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

Gaspare and yourself have said the burded of proof is on owner of an item. Can you prove any of your daggers are of the 3rd Reich period ? How do we know that the K&M police sword that you talk of, was made during the period ??? Got any proof of it ?

I don't have to prove anything regarding my collection. All I have to do is satisfy myself and other collectors whose opinions I respect that my items are legit.
That's the best anyone in this hobby can hope for at this time. Furthermore it's really impossible to compare a $500 common Army dagger to a perhaps $50,000 Honor dagger. The incentive for fakery just isn't there with common items.
I fully expect that the daggers that Atwood and others, which they primarily assembled from period parts, are essentially undetectible today from pre 1945 examples.
Furthermore some of the biggest names in this hobby,both dealer and collector, are known to have ruthlessly switched dagger parts around over the years so it's quite possible that many of us have examples in this category.
I have tried to minimize the risk of obtaining daggers in this category by being very selective about where and from whom I've made my acquisitions.
Jim

You need to inspect some of the Atwood daggers starting with the normal NSKK Chain Daggers. Fred's book is loaded with many others as well.

How do you know the K&M Police sword that you bought off of ebay is legit ? Or say the 941 Eickhorn M33 SS that you have, is of the 3rd Reich period ? Afterall, it doesn't have the famous Eickhorn words "Original" on the maker.

I will add one comment to this, and I'll keep it brief as I am travelling, and won't be back home (UK) until the end of the week.

The presence of Mr. and Mrs. Mooney, and their account of having possession of the dagger before selling it to Craig, was fully open and honest - in my opinion. I liked them, I felt that they they told the truth, and I can find no fault with their account of the dagger - however, I can question the aspect which was unsaid.

That is to say, Mr. Mooney acknowledged that the dagger came into his possession in 1980 - after the death of his father. Prior to that time, he stated that he recalled seeing the dagger in his father possession perhaps as early as 1963. But this is only a recall - it could be a couple of years either way. More importantly it does not provide a lead to the dagger being "captured" in 1945. He only saw it in about 1963 - and that is well within the period of faking up pieces. Mr. Mooney's father never actually said he obtained it in WWII, because he never spoke about that period of his life to his son.

So we do not know how Mr. Mooney Snr came to possess the piece. Was it a genuine war souvenir, or did he start to collect German daggers at that time? Did he buy it in an auction, or take it as security for a loan or a debt? We don't know. There is no traceable link to show the dagger in its present form existing during the war.

I did not expect Mr. Mooney to be able to add any substantial knowledge to our understanding of these daggers, because his experience of the piece only relates to his modern time ownership of it - and also the fact that he has no understanding of the subject; so it would be unfair to expect him to be able to fill in the "blank spaces".

Mr. Mooney and his wife were seen to be very nice, genuine people, innocently caught up in an issue which has deeper ramifications. And I thought it was rather shameful of Craig to exploit these decent people, in his desperate efforts to perpetuate the myth of the Huhnlein dagger.

I will comment further when I have returned to the UK.

FJS

quote:

How do you know the K&M Police sword that you bought off of ebay is legit ? Or say the 941 Eickhorn M33 SS that you have, is of the 3rd Reich period ? Afterall, it doesn't have the famous Eickhorn words "Original" on the maker.

You really need to try and read more carefully. I said a fellow collector bought it off Ebay NOT me. I backed off on the bidding and he got it.
Pictures were provided to T. Wittmann of the K&M sword after the sale who verified it's authencity. His only comment to me was he "Wished it had surfaced before the publication of his SS book".
Ron Weinand,Houston Coates,Tom Wittmann and many others have stated that the 941 Eickhorn dagger I have is perfectly legit. That's good enough for me.
Now your "Frank" TK ring is certainly another matter. Do you want another embarrassment like the one on WAF of getting into this on GDC?
Jim

You trusted Tom on authentication on the degen and your M33 Eickhorn......... didn't you ? And rightfully so, I admit.

