UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SA & NSKK Dagger Forum NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over

BTW: I don’t think that anyone has commented on this yet. But like the “8”s and “0”s, the ‘flat top’ small connector links would be another indicator of a not very well equipped counterfeiting operation (at least in the beginning). FP

My Father has been an antiques dealer for over 50 yrs. We have both seen thousands of Hallmarks. I have never seen cast marks. I too would be highly suspicious of a dagger hanger links marked this way.

F.Y.I. Third Reich, dated 1934, stamped hallmark, 835 RE. on all four pieces. Leipzig

pic-2

pic-3

Hi Everyone,heres an Gahr maker mark on a gold brooch,also an SS one on a Thors hammer,nats

#2

Gahr SS Stick pin.nats

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.co...1105856&d=1230388807

For Mr. Ailsby and Mr. Modena, here are photos of cast cuff links:

Close up of one link

Another - these are not stamped in

Side view

Each link is numbered "194" on the back, so there were quite a few made.

The NUMBER was stamped

Translating the Hall Marks ( and I am open to correction on this):

JS = Jack Spencer (Silversmith) Ltd, Sheffield
Crown = Sheffield
Lion = Sterling Silver
"D" = 1971

I did get the date wrong in my first post when I said 1960's and I probably made a mistake when I said a Guild initiated legal action. It was more probably the Assay Office or the Crown that initiated legal action.

I got these in the 1980's from my father. He said there had been a bit of controversy at the time as these links used the Hall Marks as their main theme or selling point when in fact they were supposed to used only to certify purity of metal, maker, etc.

So, yes, cast Hall Marks do exist. The only reason I point this out is that when I see "never" used in this hobby I wonder how long the statement will stand.

Meanwhile,

Hi Dave.that Hallmark is Sheffield England 1971,
Stan

Dave,

I have to comment, your cuff-links are impressive, and so is your explanation. But I must point out that the "hallmarking" is not hallmarking - it is a decorative design based on hallmarking emblems. So it is not the same thing - regardless of the metal content of the artifacts.

FJS

And now I offer my more complete reply to previously voiced comments.

Houston,
Please allow me to make a couple of comments about your statement (Posted 09 September 2009 08:18) concerning silver stamping. You state, and I quote herewith:
I understand the concern that the silver stamps are not in the form that we think they should be. I don't think the government of the Third Reich cared much about what we think things should be.

I am sorry, but this statement is inaccurate. The Reich Government - like the Weimar Government, and before it the Imperial dynasties, had to establish an assay quality and reliable marking for precious metals.

The reason for this is because in previous history, ruling governments in times of financial crisis, would degrade the metal content of their currencies - in order to make the gold or silver content go further. To correct this degradation, the assaying system was revised to ensure that all bullion (raw metal without dilution) achieved a minimum standard of purity. And if it met these standards, then the “appropriate markings” would be applied as a measure of guarantee. What this meant was that anywhere this material was taken to be used for trade, payment, or promissory settlement; then any analytical analysis would confirm that the material was truly of the precise minimum content claimed by the assay marking.

Houston, I am not challenging your beliefs, or your reputation, or anything else concerning your standing as an authority on this subject - or indeed your conviction concerning these Huhnlein pieces. What I am saying to you is that we (us Europeans) have a very precise and definite understanding concerning hallmarking. It is not a laissez-faire situation where the marks can be applied in any haphazard style - it is actually governed by laws throughout the respective European countries.

If you think that the Third Reich did not concern itself with matters such as hallmarking, then I can tell you now that false, or inappropriate hallmarking, could be punishable by death. It is a very serious matter, and Nazi Germany had very serious ways of dealing with it. So please do not be dismissive of the argument concerning hallmarks. These are real issues.

Ronald Weinand:
Ron, you are one of the scions of our hobby, and anything that you say I must consider in an air of seriousness. You are not known for fabricating facts, or inventing circumstance to suit the claim. Therefore I know that you are genuinely convinced about these Huhnlein daggers. May I accordingly - with all respect - call into challenge a statement that you have made - Posted 09 September 2009 17:25 - statement as follows:

If we are all so concerned about silver markings and the fact that medal manufacturers were MORE likely to be exposed to regulation than dagger manufacturers due to the amount of silver used in their everyday practice, how come the Spanish Crosses in silver don't have the required markings?
The Silver Spanish Cross, made well before WWII started, has yet to be found with said marks that I have ever seen.

