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

Seiler, thank you for the kind words. Mongobongo, your thoughts "maybe they have the real hallmark on the back somewhere?" this could not happen. The Assay office would condem them as fraudulant.This is their very purpouse. They insure the integrity of the article by their stamp. It is known as the stamp of approval". As with firearms, all have to be proof marked. No gunsmith would or could put a proof on a barrel.

I hope that these points have cleared the way for Dave to understand, the use of hallmarks together with the importance that they attract. Thus these chains with these marks have to be fraudullent. The dagger, I am not quallified to comment on, only to say, if fraudullent chains are added, then the piece itself is not what it proports to be. Thus in it current state it has to be false.

Gentlemen:

The example Dave posted is clearly an aberration. An experiment which it seems has not been repeated. As he suggested, perhaps whatever happened to the creators of the cuff links could be researched?

If what happens to some fake/altered items, when they are discovered to be fraudulent, follows the pattern of other faked items. It might not even matter. Because in a year or two, it could be very difficult to even find a "Hühnlein" dagger still with a silver chain set.

FP

FP,
I don't know if this is possible unless members provide frontal pictures of the GAHR chain links? But if you can please, would you mind putting together a frontal view, in the same order as this reverse you posted earlier. Thank you and very much appreciated.

Mikee, Inasmuch as neither Grant Bias who earlier promised some pictures of the signatures (September 26, 2009). And Craig who stated: “these are NOT engraved (none of them), but acid etched.”, and was quite clearly offered the opportunity to prove that he actually had some of the expertise that he was claiming. With neither of them posting any (additional) images of any kind - usable or not. I sincerely doubt that we will have any help from the dealers and/or current owners who now have “Hühnlein" daggers in their possession. But that’s just my opinion - who knows?

Unfortunately during the discussion I’ve let my filing system get all messed up, and won’t really have time until next week to try and bring it all back into line. In the interim, here is an example that I hope helps (along with the Offermann picture for a comparison).

When you think about it. The scam that these counterfeiters pulled off is pretty remarkable for the give or take 45 or 50 years that it has (reportedly) existed. And no one questioned the ersatz/inferior workmanship and materials? On what was supposed to be a high end dagger from the Carl Eickhorn company? FP

I can imagine the posts in threads at other sites over a comment Craig made..."When I was an adjutant for 2/11, and the Battalion Commander tasked me with doing some last minute thing, you'd be surprised at the crap I came up with on short notice. Anybody want a Kinkos photocopy of a fancy lithograph, framed with a plaque, that has the name of the guest of honor mis-spelled? Yes, all from an "official" USMC command! Not saying this happend in 1939, but it certainly is possible.

I can't wait for some collector in 50 years to find the lithograph with that plaque, and say that it's fake. He won't have a historical telescope, to see the laugh we all had on that day. They'll tell you that "Marines wouldn't do that" and that "photocopying copywrited material was illegal." "

Possible comments might be...See,I told you so! He was making fakes even back then!!


Now to something about stories vets can tell about items they brought back from the war.As a kid I remember playing with a tire my Dad(an Army Air Corp vet) told me he brought back.He always told me it was a front tire from a B24 bomber.In my 20's he told me the truth about it,it was a common wheel-barrow tire!He just wanted me to keep out of his hair,so he told me a fib to keep me occupied with something I thought came from a military background.If he had originaly told me it was a wheel-barrow tire I wouldn't have even touched it!

A recent book I read tells of a German boy who sold some medals he was given by German soldiers to Allied troops for food.When the Allied vet got home what do you think he told his family?That he got that Iron Cross of a dead Kraut he killed,or that he got it off a little kid for a few cans of Spam?

What's the point to these little stories you might ask?Don't always believe what a vet tells you!!


Now lets go to the expertise of some dealers.I remember posting a few 'different' Heer daggers I acquired from one of the big three dealers,one of the ones who writes a lot of books.When I posted them here most had doubts about them being 'period' pieces.Even showed one of them(remember the Heer with the diamond in the swaz?)to several other big name dealers at the one Max show I went to.Their responses went from a roll of their eyes to one who said it was definately a General's dagger!So if some of the top dealers on this 'hobby' can't agree on a fairly common Heer dagger,do we really expect us common collectors to all agree on some high-end dagger?Some will say of course it's real and others will say the opposite,and perhaps point out what I first mentioned in this post as evidence.

