version? FP

I've handled this dagger and the guards are just aluminum. It would make sense to have a deep blade impression due to the soft nature of aluminum, but this is likely just a production difference than "version." Especially considering how few of these exist in aluminum. You have seen an SS piece with EW aluminum guards with this same Klaas maker mark?

[Frogprince]

I've handled this dagger and the guards are just aluminum. It would make sense to have a deep blade impression due to the soft nature of aluminum, but this is likely just a production difference than "version." Especially considering how few of these exist in aluminum. You have seen an SS piece with EW aluminum guards with this same Klaas maker mark?

Courtesy of the Internet (link provided upon request): “Version - a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing.” Not something a worker is going to do on the floor of a factory a new pattern/mold had to be made. Or you could quibble about nickel silver, versus malleable iron, aluminum or zinc. All differences in production, which term is a collector more likely to use: “version” or “production difference”?

As for the Klass, I haven’t seen this particular configuration before. FP

[The Red Baron]

[QUOTE=Frogprince;6520043]Courtesy of the Internet (link provided upon request): “Version - a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing.” Not something a worker is going to do on the floor of a factory a new pattern/mold had to be made. Or you could quibble about nickel silver, versus malleable iron, aluminum or zinc. All differences in production, which term is a collector more likely to use: “version” or “production difference”?

As for the Klass, I haven’t seen this particular configuration before. FP[/QUOTE

A detail like this could matter less to me generally. Just because one aluminum guard marked EW had a deep blade print doesn't mean much to me as I see many daggers with shallow, medium and deep from same makers etc.

[Frogprince]

A detail like this could matter less to me generally. Just because one aluminum guard marked EW had a deep blade print doesn't mean much to me as I see many daggers with shallow, medium and deep from same makers etc.

Not an accident it wasn't a random impression in the metal from somebody over tightening a pommel nut. It was cast in place and was at least 1/16" deep. FP

[The Red Baron]

Not an accident it wasn't a random impression in the metal from somebody over tightening a pommel nut. It was cast in place and was at least 1/16" deep. FP

I know that's why I said I've seen big variations within the same maker previously and it doesn't make me think anything really. Great rare dagger!

[juoneen]

Giving it its due considerations, comments and all...IMO with vice grip marks on the top nut, overworked wrench marks on the nut part, and considering the fit (which does not fit properly on guard or handle) to me it is just a parts dagger, and if it were untouched may be as stated as a rare dagger, but is not, as it is even obviously to have had the throat replaced or crudely pried off the scabbard by someone who has no skills whatsoever, and has been polished on the scabbard sideways....so that in mind ...I wouldn't care about the discussion regarding aluminum crossguards...as at this point the guards materials are a moot point. It's value is not even close to average....and yet we haven't seen the hanger marks , as it isn't even attached properly . I suppose the hanger just could possibly be fake. But as parts daggers go...it would be OK for a beginner to snag if cheap, but even a novice soon would want to dump to get an untouched example made by anyone as long as it had not ever been apart..
In todays collecting world one must avoid daggers like this unless very cheap, as most times they are way over priced, and if one gets too much involved price wise for any parts daggers, you never can even resell it to get your money back....and are usually taken to the cleaners just because it is SS ...sorry I am unimpressed, and feel others are thinking the same, just afraid to say it. I would take it back and get a refund if possible.

[Rheingold]

I agree, I, after looking, found this mark present on quite a few pieces.

Have you seen other daggers with the same TM?

I saw a few ss with alu guards,e.g. an M 7/5 and a 1053. @Tony,you're right about the tang mark,but never seen on an Klaas blade.

I also would like to hear some of the other guys.

[Rheingold]

......

...sorry I am unimpressed, and feel others are thinking the same, just afraid to say it. I would take it back and get a refund if possible.

[Garandguy56]

All of these pictures were sent to Thomas Wittmann and here was his assessment:

"A great, authentic dagger here. I show the existence of these Klass pieces in my SS book on Page 162. Unfortunately, though, I did not have one to photograph at the time of printing and don't know if they are always double-proofed. Your dagger is similar to the types produced by Henckels shown on Page 165 and also Helbig on Page 175 - both daggers being of the same vintage as yours. I have also seen SS daggers in the past that were equipped with the "E.W" marked aluminum mounts, but can't remember the makers anymore - sorry. The same aluminum mounts were also used on NPEA daggers of later vintage."

