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

And when you step back a little you see that it is a counterfeiters “proof of concept” test piece using an old worn used pitted HJ blade. With my point being that you have to look at the whole item in question and not be blinded by what at first glance seems to be something of value. FP

PS to Ed: In your questions you seem to be intermixing standard production with the "Hühnlein" daggers. I think the unfavorable side has described production from its perspective multiple times. Conversely, I don't think I've ever heard or seen a production rationale/perspective from those who say they believe in the daggers.

I don’t remember the exact wording but the “nut” Sigmund Freud basically said, roughly quoted, “Sometimes a chair is simply a chair”. This discussion runs parrelel to his sentiment.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Fred Prinz ,

Will you also join Frederick Stephens in the debate ?
There are many collectors that would like to meet you personally .

Regards ,
Rob.

FP--Perhaps you would like to explain why most of us who lack your vast education why the color on this really off topic HJ could not have been cleaned off or otherwise destoyed by the elements.
--and will you be coming to the MAX show to meet your followers and "the other camp" ?
It's Showtime.
Also--Just talked to Joe Pankowski--who just about everyone in the hobby should know-- he has just VAST experience in the hobby. He stated it is absurd to think these daggers are not period.

do all of these daggers have the same top mount with the fake cast in hall marks?
if anyone is in any doubt that cast marks are fake just ring any assay office

Bob,
Sigmund Freud also said: “Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.”

Hello Rob!
I hold Mr. Stephens in very high esteem and we will see.

Houston,
It’s a postwar counterfeiter’s test piece, to show how easy it is to get fooled. When I get back I will show you why. (It’s really very easy when you know what to look for.)

As for Mr. Pankowski, I am not at all demeaning him, when I say a name and reputation are just that, not facts. Just offhand - do you know if he currently owns, or has been involved in the buying and selling of the “Hühnlein" daggers in the past?

A very busy weekend, I’ll post the images upon my return later today. FP

This thread seems to be reverting to insults rather than comments about these daggers. Please try to avoid this.

Thanks
Dave

Houston, I respect your long tenure in this hobby. And the many contributions you have made to GDC and its members. Also acknowledging that we sometimes have differences in the way we look at things. And that while not everyone appreciates enhanced digital imaging or image manipulation. Sometimes you just have to use the tools that you have available.

I’m hopeful that by sharing these images, you will understand my point of view about this knife being a postwar fake versus: “HJ could not have been cleaned off or otherwise destroyed by the elements.” With my original intent being to illustrate that what at first glance might seem to be a legitimate period item could be, or with this example is in fact a postwar "enhancement". And if something does not seem quite right - don’t be afraid to question it.

By looking at both sides of the blade. We see in the first image a worn, pitted, tired blade on the left. And a more polished surface in the area of the etch on the opposite side, surrounded by more pitting (the word “polished” on the far left is not that legible).

The white spots are preexisting pits in the blade, which have been partially filled in with the acid etchant, leaving a fairly reflective whitish residue. Also noteworthy is the difference in surface finishes, which is seen with at least one example of the Hühnlein daggers.

In the second image by inverting the image it makes the pits really stand out.

The third image, a close up.

The forth is the close up inverted. With my apologies to all for this hopefully minor diversion from the main topic. FP

Hi FP!
Yes, Joe does have experience with these daggers.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Bob, Thanks for the input!

A question for Grant Bias: You stated - “ We also have another NSKK Huhnlein blade. This blade is heavily pitted and basically ruined. The pitting goes through the Huhnlein signature, logo, and motto. The tang is stamped DAMASK with the number 79.”

On September 4th, Craig stated: “Regarding the "ugliest NSKK" competition: myself and two other dealers purchased one from a guy who rode into the Kassel show on a bicycle, about 3 years ago. It was void of any scabbard, and the blade was slightly less "holey" than swiss-cheeze. It was truly awful, and I'm glad I don't have a picture of it!”

By any chance is this the same dagger blade that Craig mentioned? FP

but do they all have the cast hall marks??

nickn2,

You have asked what I think is a very straight forward question: “but do they all have the cast hall marks??” It would seem that the answer is yes.