For some,like me,this militaria collecting is a hobby rich in history.For others,it's about the money.And for some it's both.Fakes will always be around in this hobby(and in all hobbies where there's money to be had),so buy only what(and from whom) you are comfortable with.Don't like an item or a certain seller,don't buy it or don't deal with them! But never stop trying to learn as much as you can,before you put your money down.

Rich,

How right you are. "Got it off a dead German" might just be true with a fighting knife or a gravity knife. As for the dress daggers, I doubt it. By the time the Americans got in the war against Germany in North Africa, dress daggers were no longer being worn as far as I can see. Maybe some officers kept theirs in their footlocker? But, back home, that sounds better than "Liberated it out of a house", "Won it in a crap game", "Found it in pile of surrendered weapons" or "Traded a ration pack for it"

Fred,
"The example Dave posted is clearly an aberration." Absolutely 100% correct, but I posted it to show that aberrations do happen.

Looking at those chains, I note that "cast" is being equated with both "fake" and "post May 1945". You might well be correct, but that needs to be proved.

Dave

PS - on my "Ultra-rare, out of the woodwork, one of a kind, prototype cuff-links" there is nothing on the back except the number 194 stamped into the silver.


Dave

"Looking at those chains, I note that "cast" is being equated with both "fake" and "post May 1945". You might well be correct, but that needs to be proved."

Dave, The proof is there already.. I dare you to go on the link to that silver site,,or any silver site of your choosing. There are 100s of German silver content hallmarks on the sites. There is not one crown that looks like the one on the chain link. Also, the German law Craig posted way back on this thread states the name of the crown type.. It simply isn't the crown that is on the link,,please, just find ONE like that!...
You also won't find one content mark, and I'll go out on a limb and say from any country in the world that [how about this] has EVER use separate numbered die stamps to mark something!

Any series of marks denoting the metal content,,and especially has the makers name 99.9% comes out perfectly STAMPED in..
Half those marks didn't even take because of the poor casting,,it was a matter of pride for the maker,they wanted their name/studio to be seen on especially presentation pieces..... Nothing to prove here Dave,,your asking the wrong guys...............

Everyone should move on to the dagger itself if they want to debate.,, but it sure looks like it will be one sided ,,the other side seemed to give up....

Hi Everyone,there must be enough in this ounce of silver to make a few more chains,nats

The silver chain sets are absolute, no question, no middle ground, badly cast fakes with bogus markings and all I think we are left with are these two questions:

* Did they run out of conventional chain sets, and decide to go to the silver ones to finish up the daggers they were counterfeiting?

* Or, did they decide instead it was too much work for too little return to keep making the silver chain sets. And finish up production with whatever parts they could find?

PS: Hello Nats - nice Wehrmachtabnahmestempel! Is it from Mauserwerke, or is it Waffenwerke Brünn? I'm going to go with the later (not really). On the plus side, at least they had a couple of one piece stamps. Which is more than the silver "Hühnlein" chain makers had. (However, I think the "FEIN SILBER" and "999" might still need some work.) Regards, FP

Not a Hühnlein dagger, my thanks to Nats for bringing this item to the discussion as something that can be used as an illustration of fakes. And as an example of some of what to look for in trying to make a determination.

The seller describes it “Nazi silberbarren .... used by SS officers and Gestpo” etc. etc. and finishes with: “I guarantee it is 100% authentic!!”

First clue (# 1) as mentioned above, a Wehrmachtabnahmestempel (Waffenamt) as used by either Mauserwerke or more likely Waffenwerke Brünn. A one piece stamp, along with another one piece (Reich Eagle) stamp on the face of the bar. Second clue (# 2), individually one at a time stamped assay marks. Third clue (# 3), individually stamped “FEIN SILBER”. And on the back: a “1940” date, “REICH BANK”, all individually hand stamped one at a time. The same for the serial number (but just that by itself probably would not be an issue). And another Waffenamt on the side of the bar.