I would defer to T Wittmann on SS and police edged weapons and I expect most of the collecting community would do so. Again what is your point?
Jim

I am a total novice with respect to this high end dagger, but I would definitely defer to the knowledge, the expertise and the experiences of Messrs. Wittman, Johnson, Burmeister, Maederer.

I would think that none of us would hesitate to accept their word if one, not just all, of them said that a certain piece was not right.

Why do we not take the same stand when they all say that it is? I think that that is the point of JR's notes here.

Chain aside, is this dagger real or not? Is it period or not? Frankly, I collect for the blades and have never cared much for the ports and hangers that accompany the blades.

John

To J. Modena,so you agree that Witty can identify a period police degen just from some photos that you sent him, but yet you doubt his ability to make a judgement on the Huhnlein dagger that started this topic, and that he has examined in his hands ?

I attended the seminar and was convinced these daggers were indeed period MFG. IMO the dagger chain has been added as an upgraded example. I do not like the castings hallmarks but I know for a fact that some TR casters were not real good at making detailed, crisp castings, for example Alcoso. JR is indeed correct as he points out that there are many variation of MFG we do not understand. IE Eickhorn Rail Way police dagger defect.

Even today we have manufacturing variations or errors on the same products lines. Eric

Of all the questions asked at the seminar on Friday evening, the one with the most votes on the side of those who believe in the edged weapon in question was the NSKK piece.
There were three of these on the table for examination and only one who did not vote them up.
Ron Weinand
Seminar Coordinator

quote:

Posted 05 October 2009 20:59 Hide Post
To J. Modena,so you agree that Witty can identify a period police degen just from some photos that you sent him, but yet you doubt his ability to make a judgement on the Huhnlein dagger that started this topic, and that he has examined in his hands

I accept that T Wittmann is an expert in the SS police edged weapons area as well as other areas. I do not agree that he or anyone else is an expert in all 3rd Reich edged weapons. I seriously doubt if Tom would make this claim either. I started out as neutral in this Huhnlein discussion and if bogus hallmarked chains hadn't been introduced I would have probably ignored the discussion entirely.
Again If you or anyone else want's to present some sort of argument as to how a supposedly period 3rd Reich dagger could emerge with fake hallmarks I'm,and I expect others, are all ears.
Jim

IMO There is a strong possibility the chain link with the hallmarks is post war, or even the chain assembly. I still think the dagger is pre 1945.

quote:

IMO There is a strong possibility the chain link with the hallmarks is post war, or even the chain assembly. I still think the dagger is pre 1945.

An astute observation Eric. Now if you or someone else would care to explain how and under what circumstances these purportedly pre 45 daggers in the hands of veterans since wars end were united with post war chains we can put this discussion to rest.
Jim

I too was at the Huhnlein discussion round table. I totally agree with everything that Paul Hogle commented on. They are very valid points!! Like I mentioned on the WAF fourm, I know that there are several of you out there who dislike Craig Gottlieb for one reason or another, but at the meeting he was very articulate and was well prepared for presenting his side of the facts. I appreciate Craig's efforts to bring the Mooneys to the meeting on behalf of telling the history of the newly surfaced Huhnlein Honor Dagger. Their account of how the piece came into their posession definately solidified (at least for me and everyone in the room except for Mr. Stevens) that these pieces were wartime manufactured. Now, from what I gather, the questions are in regards to the chains with silver stampings into the reverse of the chain, correct? What about the ones with chains that have a heavier silver nickel content, thicker links, and are unmarked. I believe that there are five out of thirteen in existence with this configuration? I took to the meeting both of my Huhnleins and two SA High Leaders for examination. I find it very interesting that Mr. Stevens did not make one single comment or arguement about the pieces laid before him. He had ample time to do this, but he chose to argue with Craig about the letter of provenance on the Huhnlein that surfaced in Denmark. When the meeting was over, four out of the five members on the panel believed that the NSKK "Huhnlein" Honor dagger was period constructed and issued. The issues as to why certain chains are marked and some are not, or why some have heavier(thicker) links and others do not, will continue to be a mystery. I feel confident that someday photgraphic or paper evidence will surface showing that these pieces were constructed and issued prior to 1945. Until then, those who believe will continue to believe and those who do not, will not. Regards, Grant

