Collecting Soviet Dirks - Considerations?

[AllThingsCCCP]

Hi,
I'm a returning member of the forum. I collect all things soviet and have just branched out into dirks. I bought the newly published book, "Soviet Dirks" and just received my first dirk from a seller on eBay (anything eBay is suspect to me). The dirk is dated 1952 and looks pretty good, not too new, but not all banged up either. You'd expect that it would be in good condition as it had no practical use.

Anyway, I have little experience with dirks and I was wondering what details I should look at to determine if it is real or not. Do all images on the scabbard mouths match for the year produced exactly, or is there some variation? Is there a way of telling if the blade really is from 1952, are there any distinctive features? The serial number on my in marked A-N024, does that indicate anything relevant or is it simply a number?

Any information at all is greatly appreciated!

[Tretov]

I have a few daggers too, at the moment two army daggers (both 1957) and one navy dagger (1951 or 1952). Although nice, I have never really collected daggers, just picked them up when the price was right. I would however be happy to pick up an air force dagger just to make a complete "set" and then stash those three away as a "collection". Feel free to post some pics of your dagger! :thumbsup

[AllThingsCCCP]

It took a while but I have a few pics of the Dirk I recently acquired. It looks nice but is smaller than I expected. It is clearly a ceremonial piece and not intended for any kind of fighting. Now I need to get a red army and an air force dirk!

Any input at all is welcome.

[Al-muell]

Seems to be OK. Nave daggers are the most common, as navy officers kept the daggers until the end, while the Army and Air Force had theirs only from 1955 to 1958, but this one is an early piece and in nice condition.

I treat those daggers as the most expensive uniform element necccesary to have a full parade uniform for navy officer.

[AllThingsCCCP]

Thanks for the input. Coming back to this hobby after a few years hiatus is depressing. There are so few dealers that you can trust now. I remember when I started back in 2000 there were quite a few dealers that you could trust. Now there is only one left that I have full confidence in...

I just bought a flag of the Belorussian SSR from a certain online store... (I would name names but I think that may be against the rules of the forum). It was described as being somewhat worn and had a tag dated 1989.

So, I received the flag earlier this week and it is clearly new, there is no chance it is from 1989. The "dated tag" was a real joke. The front, with the lettering, was a photocopy of an older tag. You can tell because the discoloration, dirt, and creases are photocopied on the front but not the back! The back is gleaming white!

I was just bowled over when I saw it. I've seen faked flags like this before, and I never expected to be so blatantly ripped off by this guy.

It is even more amazing because I know flags like this are not uncommon back in the former CCCP. I was in Moscow back in 2010 and got 4 or 5 Union Republic flags at Izmaylovsky Park for about 500 rubles or so. So, selling a fake is just plain deceptive and lazy.

[Al-muell]

Never expected that the flags will be copied. Maybe it's just the tag.
I still have a few republic flags, they cost me very little, but it was some 6 years ago...

[AllThingsCCCP]

I wouldn't have thought so either! I had a terrible time finding a real Soviet flag. I bought a couple that were the same thing, photocopied tags, until I found a real one. As common as they are in the former CCCP, I guess it is just easier to buy cheap contemporary ones in America for $5 and sell them as "authentic" for more.

[desantnik]

Originally Posted by AllThingsCCCP

So, I received the flag earlier this week and it is clearly new, there is no chance it is from 1989. The "dated tag" was a real joke. The front, with the lettering, was a photocopy of an older tag. You can tell because the discoloration, dirt, and creases are photocopied on the front but not the back! The back is gleaming white!

Is it possible the back is pristine b/c it was up against the flag and not as exposed to dirt/wear than the front? It's difficult to believe someone would counterfeit such a flag.

[AllThingsCCCP]

That is a good suggestion, but the "dirt" and "grime" are clearly ink that was printed onto the paper. It has that look, superficially, of something that has been worn and aged, but when you touch it, the paper is crisp and completely unworn. Turn it over and it is apparent that there is no wear at all.

Moreover, the flag itself is pristine. If the front of the paper were aged from exposure, as you suggest,then the part of the flag against which the tag rested would show the same wear and age. It doesn't.

It has the same look as if an old piece of paper were copied in a printer. The tears, creases and age are transferred as an image.

Maybe it is authentic, but I have developed a very skeptical eye in this hobby.