Fakers/counterfeiters are not going to leave signed confessions for their misdeeds if that is the level of “proof” that you are looking for. It is the items themselves which many times are the best proof. FP

Now back to the Hühnlein dagger discussion.

This silver bullion is a joke ! I remember during the second bullion boom of 79-80 nazi gold bars appearing on the market and they were BS back then. It never seems to end.

I don’t know what was happening with the TR gold bars in 1979-80. And it could be the “I guarantee it is 100% authentic!!” ( a very familiar phrase) that has them bidding for this one.

Silver bullion is under $20.00 an ounce. This “Treasure of Collecting” is at $323.00, and the guy wants still more for the bar.

It would seem that P.T. Barnum (or whomever said it) was right: "There's a chump/fool born every minute". All you have to do is put a ‘Swastika’ on it, or make it something “special”. FP

(The P. T. Barnum phrase normally uses a word in lieu of 'chump/fool', that apparently the online "censor" does not like.)

suka' born every................ the link to the silver hallmarks is one of many I found and also I found a few books also on the subject but didnt buy one. As I had said before too many red flags began to pop up. And also now the more I think on it If T.W. does include this in his reference on SA/Nskk and not make mention of the"questionable marks" on the chain then Fred is correct as it will be a dis-service to collectors. Its sorta funny why these other guys with these daggers dont post some images. I mean if some dealer just sold one then some one feels good about them.
Bret Van Sant

This has turned into an insult-trading thread.

I am closing it until tomorrow afternoon so everyone can cool off. I will then remove all of the recent posts that had little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Dave

I have set the clock back a few hours by removing posts that contributed little to the discussion and were probably made in the heat of the moment. No fouls / no penalties.

I understand that opinions are strong and that this is an interesting topic, but please have respect for the opinions of others, be polite, and do not phrase you posts as if you think the other guy knows is a beginner. Try use language as if you were discussing this face to face.

Dave

Hallmarks are strange, for sure. False? You can't prove it. Why don't I go on a mission to prove that FHH daggers are all fake because the quality is so poor? Or why the "first pattern "blood order" is really the fake series, because it's got a flaw in the design? For you guys, it's all come down to the chain. Guess what? Mine doesn't have a silver chain. There is SO much overwhelming evidence to these being real, that your explanation of why the hallmarks don't suit you, must be wrong.

As soon as one of the 3 or 4 detractors proposes a believable and logical story to explain how you think real SA Honor daggers got discovered in a box somewhere, ruined, then sprinkled throughout time (50 years) and the globe (4 countries and many US states), without motive for profit, and how the faker got it JUST RIGHT, compared to a photo that was discovered decades after his creation, I'll throw mine in the ocean. I think either of the Freds, or Chris Ailsby, owes us that much.

I think what is really evident here is that much about these cant be proved. I dont think that Gailen or any of the guys who have been at years longer than me or even your short tenure as a collector are wrong and i do think much more needs to be"found out" about these. I dont think throwing yours away does any good,thats silly. I'm just asking for more photos seems reasonable. I have no issue with you or who ever owns these am i wrong about my personal doubts, Its very possible! I just had Tom tell me the other day that he thought a FPS control tag i just picked up was post war. I ask for an opinion and got one. I didnt know for sure so I ask the question. Is he right? I dont know but its his opinion. So more study is required just like here with your dagger(type)in question. So got any more images to share? ramp,screws,etc..
Bret Van Sant

Craig,

Welcome back! With my compliments for being ready to go when the thread opened.

I’ve already laid out a scenario for how the existing chain sets came to be attached to the current “Hühnlein" daggers:

* "Did they run out of conventional chain sets, and decide to go to the silver ones to finish up the daggers they were counterfeiting?"

* "Or, did they decide instead it was too much work for too little return to keep making the silver chain sets. And finish up production with whatever parts they could find?"

