Army Dagger Crossguard Reference

[MLH13]

Exceptional work, Tom!

Many thanks for this.

Mark

[WW2-Collector]

Kevin that is a bit perplexing the Holler Type-4 has that extensive hand work. Like you I wonder why Holler would go from a beautiful guard (Type-3) that needed no extra hand enhancement to one that needed that much detail work perhaps due to the shortages and demands of the War. I find your theory intriguing that one of the users of the generic guards could be the MFG - Things that make you go Hmm. I also like your thoughts on the Wingen as they did use the EG-3 crossguard and of course the LG-B

Tom, I would agree on the Wingen and Herder being simply type "B" with their finish of choice.. always wondered why they ended up being listed as individual guards to those makers? I like your theory on the early generic guard users going on to use later "A and B" types.. makes sense to me as quite a few of these small volume makers were users of early generic fittings, while others known for using generic guards like Anton Wingen tried their own guard only very briefly, strange! I have pondered the Holler 4th also, seems strange that they seem to have a good bit of hand work on them.. unlikely for the latest guard? I would propose that the Holler 4th may indeed be the 3rd type used then they went to the totally unenhanced guard that is presently known as the 3rd type.

Shame we cant find some documentation or factory pics that would clue us in to which makers may have been the producers of some of these generic guards.. early or late, I feel that one of the users of each of these must have been the original producer of that type of guard.

I feel confident that new and interesting variations will continue to surface and baffle us (especially on early pieces), challenging the "accepted" norms... that's what I like about these Heers! Best, Kevin.

[WW2-Collector]

Winfried thank you - I am familiar with the site and my complements to the owner lots of information and work went into the site.
Also we are all familiar with Jon’s site – I probably use his more then mine as he has not only the guards but allot of info on manufacturer specifics.
http://www.wardaggers.com/

Hallo Tom, a great job

There is an other good page about Heer daggers, with a lot of good photos from difference makers of daggers, crossguards and so on. It is in German, but the photos and the information are great.

http://www.heeresdolch.de/

Regards
Winfried

[WW2-Collector]

Thank you-My system may be controversial amongst some heer collectors but that’s Ok I don’t mind jumping out with my opinion offering a new perspective of typing the guards. I don’t think Pack made these guards as they had the early initial Pack Type-1 & Type-2 you see these on allot on initial produced daggers by other makers like Tiger-Wingen-Voos-Henckels (to name a few) Pack & WKC sold their initial guards to other producers just like who ever made the early generic crossguards. I will say the EG-3 does favor a Pack style it’s a very rare guard I have seen it used by Wingen-Tiger-Max Weyersberg-Klaas. As a side note Pack & WKC (to name a few) continued to sell crossguards to other manufactures during the period as you see allot of different variations/combinations with these makers crossguards

I like your system of early generic and late generic and agree with you about the Wingen type 2 and Herder type 1 being a late generic B. Do you think that Pack produced the early generics, maybe 1 and 3, as the wing shape and chest feathering looks a lot like pack. I am a novice when it comes to army daggers though.

[angler]

Fantastic work Tom. Always a joy to see the depths this hobby can take us.

[north of 55]

Very resourceful work Tom

Mario

[Bulldog]

Hi Tom, I brought this thread back up to discuss a couple of things that might be of interest to you after studying the guards on your site.

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about the Holler type 2 army crossguard, but i have another view which i don't think has been considered. The Holler type 2 has always been said to be an E.Pack manufactured type 3, but studying this guard i do not see a resemblance to E.Pack's type 1 or type 2, i do though see a slight resemblance to the Holler type 1 (wreath) and much more of a resemblance to the Holler type 3 (wreath, chest pattern and large size wings), so why has this Holler type 2 always been said to be an E.Pack manufactured guard and not a Holler manufactured guard?

I know sometimes companies had a complete change in design from one guard to the next, but usually you can see how one evolved from the other, i can see how the Holler type 3 could have evolved from the Holler type 2, but i can not see how the E.Pack type 3 (Holler type 2) could have from evolved from the E.Pack type 2, so could it have been that E.Pack after their type 2 guard gave up manufacturing their own guards and purchased basic un-enhanced Holler type 2s from Holler.

It seems unlikely that a company like Holler, or any company for that matter, would make their own guards (type 1) then stop making them, then start again (type 3), and looking at the contribution through the production period of E.Packs guards they never produced a more "modern" better cast guard later on in the period like the other large manufacturers, so it does appear that they for one reason or another stopped producing them before other companies did.