Gentlemen, these daggers may be made pre 1945, or made from original pieces and constructed post 1945. If this be the case, then those who produced the daggers pre 1945, would make a dagger that would be identical to those produced earlier. However, if chains are added that have sperious marks, and the marks shown are without doubt that, the piece is at best questionable. A parts construction. As an illistration, a 7 place medal bar has a blue ribbon, but no medal. This has added to it an 8 year SS medal which is a copy. Dose this then make the bar a legittermate bar? I hope the analagy is not lost on those who think that these chains do not have an influence on the validitty of these daggers.

Interesting debate, food for thought being offered on both sides.
I won't weigh in with an opinion, since I don't have the technical knowledge to convincingly back it up.
I'll say this - The list of knowledgeable folks who are backing it up is undeniably impressive.

I would also say:

* The burden of proof is on he who wishes to sell, and presumably, reap a profit from it - And on those who are already convinced, and wish to add their reasoning to the debate.

* The old adage of this hobby "buy the item, not the story" has no doubt been repeated multiple times by everyone in this thread, and is one of the simplest, earliest and best lessons we have ever learned - Yet it seems to have been haphazardly thrown by the wayside by some, in this case.
Provenance can at times make or break an item but, from what I have seen, and although extraordinary efforts were apparently made to make the vets heirs a centerpiece of validity for this controversial dagger, I see no reason to disregard words that we all live by on a day to day basis, if only for this one special case.

This is like a salesman in never never land trying to sell a chocolate tea pot, yes yes it holds hot water I assure you!! Only a fool would pay big $$$$$$ for this dagger and the ones just like it!! No wonder so many people leave this hobby each year with all the frauds going on!! Anyone with a brain knows the Germans where making pieces up from parts etc before the ink was dry on the surrender document!!

We did not have a silver chain example to examine but I can tell you the piece presented by Craig had the most beautiful pattern of Damast I have ever seen on one of these honor pieces.
Certainly not some left over but a prime select piece. Also the chains were of superb thick construction with superb detail.

Totally unlike the junk fake chains on the pieces of the 60's. All the links were perfect also. Original leather without question.

I would also like to add some other names who believe in these daggers--Jack Angolia, the Pankowski brothers, Chuck Scaglione, Wolf & Hardin, Bill Shea, Bob McCarthy, Helmut Weitze,and many others. In fact, other than Fred, I have yet to meet ANY experienced dagger collector( 25 years or more) who does not believe.

To have a bunch of dealers want the dagger to be authentic isn't proof..Gaspare and Jim M have said it all,,,I have no technical knowledge either but will add my 2 cents here,,

The very fact that all these "exspurts" sat down and nodded their heads in agreement to this dagger is enough to make me question it.

T Wittman has admitted to swapping scabbards on daggers for a better resale claiming it "standard practice",,,,why would I believe anything he said? These major dealers have an unwritten code of honor among themselves,,to help each other out when it comes to sales,,

These guys are leading/have led the hobby down a treacherous path and I for one am going the other way,, as far as a family member speaking for the piece,,,your joking right?

I work with a guy who brought me a sword his grandpa "had personally picked up from a *** he shot in the Philippines,,,only problem was it was in a shirasaya,,,or whatever,,the *** sword guys told me it was more or less a storage tube for the blade itself and certainly not meant to be carried around in the jungle,,so his story was made up,,,,even though thats the story that has been passed down with gramp's sword..

so in conclusion,,there is no way in this world
I'm buying what the big names are selling,,,there refrence books are geared to steer the hobby a certain way, (theres for profits,) and are full of basic rudimentary info,,with lots of fancy pictures but so many sheep take them at thier word and blindly follow them,,,,like a pied piper

I know nothing about the daggers in question, but I also put almost no weight in stories from the vets' families. I can't count the number of nickled lugers or P38's I've been shown that "daddy took off a dead German general" I was also once offered an 80's import marked M1 carbien that the guy's dad "brought back from the Korean war". Even when they don't intend to lie, their memories often become a bit "confused" from time.