Unless of course you are a big fan of the “Berlin Jeweler” and “Struggling TR Adjutants” concept (which you seem to be as its creator). Which you used in a attempt to explain the reason(s) for the “half assed” (your words) workmanship on the chains. The counterfeit cast in place “Gahr” markings, fake cast in place silver "hallmarks", one at a time stamped assay marks (etc.) using your (I must admit rather amusing) "Berlin Jeweler - Struggling TR Adjutant" supposed rationale. Please see page 18.

Page 18

And poor, poor Grüner. All he got was the 'short end of the stick'when it came time to pass out all those "Treasures".

quote:

Hallmarks are strange, for sure. False? You can't prove it. Why don't I go on a mission ............... For you guys, it's all come down to the chain. Guess what? Mine doesn't have a silver chain. (Craig, Are you "throwing the silver chain owners to the wolves" to fend for themselves?? ) There is SO much overwhelming evidence to these being real, that your explanation of why the hallmarks don't suit you, must be wrong.

No, it’s also about those machine engraved added on signatures to the blades. The signatures that no one now wants to post pictures of, like yourself (and even those who promised to do so after the show earlier). As for the fake hallmarks, how about you proving that they exist on any period (or postwar) item other than the “Hühnlein” daggers?? As for the “ SO much” part - other than records that prove somebody existed. What do you actually have that is period regarding the daggers themselves?? Because it’s certainly not the Offermann photo. Your so-called “proof” is postwar based. See page 15.

Page 15 - Offermann photo

quote:

As soon as one of the 3 or 4 detractors proposes a believable and logical story to explain how you think real SA Honor daggers got discovered in a box somewhere, ruined, then sprinkled throughout time (50 years) and the globe (4 countries and many US states), without motive for profit, and how the faker got it JUST RIGHT, compared to a photo that was discovered decades after his creation, I'll throw mine in the ocean. I think either of the Freds, or Chris Ailsby, owes us that much.

Much earlier some others put forth what I consider good explanations for the above comment. (And this reply is already fairly long.) It also seems that we are back to the Offermann photo. Haven’t you (or Ron) seen the pictures that show that the daggers are NOT the same??? When you get some time, please try and take a look at the above link to page 15.

And why does anyone who thinks that they are postwar altered owe current dealers/owners anything? So that the money they spent can be recouped from somebody else?

FP

(PS: My apologies for the typo errors which I think I have finished correcting.)

quote:

Hallmarks are strange, for sure. False? You can't prove it.

These are false hallmarks and all anyone has to do is send those chains to a German assay office or to the German Silver Guild for confirmation. However; Don't expect their return as they will be seized as contraband.

Quote
"As soon as one of the 3 or 4 detractors proposes a believable and logical story to explain how you think real SA Honor daggers got discovered in a box somewhere, ruined, then sprinkled throughout time (50 years) and the globe (4 countries and many US states), without motive for profit, and how the faker got it JUST RIGHT, compared to a photo that was discovered decades after his creation, I'll throw mine in the ocean. I think either of the Freds, or Chris Ailsby, owes us that much."

You want a believable explanation ? Here it is:
IMO: and this is supported by published evidence of those who were in Solingen right after the war, there were plenty of loose parts available so already completed daggers wouldn't have been required to make up repo honor daggers.
T Johnson talks about a box of over 100 damascus blades turning up and cases of parts available everywhere. Furthermore Atwood and others are well known to have created here-to-for unseen daggers to meet their own needs.
The parts were available probably excepting the chains which would have to be fabricated.
It is also curious to me that in my research the earliest written reference I can find to these Huhnlein daggers is in Angolia's "Edged Weapons of the Third Reich" published in 1974 If anyone knows of an earlier reference please post it.

I also rarely quote from the Bible but I think this is particularly apt here:

"If you concentrate on what is wrong you will lose your perspective of what is right."
"If you concentrate on what is right you will lose your perspective of what is wrong."
Philippians 4.8
Jim

Dear Craig, good to seeyou in responce. As to Hallmarks,the ones on the chains that are shown are not correct. The Cuff links with cast hallmarks are not correct. I am happy to take these pieces to the relavent Assay Halls for their view. I am sure they will ask for a destruction order. As to first pattern Blood Orders, the Fuss is cast, the number and silver grade is stamped.