On August 1st 2007 Craig stated: “Here is the upper chain clip - very unique configuration. Note the lack of a functional snout-nose clip, and the presence of Gahr Munich silver stamps (which are always poorly stamped on these pieces).”

As the presumed leader of the 99.99 % majority that believes in the "Hühnlein" daggers, I have to assume that his statement is correct as to his belief at that time.

With on September 28, 2009 Craig offering this explanation: “ Maybe Gahr only made the sample chain, and then Huhnlein got angry at them and gave the chains to another factory to reproduce for him. Maybe HIS NSKK High Leader (the one he is wearing, which appears to have a similar cartouche style suspension clip) was the original made by Gahr, and he sent his off to be reproduced so he could award "attaboy" awards to his friends for some last-minute road race. We will probably never know why the chains ended up being produced the way they were produced. ................”

Which is why I think there is a certain amount of confusion expressed by some of those reading the thread. An angry Hühnlein sending the chains off to a substandard subcontractor - who continued to use the cast in place “Gahr” logo?

Does that make sense?

FP

If Tom Johnson accepts that all of these are good than that is good enough for me..I know Mr.Pankowski..I have purchased from him but I consider Tom J to be the father of this hobby since the passing of Mr.Atwood

Ryan, At the end of the day what is going to happen is that those who believe in them will vote with their dollars, or whatever medium of exchange they use. Buying and selling them among themselves their fellow believers, and with those who profess to be believers.

Those that think they are postwar “humped up”. Altered. Or whatever is used to describe something that left the factory looking differently than as seen now, will avoid them like the plague. Also voting with their dollars. But spending them on something that they are more comfortable with.

And somewhere in the middle are those who have to make a decision. If something is as controversial as these “Hühnlein” daggers clearly are, as has been amply demonstrated here. How much financial risk are they willing to take? FP

Hear, Hear.

The way of all collectibles. £$£$£$£ KACHING !!

At least within this hobby of ours we can still have discussions about items and the use of technology has become part of the investigative process.

In the art world many scientific tests are simply not allowed......and as my old business guru was fond of saying "CASH IS KING"

I have enjoyed the journey so much so that the endgame will not bother me in the least.

Caveat Emptor

I am a humble collector and will never be able to aspire to the lofty heights of ever being able to afford one of these daggers, whether authentic or otherwise...cheers

how can anyone accept a dagger as genuine when it has a top mount with fake cast hall marks?
if this was a lowly sa dagger we would all be laughing

It is obvious for all to see, The people who are trying to get these accepted as original war time pieces are the ones with a vested interest in them. It's all about the money.

Brian

HERE HERE!!

Sorry-but not true at all. Many who believe in these daggers have never owned one.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
Sorry-but not true at all. Many who believe in these daggers have never owned one.

Name them as this is an issue and so are their friends. No disrespect but money is money and all the players have interest whether they have handled one or have had a friend handle one. These are in the catalogs of all of the big boys as sold. Where is your argument?. We have heard some really good arguments and you guys have nothing to argue. Why?. I really do not think that disclosure is an issue if it is actually disclosed. You have answered nothing at all. Pony up or take a pass, so far you have passed, and you are backing a dead horse. It has a nice patina, but? we know how that go's.

As a professional I would certainly use care as this entire debate could fall on all parties with interest. In short you have interest. Your position is weak here.

The list of supporters would be much too long to post and I don't know them all. The other list is also long after all this negative speculation. My only interest in the piece is that IMO it is a period piece of history being destroyed by opinion.
In the end you must deceide for yourself. --- and thats they way it is with MANY things in this hobby--opinion. MANY things are NOT clear cut and probably never will be--thats the way it is.