It is obvious that some commenting on this thread haven't purchased too many veteran acquired pieces. So, testimony is something that is not a ploy in this case. It is hard to argue with those involved who brought the item home from the war, although some will never believe the story, regardless of the proof.
That being said, there is little more to make the non-believers change their opinion.
Next, as I have never bought or sold one, nor do I have a stake in any being sold or offered. I have, however, handled a few over the years and have seen several bought and sold and can say, without reservation, that I believe there is no doubt that these were period manufactured and assembled and WORN.
Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

My comments are simple and to the point:

1) We know that Mr. Mooney brought the dagger back because he told his son that. For those of you not familiar with buying rare pieces out of the woodwork, this is important testimony, whether you like it or not.

2) My dagger did not have a silver chain, but I still believe in them. We don't know why the silver chains are marked so poorly, but as I said in my comments, "not knowing" does not equal "a problem" especially when so much evidence to the contrary is present.

3) With the exception of Mr. Stephens, who had prior to this seminar only seen ONE example in the flesh, but who is a very good researcher nonetheless, none of the very few supporters of the "they are fake" position have much experience worth noting, to draw from, about daggers.

I think Paul Hogle said it best. Those who doubt this piece ought to re-read his post. Not only does he capture the fanciful position that the non-believers are forced to adopt, but he hits the nail on the head. This crusade to discredit this dagger is supported for the most part, by a very few who, as any tour of any forum will show, have a problem with ME, not the dagger.

My Dear Craig,

I have to come back to the point, the hall marks are fake. Please tell me how you square this circle. I have shown them to experts, and I think you know these people, the answer is unaquivacble. FAKE. I go bak to my anallogy, 7 piece original bar, blue ribbon, replaced fake 8 year medal. This then makes the bar original.

none of the very few supporters of the "they are fake" position have much experience worth noting, to draw from, about daggers.

Well Craig:
I guess you can add me to this list along with Christopher even though I've been collecting as long as you and even though my issue isn't with the daggers perse it with bogus hallmarked fittings. This sticky little issue just won't go away even though you and the rest of the proponents of this dagger have basically ignored it.
As I stated much earlier I don't really have an opinion of these daggers one way or the other and would have ignored this thread completely if such a glaring error (Hallmarking) wasn't present. And while my tenure with daggers as well as yours has been relatively short I do have 50 years experience dealing with Hallmarked silver.
IMO: Until a satisfactoy explanation is developed as to why a manufacturer in Germany would have ignored Guild requirements and legal requirements these daggers will be in doubt.
Jim

My fellow Collectors: This is such a stupid subject that I didn't even go to the seminar. Most everybody that really knows daggers knows they are 100% real. These guys that think they are not just don't want to lose face. I'll be glad when I'm taking a dirt shower and don't have to listen to this bunch of crap! The only way these guys would admit these daggers are original is if we dug up a casket in front of them and found one laying on the dead mans chest. Even them they would say it was planted there last year.

Gailen David

Sometimes Logic can obscure the facts! cheers, Ryan

I have no idea what that means but it sound very deep.

Gailen David

And Amen to that, Gailen!

I guess with my little pea size brain it's understandable. But at least I know a real dagger when I see one.

Gailen David

Gailen it is best pondered over late at night with a drink (or drinks) in hand...now I know that you did mean that elbow to my midsection Friday at the Max cheers

And what would you guys( you non-believers) know without the reference books and the old guys? Nothing.-- and what would the gun, knife coin, antique,you name it collector know? Nothing.--and there would be no hobbies. Nothing.