When You are nest in the UK I willingly will take your good self and piece to Gold smith hall.If the cocure on originality I will be the first to agree with you. Call it frm the roof top.

As said before I am no authority on daggers, but silver I humbly think I am well qualified.

"Hallmarks are strange, for sure. False? You can't prove it."

Craig,, they don't have to prove it!! you are the presenter, you must prove something..
Find one set of marks like that,, with that exact crown, multi digit content, messed up in general ,,go ahead, look on any silver site. Try and find it among Germanys marks....

The marks on the chains link are not correct period.. The dagger itself? , Thats what the debate should be about.....

The Seminar and the Huhnlein Dagger Controversy

Preface:
For those of you who feel that the seminar was something of a “hatchet job” against my reputation. If you will - a latter day Third Reich collector version of the “ides of March” - well then you are right! In spite of what you were told the opposition (the “believers”) did not win the debate outright. Or even win at all in my opinion no matter how they try and dress it up.

I would have wished to have added my input to this debate somewhat sooner, as it is now almost three weeks since the Seminar and debate at the MAX Show. However, it has given me the space to deal with other pressing matters, as well as to assess all that happened, and hopefully provide what I believe is a reasonably concise accurate account of what occurred - and of course what I feel is one of the more important parts: How Mr. Craig Gottlieb was determined to be telling some spurious things about the background of a Huhnlein Dagger, and a so-called “Provenance Document”.

Here are the known facts for the Mooney Dagger:
The key feature of the Seminar debate was Craig Gottlieb presenting his newly acquired NSKK High Leader Dagger with Huhnlein signature; together with the affidavit of provenance, and the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mooney - the people from whom Craig had purchased the dagger.

Mr. Mooney related the brief history of the dagger, in that he inherited it from his late father in 1980. He also stated that he recalled the dagger in the family possession in about 1963 - and that his father had some war souvenirs; the dagger, some binoculars, and a small gun. Mr. Mooney also revealed that his late father had been at the “Battle of the Bulge”, but also that he never really spoke about his time in WWII, and had never said how he acquired the dagger.

Mr. Mooney’s account was, I felt, totally genuine - and indeed a little emotional in some parts - but it lacked the essential detail; the hard evidence that his father really had brought the item back from the war. Although Mr. Mooney was clearly truthful in his account, it is not post hoc, ergo propter hoc - ie: that an honest and truthful recall does not automatically guarantee an accurate revelation of the “real facts”. So the proof that the item genuinely had been a “war souvenir” was unproved. This is a pertinent issue, because this dagger, like others beforehand, displays the dubious features of the crude central mount and suspect “Huhnlein signature”. That Mr. Mooney received the dagger from his father is not being questioned. With one additional Caveat being the uncertainty as to the exact date when his son first saw it.

And the “Danish” dagger:
The sole evidence, if that is the word, is in another document that Craig has presented. This is the Jesper/Moshage “Provenance Document” relating to a supposed Huhnlein dagger which Craig bought in Denmark. There are some background details which I was party to, because Craig was insistent in telling me about them, at the time he did the deal.

The story for the Danish dagger starts before the MAX Show, or even this GD thread. It starts in May, 2008 and the consecutive details are as follows - it is my sincere belief that the story of Craig’s Danish Huhnlein Dagger, GD thread revealing it, and the MAX Show Seminar are all linked together. And I believe that there was an ulterior motive in Craig Gottlieb telling me about this particular Huhnlein at the time he was supposed to have acquired it.

May, 2008 - I receive a phone call plus several subsequent e-mails from Craig Gottlieb, telling me that he has just purchased a Huhnlein dagger “right out of the woodwork” from a “picker” in Denmark. OK, this is well and good - but why tell me? The story about the dagger was that it had originally been found by a fireman in barn, when attending a fire. The fireman had recently died, and the children of the family asked a family friend to sell the piece for them. This friend purportedly sold it to Jesper Hroth for the Danish equivalent of 200 Euros, and Mr. Hroth then sells it to Craig.