So, is what is known as the E.Pack type 3 manufactured guard sold to Holler for their type 2, actually a Holler manufactured guard sold to E.Pack for their type 3?

Check out the wings, chest pattern and in particular the detail on the wreaths of Holler and E.Pack guards, as well as their overall look. Thanks for any reply.

I have some observations on Wingen's guard after this.

Russ.

[Bulldog]

Here's my observations on the Anton Wingen type 1 guard.

I have never thought that the Wingen type 1 should be a Wingen attributed guard, especially as all the other guards they used were not manufactured by them. With my belief that some large manufacturers done slight alterations to some details on their fittings before supplying them to a smaller producer, similar to what WKC done with their type 4 and the generic A, i believe the Wingen type 1 is based on the design of the Horster type 1, and could have been supplied to them (Wingen) by Horster.

There are differences between each guard, but if you eliminate JUST ONE small feather at the top of the second row on the left wing of the Horster type 1 you will have the exact same wings that feature on the Wingen type 1. Its hard to be sure but the wreath could also be the same on both guards.

I know it can be said that there are differences (head+body) which make some collectors call the Wingen their own manufactured guard, but it would be quite a coincidence for both Horster and Wingen to feature the same wings with the exception of just one small feather. Pay particular attention to the placement of the feathers and especially the spine of the wings along the top. Thanks again for any reply.

Russ.

[Bulldog]

Also note the 2nd row of feathers on the left wing of the Wingen has 8 feathers because one has been removed, whereas the 2nd row on the right wing has 9 feathers. You can see the larger feather on the left wing created by the removal of the other one.

Russ.

[WW2-Collector]

Hi Tom, I brought this thread back up to discuss a couple of things that might be of interest to you after studying the guards on your site.

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about the Holler type 2 army crossguard, but i have another view which i don't think has been considered. The Holler type 2 has always been said to be an E.Pack manufactured type 3, but studying this guard i do not see a resemblance to E.Pack's type 1 or type 2, i do though see a slight resemblance to the Holler type 1 (wreath) and much more of a resemblance to the Holler type 3 (wreath, chest pattern and large size wings), so why has this Holler type 2 always been said to be an E.Pack manufactured guard and not a Holler manufactured guard?

I know sometimes companies had a complete change in design from one guard to the next, but usually you can see how one evolved from the other, i can see how the Holler type 3 could have evolved from the Holler type 2, but i can not see how the E.Pack type 3 (Holler type 2) could have from evolved from the E.Pack type 2, so could it have been that E.Pack after their type 2 guard gave up manufacturing their own guards and purchased basic un-enhanced Holler type 2s from Holler.

It seems unlikely that a company like Holler, or any company for that matter, would make their own guards (type 1) then stop making them, then start again (type 3), and looking at the contribution through the production period of E.Packs guards they never produced a more "modern" better cast guard later on in the period like the other large manufacturers, so it does appear that they for one reason or another stopped producing them before other companies did.

So, is what is known as the E.Pack type 3 manufactured guard sold to Holler for their type 2, actually a Holler manufactured guard sold to E.Pack for their type 3?

Check out the wings, chest pattern and in particular the detail on the wreaths of Holler and E.Pack guards, as well as their overall look. Thanks for any reply.

I have some observations on Wingen's guard after this.

Russ.

Russ
Interesting Observation. The Pack type-3 is certainly seen on allot of later Packs but also seen on allot of other makers daggers - Holler-Klaas-Horster-Puma-Voos and other smaller makers. Could it be possible this is a generic type guard? I cannot think of any instance that any other maker large or small used any accepted Holler manufactured guard (Type-1-Type-3) so not sure I can grasp they made this guard and sold it to other makers. On the other hand, we all know various pack type guards are seen on many makers early and late. I have been asked why is the Holler Type-2 classed as such and not a Pack type-3 Holler enhanced? Well if you get down to it if it’s not Holler produced should it be classed as a Holler? In this case the only reason this guard is attributed to them is the in house Holler hand/tool mark enhancement to the head as discovered by Ford Crews years ago. This is also evident in some earlier Holler made pieces. So I opt to keep it classed as it had been years ago. This is certainly not an exact science and open to allot of interpretation mine based on looking at many examples over the years albeit now not as intensely as I used too as my army type collection is complete. Don’t get me wrong I still look and still buy some army daggers.

[WW2-Collector]

Here's my observations on the Anton Wingen type 1 guard.