[Rheingold]

All of these pictures were sent to Thomas Wittmann and here was his assessment:

"...............I show the existence of these Klass pieces in my SS book on Page 162. Unfortunately, though, I did not have one to photograph at the time of printing and don't know if they are always double-proofed. ............
..............."

What shows this page,when he had no reference piece to photograph?
Sorry,but i do not have a copy of this book.

[Frogprince]

What shows this page,when he had no reference piece to photograph?
Sorry,but i do not have a copy of this book.

Page 162 just shows a listing from an unknown source. From TW or one of his contributors? I don’t know. Page 165 pictures a dual RZM/TM marking from Henckels. Likewise for Helbig on page 175. Finding that in post book correspondence with some of the contributors they knew what they were talking about, and could back it up, while another would make some bad guesses that were put forever in print as facts. And there are also some bogus pieces that are pictured in the book as well.

With the one other thing that I found very interesting being that if aluminum can and does corrode outwards from the inside of the socket like that. Can you image what that means for the iron or zinc cross guards that don’t handle corrosion nearly as well??? Hmmmm......……..... FP

[Rheingold]

Thanks Frogprince!
A good point in your post.

[Tiger 1]

Perhaps careful measuring of the blade length, width as well as thickness at various points and then comparing with a known earlier original by Klaas. If the measurements are significantly different this would show that perhaps an SA blade was polished out and re-etched as an SS, hence the tang stamp. I don't recall seeing a Klaas SA though.

It could show a re-use of an existing blade blank at the factory, or on the other hand it could also signify a humped up piece.

What's your comfort threshold?

Tony

[juoneen]

I have one more comment to clarify.....First I respect toms opinions, and he knows as well as many here there are lots of exceptions to the known rules in dagger collecting. He is the man to go to for all the unusual that pop up, and any of us would snag any unusual blade or dagger fooled with or not in hopes we may find the rare exception or unusual example that is seldom encountered. (so it was a smart snag but not without its risks)
I also have found unusual ss daggers like a converted 33 owned by a vets son from California named Ziegler who sold me the one his dad brought home that he and his brother played with as kids that had a 36 Ramp conversion instead of the standard pressed type, which even tom commented on favorably in a similar manner , saying that there were lots of things like that found like 33 to 36 conversions and much still out there to be found not seen in his publications.(too bad the chain was gone when I found it)
Until such a time as an untouched example just like this turns up with provenance, I can't say I have seen any ss dagger with this marking , and as much as I want to believe that it is original I dislike people fooling with blades to refit them especially so crudely if the blade was found alone just for a buck...
I tend to lean in to agree more with tigers 1's theory and would, if I were the finder and not into the example too deep , not care, and hang on to it until further examples turned up..., but not if it was expensive as all you have is a crudely refitted blade basicly...and hope some day in the future (if we live that long) a positive determination can be proven, but if they made such a dagger then someone would have another somewhere.
All of us have one thing in common, and that is...we all seek the holy grails of any item outside the box for any area of collecting of our specific TR interests , and so I don't want you to think it is not an interesting piece....as it is, but I would urge anyone with a virgin example to step up to the plate, and show another if there really are any more out there.....and if none appear presently, I would hope sometime down the road another would match this one and turn up.....but I would try to find the source of the sale as far back as who sold it to who before who owned it had it, and try to trace back , to get to the bottom of the truth if possible, and if anyone knows those facts , please relinquish that history here too, as we are here to solve the riddles and mystery's, but for me ....I have my doubts , but I only wish when it was originally found ,it had been left as found even if it were just as a blade....
We all await to see what turns up in the future, and unless you got boned for it, it still was a thread that is far more interesting than the cut and dried ones usually encountered.....please don't be offended , my observations were strictly objective , as nobody mentioned it appeared to be a parts dagger IMO....and to me it's an important factor that cannot be ignored and must be considered as important as toms suggestion that it is a rare blade.(but don't forget he didn't have one to photograph , and still likely doesn't except yours in his photo library.) He has seen more daggers then most of us have seen all put together. There is nothing I would like to see more than an unmolested example of this makers dagger right from the familys' trunk. ...so until then we all wait with baited breath