On face value the story seems to be OK, although I have reservations about a fireman stealing from property whilst attending a fire. And the cheap price of “200 Euros” ($250 approx) seems a little too good to be true. I asked Craig to take and send me some photos of the piece, but he declined stating that he did not have time - and also that he had a customer immediately for the piece. The matter was closed and nothing more was heard about that dagger until Craig mentioned it on this GD NSKK thread.

In his preparation for the MAX Show, Craig Gottlieb endeavoured to obtain provenance affirmations from people who had previously handled a Huhnlein Dagger, and in particular the source information for the one allegedly purchased from Jesper Hroth in Denmark.

On Tuesday, 18 August, 2009, I received an e-mail from Craig telling me:
“ Fred, You can see the one I bought in Denmark - it is on Helmut Weitze's website now. He must have bought it from the person I sold it to. I can send you the pictures I was sent by my Danish contact - I am sure I have the emails somewhere. Regards, Craig Gottlieb.”

Craig claimed to me to have sold this dagger immediately, and did not say who the purchaser was. Now in this e-mail he suggests that the person who bought the piece has subsequently sold it to Helmut Weitze. Craig also reveals that he has photographs of the dagger from his Danish contact - so Craig had photos of the piece all along (but apparently was withholding them from me deliberately). Clearly he had a purpose in doing this, and I gained the impression that he was trying to manipulate the situation and all relevant “evidence”. The one thing which is clear that Craig claims he sold the piece to a third party, before it ended up with Mr. Weitze.

The following day, in an e-mail to me of 19 August, 2009, Craig states:
“Fred, Here is the one that I purchased last summer in Denmark. I am currently having my contact Jesper (who is a collector) get me a written letter from the person he bought it from, as well as a written statement from him. He bought it for not a lot of money, from a local municipal government employee who found it in a barn. All of the details will be provided. Regards, Craig Gottlieb”

This e-mail was accompanied with about seven photos of the dagger, displayed on a wooden bench. The photos were intriguing, in that the index numbering on the images shows that the photos were taken on 24th May, 2008.

The text of the e-mail describes Jesper (formerly the “picker”) now declared to be a “collector”. The story is now that Jesper purchased it from a local municipal government employee who found it in a barn. It is not quite the original story, although it confirms that it was “found in a barn”.

On the 7th September, 2009, Craig publishes on this GD thread the image of the document relating to the “provenance” of the Danish Huhnlein dagger, and it is extremely revealing. The text is in Danish and English.

The document presented by Craig, which in itself is undated, was obtained by Jesper Hroth from a Karl Moshage - purportedly the man who sold the dagger for the family of the fireman. The first observation made on the document is that it relates that the dagger had been found in the “ceiling of a house”. This is quite different to the original claim that it been “found in a barn” - but perhaps that original belief was a misunderstanding in the first place?

With the assistance of a colleague, a trace was made upon Karl Moshage - and yes, he is real person, with a real address and a telephone number. The decision was made to telephone Mr. Moshage, and ask if he was certain about the finding of the dagger in the ceiling of the house? The phone call was surprising in an unexpected way - for Mr. Moshage doesn’t speak English, and put the phone down on us!

The big surprise is that Mr. Moshage’s signature appears at the end of the English language account - NOT at the end of the Danish language account, in his provenance account! This is extremely odd - why would a man put his signature on the portion of a document which is in a language that he does not understand? It does not make sense. It was at this point that grave doubts concerning the authenticity of the document started to appear.

To pursue more information, my colleague and I decided to make an approach to Jesper Hroth. My colleague already had previous dealings with him, and therefore Jesper would know who he was. No mention would be made concerning myself, in case it alerted Jesper to my interest in the matter. So the cover story that we came up with was that my colleague would pretend an interest in buying the dagger from the new owner (Mr. Weitze), but that in view of various “rumours concerning the authenticity of the piece” he would like Jesper’s confirmation of the origin of the item. Jesper’s replies could not have produced better quality information had he delivered it to us on a silver platter. He gave the game away, and exposed a fraud!