Well, Ron, this is a very good point. You are absolutely correct - these things are not normally hallmarked. But let us take the point to its ultimate conclusion. I am not a collector of medals, and I believe neither are you - they are just things we have come across in our life:

Any awardee of any medal in the Third Reich could - in theory - commission a medalist to make him an example of the medal he was entitled to wear. I have no issue with that - it is obvious that it could be done (although exant examples are rather scarce - I have seen English jeweller-made examples of the WWI Iron Cross, but that is extremely rare).

So, Ron, with no personal argument between us, my case against your analogy is this: The Silver Spanish Cross is not a declaration of content, it is a GRADE relating to the award. Grades, concerning medals and coins, come from Roman times. Originally this was defined as: Lira, Sestertius, and Denarius (generally denoting gold, silver, and bronze). It is from this that we get our “gold”, “silver”, and “bronze” medal awards. Originally the items were produced purely in these metals, but since the 1920s use of such pure metals has given way to plated metals of the same appearance when describing an award as being “gold award”, “silver award” etc.

To refer back to your example of the Spanish Cross; as such, the manufacturer could have made the base medal out of tombac - or other similar material - and then have it silver plated. It would still be the Spanish Cross, silver grade. In an equal situation, any recipient of the award could have, privately made, an example of the medal in platinum, or even white gold - the metal would not matter. It would still be a Spanish Cross in silver grade - it is the rank or grade of the award, not the metal content. So I must challenge your concept that everything has to be hallmarked - this is not so. But if something is to be hallmarked, then it most certainly has to meet a certain standard and be hallmarked in a particular way.

Craig Gottlieb:
You seem to relish the publicity that all this debate is creating - but then of course your objective is to get your latest Huhnlein acquisition into publication - another of these incredibly rare daggers found - right out of the woodwork! My goodness, this is the third one you have unearthed, and they are all so fantastically rare - One can hardly believe the charmed life and luck that you have! Of course, I am sure that you are promoting your dagger purely out of academic interest and edification for the collecting community - what other noble reason could you have?

It is true to say that this recent acquisition is of the “more standard” type of chains, and not the wide silver cartouche version which is discussed elsewhere in this thread. However, I must comment, that the piece still has some similarity with the silver chained version, in that it shares the same Huhnlein signature on the blade. Because of that, we must accept, that there is some probable “same point of origin” with all these pieces?

Now all this brings me to a very important point in our debate. You have produced and presented in this thread the image of the Reichs-Gesetzblatt that I referred to previously. To the best of my knowledge this document was originally presented up by Gaspare, way back in the 2007 thread. But no matter..............if you want to present it and claim the provenance for it, then go ahead. We both agree that the document is authentic and authoritative.

So this now highlights a very important feature in the Reichs-Gesetzblatt. I am astonished, that with your claimed proficiency in fluent German, and your Nobel Peace Prize standard of intellect, that you failed to lock onto the all-too-revealing comment in the document where it states:
....Bestimmung der Form des Stempelzeichens....

Anybody with school level German would be able to tell you that this statement means: “Determining the appearance of the Stamped Emblems”.

Because of this, and the faked up cast markings seen on some of these Huhnlein pieces, there is no alternative “variation”. The hallmarks can only be stamped! And therefore the Huhnlein examples with the "cast" hallmarkings must be considered to be falsified. Because of this, the other "Huhnlein daggers" must also be considered to be suspect. You see it is not just the hallmarked cartouche that is wrong. It is the other distinctive and crude features of this dagger that are now to be questioned.

I do realise that this revelation is going to upset many people - but I have no control over that. It is the fakers and pushers of these frauds that have committed the crime. I am only guilty of telling the truth, although I realise that I will get precious little thanks for it.

Perhaps, when all the outrage has died down, my noble peer group who disagree with me may finally look at the evidence, and graciously concede that I was in fact totally correct all along.

Frederick J. Stephens

Frederick:
Quote:
"your cuff-links are impressive, and so is your explanation. But I must point out that the "hallmarking" is not hallmarking - it is a decorative design based on hallmarking emblems. So it is not the same thing - regardless of the metal content of the artifacts."