It was great hitting you, I mean seeing you at the show.

Gailen

Craig,
No offense to you. If Houston says it's good that's all I need, but then again I'd rather have a Hirschfanger. My interest is in porcelain, silver and gold marks and for my information only would you please clarify.

You stated this: "We don't know why the silver chains are marked so poorly," Your key words being silver and marked.

I guess you’re the only one that can answer me this if you would please?

1. Have you tested for silver content? Results?
2. How is it marked? Stampted, punched, impressed or is it cast?
Thank you

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
It is obvious that some commenting on this thread haven't purchased too many veteran acquired pieces. So, testimony is something that is not a ploy in this case. It is hard to argue with those involved who brought the item home from the war, although some will never believe the story, regardless of the proof.

Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

Thats a bit disingenuous.
This is a 2nd hand story, the vets voice was apparently silenced nearly 30 years ago, and the son saw it previously in the early 1960's once or twice as a child.
I'm not proposing that the attempt at provenance here is a ploy, I just don't see it as rock solid provenance, or even close.
Would you, in ordinary circumstances, place much credence in an item if someone told you "Well, the son of the vet told me that his father told him he brought it back from Europe after WW2"

Of course you wouldn't, neither would anyone else.
The focus is on the item, not the story.
Words to live by, not to disregard on an as needed basis.

Whoever ends up purchasing this may resell some day, and that person may resell.
Are they all to say "I got it from a guy who got it from a guy whos said the son of the vet he got it from says its real" ?
No, stories like this quickly fade to irrelevance to prospective buyers.

The dagger that Craig had at the show was 100% real and period pre 1945.
No doubt's about it in my mind, a beautiful example of a honor dagger, the blade was the best piece of 3rd Reich damascus I have personally seen.

Gary

Sure it was real. I not going through my experiences with this dagger and wasting my time typing a bunch of stuff so they can say they are not real. Let them think what they want. Who cares! I love FJS but this whole thing is his fault and I'm sorry to have seen it happen.

Gailen David

It was good seeing you, Gary.

With regard to your silver content marking issue (the ONLY legitimate issue you can raise on the SILVER version of the chain), I don't have a problem with them, because I acknowledge that not all of the unanswerable questions indicate problematic authenticity. The leader of the NSKK was certainly not worried about silver content markings.

If you believe the silver chains are fake, fine. Believe that. But my dagger doesn't have a silver chain, and neither did the one we got in Denmark.

The basic (core) daggers are period - no problem there. With the “Hühnlein” signatures added separately one at a time by machine engraving (both poorly done and better) which has not been refuted. Both factors being only a part of the picture.

What I found more interesting recently are Craig’s comments on the silver “Gahr” marked daggers:

quote:

“With regard to your silver content marking issue (the ONLY legitimate issue you can raise on the SILVER version of the chain), I don't have a problem with them, because I acknowledge that not all of the unanswerable questions indicate problematic authenticity. The leader of the NSKK was certainly not worried about silver content markings. If you believe the silver chains are fake, fine. Believe that. But my dagger doesn't have a silver chain, and neither did the one we got in Denmark.”

Is he tossing all of the silver mounted ones into the discard pile, to save the one he is (presumably) trying sell now?

As compared to his earlier comment:

quote:

“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. ................”(*Soon to be documented no doubt in the as yet unpublished manuscript: “The Temper Tantrums Of Third Reich Leaders”.)

My point being the silver mounted daggers are not going to go away. And both the silver and miscellaneous parts type chain assemblies are a part of the physical record. As well as the cast nickel silver center mount. For what is supposed to be a high quality “Leader's” dagger.

And I would love to see some kind of rationale on why somebody would put their lives in jeopardy to make “Gahr” branded knockoffs - with the Gahr firm being as well connected to the NSDAP as it was. FP

"Lives in jeopardy"--now that is really a stretch of the imagination. These guys will say anything to support their VERY minority opinion.