I have never thought that the Wingen type 1 should be a Wingen attributed guard, especially as all the other guards they used were not manufactured by them. With my belief that some large manufacturers done slight alterations to some details on their fittings before supplying them to a smaller producer, similar to what WKC done with their type 4 and the generic A, i believe the Wingen type 1 is based on the design of the Horster type 1, and could have been supplied to them (Wingen) by Horster.

There are differences between each guard, but if you eliminate JUST ONE small feather at the top of the second row on the left wing of the Horster type 1 you will have the exact same wings that feature on the Wingen type 1. Its hard to be sure but the wreath could also be the same on both guards.

I know it can be said that there are differences (head+body) which make some collectors call the Wingen their own manufactured guard, but it would be quite a coincidence for both Horster and Wingen to feature the same wings with the exception of just one small feather. Pay particular attention to the placement of the feathers and especially the spine of the wings along the top. Thanks again for any reply.

Russ.

Russ
My response on the Wingen type-1 is similar to my response above. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I cannot think of any company that used an accepted Horster produced guard (other than G. Weyersberg) so not sure I can believe they made and sold a guard to Wingen. The Wingen was classed years ago by collectors (Wittmann) as that’s the only maker that used this guard to the best of my recollection that still holds true as far as I know. Also an interesting note on this guard it is usually heavily worn and lacks detail perhaps due to the brass base and less then sharp details when new? Again some of these guards are in more of a gray area then others as far as their type classification and suspected origin of manufacture and classed based on observations of a large sample pool of examples over the years by collectors.

[WW2-Collector]

Army daggers are a fascinating field i am still looking for new crossguard variations having self proclaimed to have discovered and introduced at least 3 new types to the collectors over the years. I have no doubts more will come and if someone wanted to take the time there is plenty of uncharted territory on pommels and scabbard types as well as grips. attached pics of the 3 guards

[Bulldog]

Hi Tom,
Thanks for the replies, i hope i don't sound too blunt in my response to them.
You say you have seen various Pack type guards seen on many makers early and late, i agree with early with their type 1, but maybe not late because you are still classing their type 3 as a Pack manufactured guard. I think because for so long the Pack type 3 has been thought of as a Pack made guard it has become hard to imagine it not being. On your site i flicked from one pic to the next of Pack and Holler guards (type 1 - type 2 - type 3) and the Pack type 3/Holler type 2 does not IMO look like it belongs with the other Pack type guards, but it doesn't look out of place with the Holler guards.

The Holler type 1 is initial 35-36 army dagger production so maybe before some of the smaller companies were producing them, and at this time Pack appear to have been one of the main suppliers of early fittings, WKC being another, this could be why you don't see the Holler type 1 on other companies daggers. The Holler type 3 is unique to Holler and i believe their last guard produced, so by then the other companies who did not manufacture their own guards went on to use the generic A and B, which companies like Klaas and Voos used, as shown on your site.

Pack produced some aluminium guards which do not appear to have sold very well, because of this they might have gave up manufacturing them altogether and purchased basic un-enhanced Holler type 2s for their remainder of production. We have a difference of opinion on this.

You might think the Pack type 3 is not Holler manufactured because you see it more on Pack daggers, but we see the generic A on lots of producers other than WKC yet that is still considered to be WKC manufactured.
I would not call the Pack 3/Holler 2 a generic in the same way as we do with the generic A and B, it was just sold to a few others in the same way as the Pack type 1 and early WKCs were, which we do not call generic.

Russ.

[Bulldog]

Back to the Wingen. I can't think why it would not be acceptable for Horster to have supplied Wingen with a guard but ok for other companies to have supplied others. Your right that Wingen was the only company to use that guard, IN THAT FORM, and i am not saying otherwise, but that still doesn't mean it is not a variation of the Horster type 1 guard, finer details can not be duplicated accidentally, and with the elimination of the one feather at the top of the second row on the left wing these are the only two guards where all the rest of this design of the wings matches up, how could that be?

You also mention that you have not seen an accepted Horster guard on any other companies dagger, this could just be because you had not noticed what i have pointed out, and because they might have supplied some to Wingen does not mean they had to supply them to others, as we know other companies were getting them from WKC, early Pack, as well as what we call unattributed and generic.

To conclude, i still think there is a big possibility the Pack type 3 is a Holler manufactured guard, and because of the wings on the Wingen type 1 i can not dismiss a link between Horster and Wingen.

Russ.

[Serge M.]

Tom, I just love that early slant Paul Seilheimer.

-Serge