You took the words right out on my mouth. For that I owe you one bottle of Chateau Lafitte!
Pictured below is another example of a spurious "Hallmark" on a gold item. Even in this small picture you can see how sloppy it is.
Jim

Fredrick,Sir., When I look at these photos of this High Leaders NSKK, in my mind the piece from the stand point of the following, conforms in very much in the way that I would expect to see one of these daggers discovered untouched:

1. The Honor crossguards are all black and display a patina that is consistent with a dagger that has not been cleaned for a long time and quite possibly going back to the time of when it was taken as a war souvenir.

2. The shape of the guards themselves from what is seen, is consistent with what we know to be the fittings used during the period on Honor & High Leader edged weapons during the 3rd Reich.

3. The fitment to the crossguards and hourglass shape of the grip is quite correct for an Eickhorn product, and right down to the high neck eagle emblem.

4. The Maden Hair Damascus blade,gilt, and Eickhorn trademark are exquisite, and appear to match known period examples that the collecting community has referenced over many years.

5. The undisturbed patina on the scabbard fittings and the expert engraving on the upper chape of the scabbard, show age and perfection in what we would expect from such a special presented edged weapon.

6. And lastly the old, scarred, bumpy black leather that one would associate with a dagger made during the 3rd Reich period, reeks of originality to what has been described as Moroccan leather used on these Honor & High Leaders daggers.

For my understanding if you would please Sir............... are we only debating the chain and Huhlein signature on this one particular piece ? Are you comfortable with all of other attributes that I've listed above ?


As my buddy "Del" signs off........................................... Respectfully, JR

2

Deflection of the main point of conversation is not going to be effective. As we know, patina is a bleach drop away as is aging of leather in the right hands. I certainly do not profess to be an expert on these daggers, but I must say Fred Stephens seems to be a neurosurgeon in the midst of a high school biology class. That is my personal opinion. He is eating Craig Gottlieb alive and the point was hallmarks, I recall...not nice pictures? Which you do have in any event.

Mark

Mark, I'm not trying to deflect anything. If the 6 points that I brought up do not coincide with the characteristics of a period 3rd Reich dagger, then no one can prove a single dagger that they own, was made during the 3rd Reich period.

What I've outlined is consistent characteristics as we know them, to fall within the guidelines of a period made 3rd Reich dagger. I'm not talking signature or chain at this point, but refer to only the scabbard & fittings, crossguard hardware, grip/ emblems, and blade at this time; to get an agreement or consensus on those as being original pieces. Those items are in tune to what we know as period produce dagger parts. Even Fred Stephens I believe has agreed to this point.

Jr, No offense, but I’m not quite sure that we are all on the same page or not. I think that it’s almost 3AM or so in England, so I would not expect an answer from FJS in the immediate future. I also don’t think that I have ever heard that the daggers were not built on a period Eickhorn chassis, body, core, or however you want to describe the basic dagger.

The chain that is being discussed right now is not on the one on Craig’s most recent purchase. It’s the cast silver ones with the phony Gahr markings.

As for signatures, I asked Craig for some better pictures of his Gruner dagger a short while ago. Because of my sense that his might have been machine engraved at some point instead of etched (I’m not saying that it is, but it seems to have some of the characteristics of machine engraving). FP

Understood Fred............. so do you agree that the Eickhorn "chassis" is correct in terms of grip, fittings, scabbard fittings, emblems, screws, crossguards, pommel and the basics that I set forth in my 1st post ? On Craig's most recent, is it the signature that is the stumbling block mainly?

Deflection? Someone needs to seriously read over the content and grasp all aspects of the study involved! Experience and time is also of the essence, I may not have 40+ years of experience as most of my mentors do although I do have 30 years in the hobby. Natural age and wear is a substantial factor in determining originality. This is true of helmets, badges and daggers as well as any antique or collectable. JR’s question is truly relevant to the analysis, if someone does not understand this they should stay out of the argument.
One last point. I agree it is extremely improbable for one person to find three of these out of the “woods” as Craig has. However, my buddy Jim found 13 RKs and 4 SA High Leader daggers from vets over the years. My other friend has found many National treasure Japanese swords out of the woodwork so, probable no, possible yes!
Sincerely,
Robert Iqbal

Once again as Bob has pointed out, I would just like to take the analysis of the dagger from the very basics, and then all the way through to where the disagreement starts. Does anyone disagree that the following parts are all 3rd Reich period manufactured ?

1. Crossguards ?
2. Pommel ?
3. Grip ?
4. Grip eagle & runes ?
5. Scabbard upper and lower chape, screws ?
6. Blade ?
7. Motto etch and or trademark ?

