|
|
May be the tang was marked "1936"?
|
| |
|
 

|
quote: Originally posted by sokol: May be the tang was marked "1936"?
An idea yes but I doubt it. That marking is usually found closer to the blade and doesn't display the other attributes shown on those marked blades/tangs. So far, the only thing I can think of is that the inscription was going to be completely polished off but was reconsidered during the process... Any other ideas?
|
| |
| Posts: 3729 | Location: London | Registered: 23 July 2001 |    |
|


|
The blade has been heavily cleaned. There was probably some corrosion half way down the blade and the previous owner worked with some abrasive cleaner (like Brasso) to get the corrosion out. They simply did not polish the blade evenly but rather concentrated on the corroded area. Now you have an uneven (in depth) etch. I have seen this before, especially when someone tries to clean a small area of greying from an etched (such as naval) blade. It could be caused by somthing else I suppose, but I feel fairly confident that this is the cause. Just my opinon ofcourse. Good hunting, Johnny Silver Badge #0398 My Avatar = My dagger security system!
|
| |
| Posts: 2800 | Location: Indiana | Registered: 09 February 2005 |    |
|
 

|
If the lower crossguard is extremely tight on the dagger, the fitting process-guys may have had to remove the tang-marks. Just my 0.02$... Cheers,
Tor-Helge
|
| |
| Posts: 595 | Location: North of Norway | Registered: 28 October 2004 |    |
|