In an e-mail dated 13 September, 2009, Jesper Hroth sent the following e-mail to my colleague - the only portion I have edited is to remove my colleague’s name and e-mail address, and to embolden the essential detail in Karl Moshage’s account.

From: Militarianet.dk [mailto:ou812@email.dk]
Sent: 13 September 2009 09:29
To: ********************
Subject: SV: Dagger Query...

Hi *******

You can see the official story about the NSKK below.

It’s currently for sale by Helmuth Weitze – but it’s bloody expensive !!!

As far as I know he wants 68000 USD for it – but the price is negotiable.

If you decide to get the NSKK then I can tell you that Brian Maederer REALLY was keen on buying my NSKK. He wanted to restore it. I’m convinced that his specialist could make the dagger even nicer.

If you have too much money then Wittmann has an SA High Leader that could be an alternative: http://www.wwiidaggers.com/SPO.htm

Anyway: I know that there were some discussions about the originality of the NSKK High Leader I sold.

I just talked to Karl the other day and he (and I) was 100% convinced that the dagger is original. Otherwise he wouldn’t have signed the statement that you see below.

Please let me know if I can be of further help to you.

Regards

Jesper
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Moshage
6340 Kruså

My name is Karl Moshage, and I am a Danish citizen, I am 80 years old and retired and living in xxx Denmark. This is a small town on the border with Germany, directly adjacent to the German town of Flensberg.

In the summer of 2008 I was asked by the children of a friend of mine who lives in Krusaa, Denmark, to sell a german knife that he owned. His name was Poul Schmidt, and he died recently at age 75. Before he died, Poul told me that as a fireman, Poul found the knife in a barn when he was called out to a fire on a local farm in the 1950s. Poul was not a collector of knifes or military artifacts, and this was the only such item in his possession.

I located Jesper Hjorth from an advertisement he places in a local newspaper advertising that he buys such items. I met with Jesper and sold him the knife. It is the knife pictured below.

Sincerely,

Karl Moshage
--------------------------------------
WHAT A SURPRISE! It relates that the dagger was found in a barn after all! So now there are TWO PROVENANCE DOCUMENTS, differing slightly, for the same item - and both accounts are stored on Jesper Hroth’s word processor. The scam is blown wide open. It is immediately obvious that the Provenance Documents are fraudulent. After all, if the original tale of the dagger being found in a barn was true, then why alter it for the more fanciful “death-bed” confession of it being found in a ceiling? So as the second version of the account can be seen to be falsified, then it must follow that the first account is also made up - for if it was true then there was no point in changing it. So who is behind this fabrication of the document?

Craig Gottlieb made another revealing statement at the Seminar. He declared that when he bought the dagger in Denmark, he sold it direct to Helmut Weitze the same day. So why then did he previously maintain that he had sold it to another person, who subsequently sold it to Mr. Weitze? (See Gottlieb letter of the 18 August, 2009, above.) Everywhere you look around this Karl Moshage document you find untruths and lies.

In a second e-mail sent on the 13 September, 2009, Jesper Hroth included the following statement:

“Hi xxxxxxx

The NSKK High Leader dagger is 100% original – there’s ABSOLUTELY NO doubt about that !!!

WHY would there have been an SS High Leader, an SA High Leader – and no NSKK High Leader ???

WHY was Craig, Wittmann, Brian Maederer AND Weitze haunting me for this dagger – are the all independently ignorants in this field ???”

What a revelation this is! According to Jesper, Mr. Weitze was also in the running for the dagger when it was “being offered” - so how is it that it went through two other sales before he obtained it, when he could have out-bid everyone and bought it right away? The whole story does not make sense! There is connivance at every turn. William Shakespeare had it right “Something rotten in the State of Denmark” (Hamlet).

I made it clear at the Seminar that I suspected Craig Gottlieb of influencing the Moshage document, and because of this, all the issues surrounding it:
a) Two differing Provenance Documents from the same source.
b) Undated document.
c) Signature on the part of the document which the signatory is unable to read.
d) Differing explanations from Craig himself in how he sold the dagger, firstly to some “third party”, and then latterly to Helmut Weitze.