Also,do you see any askewed fitment problem with the above pieces? This usually is the 1st sign that we see with a dagger that may have been parted together

JR, Once I figured out that the very first “Hühnlein" dagger. Numero uno for me, that Craig posted (with a glowing description) was a parts piece - something else that I have a problem with is the nickel silver(?) center mount. And the widespread acceptance of silver, nickel silver chains, it doesn't matter. Wide and small connector pieces. All good!! Or at least so I was told.

With Craig’s most recent purchase, the “Gruner” dagger. Has the mouthpiece been removed? I don’t know for sure, but don’t the mouthpiece screws look like maybe they have been backed out a tad in the image?

And then there is the “Danish” dagger, one of the primary pillars of his “woodwork” argument. He has it less than 24 hours(?). And the guy who got it, either dumped it, or tried to dump it with somebody else? And when I look at the blade/signature of that puppy it looks to me like someone: “tuned it up”, “humped it up”, or however you want to describe a blade with a very bad side. And a noticeably better one, with a new or newish appearing signature.

With my point being that I think that the topic is about a lot more than just one very recently acquired dagger. Regards, Fred

The Danish dagger "good side" with the signature.

The Danish dagger "Bad Side" with a whole lot of pitting and other nasty things going on.

Fred, the throat screws on a "typical" 33-36 manufactured Political (SA,SS,NSKK) dagger, as you know, are of this lower dome type displayed on the dagger that you show above. In or around 1937, manufactures went to a more higher dome profile on these fastening screws, most being made of a magnetic metal. Is there a throat in the scabbard shell, is there a weight in the bottom of it, I don't know. But I can see that it will be a very slow and delicate process for us to analyze the most recent dagger, from each grain in the wood grip, to every feather on the eagle emblem. We can do it..............and everyone can help.

When we throw in the mix of a half dozen other daggers, it just clouds eveything all together. The dagger that started this topic is the one that Craig bought recently. That is the one that I wish to discuss to stay on the topic.

JR, Please don’t take offense, but am I really off topic? I thought this was supposed to be about the silver chains and signatures. But instead we are going into the discussion of just one single dagger, without Frederick .J. Stephens who I think is the one you wanted to have in the loop not me.

As for the screws, tomorrow I’ll pull out an untouched early Eickhorn SA to take a look to be sure. But I'm not talking about “domes”, but the gap between the screw head base and the body of the upper mount.

As for the “Gruner” dagger I would love to discuss it. Just as soon as I see some really, really, good close ups of the Hühnlein signature. And especially some of the interior. Fred

Understood Friend. As far as my answer to the scabbard screws being a minor hair not flush to the upper chape............... one has to ask themselves ............ can a grip eagle be crooked ? Can a pommel not be flush on the top crossguard ? Can the wood on the grip overhang the crossguard a bit ? Can an SS runes in a grip be at an angle ? Yes to all of these and as long time collectors, we've seen all of these minor imperfections. Why even a Pack SA/SS daggers will have offset screws on the bottom chape of the scabbard. The screw placement and flushment look fine actually. Appreciate the help and enjoy the discussion, as always Fred.

Ya miss a few days ya miss alot! where are are these high dollar high tech microscopes and dental scopes that was the rage a few months ago. that should be the gnats azz as for close ups on what Fred is asking about,Craig seems to sell them also so I'm sure he could take a few great shots of the questionable area and maybe get all this cleared up or most of it anyway.
Bret Van Sant

A few years ago I had the opportunity to examine and photograph a top conditioned SS Honor Dagger. Since there are questions voiced above about both the screws and the trademark of Eickhorn-made honor daggers, these might be interesting

Lower fitting

Trademark

I have a few more pictures, but these are the best. Need more ?

Dave

Dave, Nice job on the photography with what looks like a very good looking dagger in the images. It even shows evidence of what looks like a secondary protective mask used to make the blade logo.

Here are a couple of comparison shots of the Grüner dagger. I had to enlarge them a little more than I normally like to do. In order to match them up (as best I could) to the ones you posted. To me the screw/locket gap looks a little bigger than yours.

Attached: The first image shows the screws. Which unlike your image, looked like more of a yellowish metal.

With the second image seeming to confirm that, with the screws not being as silver colored as the ones you posted. Looking more like some of the chain components next to them. FP