Hi Everyone,why was the Huhnlein dagger posted by Donnie/Vetter a couple of years ago,called a fake straight away,and all the others are REAL,
nats

houston
i know i am flogging a dead horse but what about the cast hall marks ?
the fact that they are wrong is not just some peoples oppinion but fact
you just cannot get cast hall marks on german silver the maunfacturers did ,and do, not hall mark their own products they are sent to a government run assay office for purity testing and stamping
just google silver hall marks and you will not find any cast ones or ring a german or british assay offices and ask them
nick

I too have to come back to the Hall marking. If these are fake, and fake they be. Then the chains and clasp have to be fake. Let us pause here for reflection, fake chains. These are then attached to a dagger, the mount has to be constructed to accomplish this. PLEASE AGAIN LET US PAUSE.What dose this show? You do not have to be Einsteine, at best the piece has been up graded with fake pieces. OK, what doe this say to us? How many serriouse collectors or studier of History are going to say -- this is a totally genuine piece?

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
The list of supporters would be much too long to post and I don't know them all. The other list is also long after all this negative speculation. My only interest in the piece is that IMO it is a period piece of history being destroyed by opinion.
In the end you must deceide for yourself. --- and thats they way it is with MANY things in this hobby--opinion. MANY things are NOT clear cut and probably never will be--thats the way it is.

You made a statement, I just called it and asked who the believers are. I understand that some items are what they are, but this was not put on the forum by a collector. If you have issue with a legitimate piece being destroyed than I suggest taking that up with the original poster who declared the debate over as obviously it's not. Negative speculation is not the issue, but money is more than enough in this hobby to question motive. I do not mean any disrespect to you at all, I want to know why there is no argument on the daggers merits, and who has interest. That is a very fair question all things considered.

I asked this during the last debate. Would someone please test these silver fittings for content and inspect (hands on) these marks to ensure the marks are or are not cast hallmarks and then post the results. Thank you.

Well since no one posted anything following the MAX Show talk on this dagger I though I would make a few comments.
Really I think that sometimes personalities get in the way of discussing these daggers.
My comments are not about Craig or Fred rather just what I took away from the discussion.
The family that gave testimony were great to have there in person. Their talk about the providence of the dagger was VERY convincing. At the end of their testimony the room was silent for a few seconds then broke out in applause. In my opinion 99% of the room was convinced these are real. It was really brave of them to enter into our world and speak.
I’ve read this thread in depth and I think that despite a few points here that are difficult to explain... Some are seeing the trees rather than the forest. In many aspects of our hobby there are questions that are not yet answered.
There are many points here that have not been addressed:
1- How is it that these daggers have been surfacing all over the world over the past 50+ years and they have all been found by different people? Do people really think that someone bought up a bunch of real SA daggers, made up unique chains and special fittings and then travelled all around the world releasing them over the next 50 years?
2- How is it that these were Vet purchased and some for pennies on the dollar. Where is the profit in that?
3- How is it that these daggers have surfaced for many years before a period photograph appeared and the daggers look exactly like the picture? Admittedly I’ve not seen this picture yet but I hope it’s posted soon….
4- Look at the many believers, Tom Johnson, Tom Wittmann, Houston Coates, Ron Weinand, Jason Burmeister, Helmut Weitze and Brian Maederer to name a few. I don’t even mention the many collectors who are believers. There are a lot of years of experience here…

I wonder how many will now tip toe to the other side of the line I asked a couple of simple questions on pg.12 and I think there was no answer just your confusing production daggers.If you read it I think I made it plain and was blown off.
P.S. I've never bought anything off Craig and spoke to him twice at Max shows (even missed his party's)

Although I coudn't make the seminar, I did inspect the NSKK that started this topic. There is no doubt in my mind that the piece was made during the 3rd Reich era. While the chain hanger may have not initially been constructed at the same time as the dagger, I feel that it too is very much a piece that was made during the 3rd Reich period. Quite possibly it was added during the years that we see chain suspension worn with NSKK chain daggers, M36 SS daggers and even some of the SA High Leader pieces. It was the in and cool thing in uniform wear after 1936, and no doubt this NSKK Brigadefuhrer who owned this piece did not want to be left out. We see chain suspensions on both SA Honors and SS Honors that were converted during the period, and are known in the collecting community as High Leaders daggers to reinforce this theory.

