My friend has a dagger. Please look closely at this subject. Opinion and some things still do not want to say that would not be considered biased opinion. Now I have only these pictures, if need be I can make the necessary pictures on Monday.

trademark

crossguard

tang

pomel 1

pomel 2

hanger clip

insignia

Looks ok to me , looks like the early solid nickel hilt, the only kind to have, those pot metal hilts dont match up.

Looks good to me.

Good dagger, 100% original

OK.Gents, I ask you to look closely at these trade marks. Photo logo left with discussion daggers comparison right logo from Lakesidetrader.com, with a discussion forum and excavated in Russia. All trademark from different daggers in a different condition. Logo on the daggers of this theme has a number of significant differences that I can not explain except as a forgery. The first-slit at the knight's visor not etched have a single line, the second at the bottom of the visor instead of 3 lines, only 2. (like on other three blades). Unfortunately I do not know much English, so I highlighted in red then it is written. There is also a lot of small differences in feathers, shoulders, lines. If exhibited photographs violate the rights of the forum, I delete everything except the hallmarks of discussion dagger.

Many differences have also to write the names of factories in identical letters. And even one letter has a different thickness of lines. Etching has a poor background. Around the hallmarks are many fine points of acid. It does not rust, traces of rust have a different view as to the daggers find in Russia-large cavities of different depths.It is only visible defect on blade.

While the maker mark does look slightly different than the others. I wouldn't worry about it. These blades had templates applied to them and then they were etched with acid to leave the maker mark. I'm sure that there were faulty templates or variations in them. After all several thousands where made. I've seen a SA right out of the vets hand with a with an imperfect maker mark. So it happens. Though it was very observant to notice such a small variation in the maker mark. I still think this dagger is 100% period, "right as rain" as is so often used. I collected this model for a few years and this one exhibits all the correct characteristics for this model. Though in these troubling times I understand your skepticism with the piece.

I also think this dagger is fine.
Good find, congratulations to the owner!

Please forgive me that expose parts of the picture but at the moment I have some difficulties with the provider. Very little speed Internet. Adam if you have a dagger of the manufacturer, can you measure the size of guard and pommel? At the daggers in my opinion, these components are smaller.

The pomel.

Logo "Assman" on the clip hanger is not too common. These types of trademark used on other products of this company. But even they are unlike in appearance. Usually hanger of this type used a stamp without the circle, and with carved the letter "A". And not convex "A" in cirkle without tails on the crossbeam.

I do not know how to describe it in English, but there are no technological traces on the clip. Together with the other oddities of the dagger is not credible.

On Guard and pommel traces of a flaw that turned out for casting is not factory.
All this together does not inspire confidence in the subject.
BLADE. Logo Company of an unusual type, is completely absent krossgrayning, and with traces of acid around the trademark.
FITTING. Smaller size (usually this happens when you copy here at the forum eats like a discussion on daggers Bahnshutz 2 model with the same conclusions). Fitting has a lot of hand finishing. And cavities of the casting without pressure, as happened at the factory. All these traces of air possible in the casting of these fittings are not in a factory environment.
HUNGER. Has an unusual mark and technologically excellent design.

I think it is a fake high-class, made not today. It is possible that this famous old copy or something like that.

Doesn't look good to me. IF this is an early WKC with nickel silver fittings, the workmanship is not up to WKC standards for the period. And, if it is late WKC, it would have had plated fittings IMO. I would pass this one bye.
JMO,
Ron Weinand

Thanks for posting better pictures. I will have to agree with Ron on this one now. I've never seen one with these pinholes/pockmarks in the castings which only show up in your new pictures. I agree that it would not have been acceptable by WKC quality control. You add that bad crossguard with the already strange maker mark and I think you have a dud. It may have some good parts though? Scabbard, grip? But I'd avoid it completely.

It is scary though that reproductions would be heading in such a direction. It looked really good until you see that crossguard back. That's a lesson if your going to buy anything online get good pictures of everything. I mean everything.

Thanks to all participants in the discussion.