By just looking at the posted pictures, I must say that this is a difficult case.
Here are some observations:
- I agree that the corrosion looks unusual. I have seen many postwar made blades, which were brought (artificially aged) to comparable conditions. Even recently made fakes of HJ-knifes are brought to this condition and sold as "relics found on a famous battleground". This allows to hide the "red flags" like: wrong cross grain, wrongly executed maker marks, badly etched dedications, ...etc.
- On the other hand, I have never seen fake blades of the Pack Christmas dagger so far, but only fake Eickhorn blades with the large double oval mark.
- Normally, when a dagger blade oxidises in a natural way like this, it takes exposure to a humid environment for many years. But this humid environment is on the contrary good for the wood. Though the grip of this dagger appears to have seriously dried out: just look at the guard fittings... Wood in a humid environment does not shrinks, it expands!
- A very big doubt here, comes -in my opinion- from the story with the 1945 dated letter. Why would anyone preciously keep the letter, but neglect the dagger, described in it, to rusting in and outside its scabbard like this? That does not make any sense.
Or was it brought to the US in this condition? I don't think that any GI would have been interested in a dagger in this condition back in 1945. Unlike us collectors now, he could not know it was something extremely rare...
- Finally, the other similar, same bad conditioned dagger, offered by Wittmann is also a bad sign in my opinion: it appears that a couple of badly executed fake blades have been aged artificially and married to original parts (guards, scabbards and grip parts) and offered to the market...
So, I do not condemn this dagger, but I have doubts...
Best regards,
Victorman
Here are some observations:
- I agree that the corrosion looks unusual. I have seen many postwar made blades, which were brought (artificially aged) to comparable conditions. Even recently made fakes of HJ-knifes are brought to this condition and sold as "relics found on a famous battleground". This allows to hide the "red flags" like: wrong cross grain, wrongly executed maker marks, badly etched dedications, ...etc.
- On the other hand, I have never seen fake blades of the Pack Christmas dagger so far, but only fake Eickhorn blades with the large double oval mark.
- Normally, when a dagger blade oxidises in a natural way like this, it takes exposure to a humid environment for many years. But this humid environment is on the contrary good for the wood. Though the grip of this dagger appears to have seriously dried out: just look at the guard fittings... Wood in a humid environment does not shrinks, it expands!
- A very big doubt here, comes -in my opinion- from the story with the 1945 dated letter. Why would anyone preciously keep the letter, but neglect the dagger, described in it, to rusting in and outside its scabbard like this? That does not make any sense.
Or was it brought to the US in this condition? I don't think that any GI would have been interested in a dagger in this condition back in 1945. Unlike us collectors now, he could not know it was something extremely rare...
- Finally, the other similar, same bad conditioned dagger, offered by Wittmann is also a bad sign in my opinion: it appears that a couple of badly executed fake blades have been aged artificially and married to original parts (guards, scabbards and grip parts) and offered to the market...
So, I do not condemn this dagger, but I have doubts...
Best regards,
Victorman
Comment