As soon as someone explains to me and many others how a dagger with obvious bogus hangers got into a vets posession even at the end of the war I'll drop what I consider to be healthy skepticism.
No one,to the best of my knowledge in all the discussions of these daggers has even tried to explain the presence of bogus as well as illegal hangers.
Furthermore, There were tons of left over dagger parts at wars end including unfinished damascus dagger blades and this is well documented in Johnsons book as well as elsewhere. I'm reasonably sure that if someone had wanted a Huhnlein honor dagger or any other inscribed dagger for that matter Jim Atwood or Roger Steele or some other faker would have been glad to oblige them. It would not have been necessary IMO to deface an existing honor dagger to make up one of these "Huhnleins" as has been maintained elsewhere.
Of course the Gahrs who made special chains were gone by this time so other arrangements would have to be made to create these parts.
I could go on and on inre. to convoluted veteran and veterans relatives testimony but those who know this don't need a discourse and those who discount it wouldn't believe me anyway.
The bottom line at least to me is we'll probably never know for sure if some of these are in fact pre 1945 legit. creations with bogus examples sprinkled in or they are all post war fantasy pieces.
Jim

Jim, You're reasoning is flawed and to show that, show us any one dagger in your collection. Now prove to us that it was manufactured and constructed during the 3rd Reich. How do you conclusively prove that even a basic Army dagger in your collection was not parts put together by Jim Atwood after the war ?

JR,, no your thinking is flawed,,Jim doesn't have to do anything,,the burden of proof is to the presenter. To have a bunch of dealers want the dagger to be authentic isn't proof..

Don't know about blades,,maybe the blade, fittings etc are real..IF, if the silver forums let 3rd Reich items on that chain link would be condemned in a sec. I've tried already...
.. My understanding it that is a high end piece, some sort of presentation dagger.. With the quality of those marks?! There is no one that will seriously say those are Gahr or even German markings on the chain...

As far as vets families memories,,how about this story.. In my ring research I've met the man who was the 2nd owner of 2 sets of ring dies and we traced the maker.. The SS rings with the SS motto on them. They are postwar, 100%.
Well in 6 years of working on my project I've 2 German families that have sworn that their husband, father, brother [pick one] got the ring during the war..
- who knows how the daggers got around. Because there is no explanation doesn't mean they are authentic in total...

sorry i still dont get the fake hall marks on a mount that appears larger then those on daggers shown in photos. how did the marks look in hand?
the times i have been offered vet aquired f-s knives only to find when i see them that they are post war the vets relatives never believe me and assure me that the knife was their fathers or grand father issued knife .my own grandfather gave me his issued f-s which turned out to be a 60`s nowill made one .he still insists at 93 that i am wrong!

Like you said Gaspare, you don't know daggers, blades, crossguards, and other 3rd Reich edge weapon conponents, but are taking issue with only the hanger. The dagger is assembled exactly the way that any collector with a elementary basic background,knows them to be.

Paul Hogle has outlined several points, that clearly when a person answers themself, leads them to a logical conclusion.

quote:

The dagger is assembled exactly the way that any collector with a elementary basic background,knows them to be.

And your point is? All 3rd Reich daggers are assembled,within type and this includes even most of the obvious fakes, exactly the same way.
Anyone with a basic understanding of elementary logic knows it's impossible to prove someone didn't make something. The only "proof" is the absence of an example by that maker. The burden of proof here is on those that maintain these are legitimate period pieces not the other way around.
The absence of any legitimate SA daggers by Alcoso doen't prove they never made any and it's possible a legitimate example will surface some day.
I'm sure as recently as 5 years ago everyone familiar with SS/Police swords including T Wittmann would have maintained that Klitterman And Moog never made any examples. That was until a very nice Police example surfaced on Ebay out-of-the woodwork. It now resides in a fellow forum members collection.
I have always tried to maintain and open mind in this hobby but some of the recent claims really stretch the bounds of credibility.
Also: And I keep coming back to this. I await an explaination from anyone in this hobby regarding the presence of bogus hallmarked chains on these purportedly period "Huhnlein" daggers.
Jim