Add to this the account that Jesper Hroth supposedly bought the dagger for “equivalent of 200 Euros” when it is worth tens of times more than that. Even in its’ present corrupted form the dagger is worth some thousands more than that. And the seller of the piece is still happy to co-operate even though he has been screwed for thousands? I don’t think so.

The Story is not over
This is not all, the arguments concerning the silver markings are more than convincing, in fact they are over-whelming, the evidence has been presented, and it is so comprehensive and convincing that all challenge is futile. And the technical evidence concerning the presentation of the Huhnlein signature, although harder to prove, certainly show failures and inconsistencies that are not known on any other period dedication. The etching, engraving, and construction, have all been demonstrated to be seriously flawed. Can these items survive any more revelations?


The NSKK High Leader daggers with chains, and Huhnlein signature, are faked up items which have destroyed - or degraded - original pieces. What the real NSKK High Leader dagger with chains looks like we can only guess at. We have the photos of them in wear, but we have yet to examine an authentic specimen.

Craig Gottlieb has some questions to answer; principally why does his personal account of the acquisition and sale of the Danish Huhnlein dagger vary? Why does Jesper Hroth have two versions of the provenance document on his word processor? Is there any truth in any of the accounts? What was the real story behind the Danish Huhnlein?

I am going to offer an hypothetical case - I do not claim this to be true, not at all. It is just a little exercise in “thinking around corners”, and it goes like this: A dealer has a rare “Huhnlein dagger”, but the reputation of the dagger is being upset by some “know-it-all” European authority who thinks he understands fakes. This makes the dagger unsaleable, so the dealer needs to destroy the reputation of the detractor.

The dealer arranges with two friends - a dealer in Denmark and another in America - to represent a trading deal in which one buys this particular item from the other; a key feature of this “transaction” is that the person who is known to be a detractor of the items has to be alerted to the existence of “the transaction”. All this seems to be fine, and the “transaction” occurs - the detractor is left only knowing that the items were “bought and sold, very quickly”.

Move forward 18 months, another new Huhnlein dagger comes on the market, and the America dealer once again notifies the “European authority/detractor” of his nice new purchase, this time with affidavit of provenance. Not only that, he is now pursuing provenance of the earlier piece he acquired in Denmark. There can be no better authentication, this proves conclusively that the pieces must be original..........or does it?

The proof of two versions of the “Provenance Document” cannot be discounted. The clear evidence that the American dealer told differing tales concerning his purchase and sale of the dagger cannot be ignored. In fact the whole panoply of events seems to be a cover to create a “real history” for a disputed item - and if that is true then it is despicable.

The distortion of real history for the purpose of promoting fakes and deceiving people is an abomination. Of course this is only hypothetical, I never said that happened. But how strange that it so closely mirrors the events of real life! The reader must make up his own mind.

Summation:
What I have presented above is what I personally believe was a well thought out plan to try and discredit me publicly. Using the Max Show Seminar as the means to do it, and thereby eliminating a “voice”, if you will, against the Huhnlien daggers. So that they could be bought and sold freely - I am assuming, - for the financial benefit of those involved.

Those are the facts as I know them, and it is up to the readers to make their own evaluation of what took place. I do have the originals emails to back up what I have presented as evidence. One thing which is absolutely certain is that Craig Gottlieb was deliberately untruthful and mis-leading in his account of his involvement with the Danish Huhnlein dagger - a pointless exercise if the dagger is undisputably true. The fact that this subterfuge was allowed to occur tells you something about his personal belief in the genuiness of the item - and the need to concoct “evidence concerning its real provenance”.

Frederick J. Stephens

In my opinion the patina on the dedicated NSKK piece on page 7 has been applied using "liver of Sulpher". My wife makes silver Jewelley as a hobby and I have seen this time and time again.

Three reasons lead me to believe this

Firstly if you make the solution too strong when you brush it on, it gives a distinctive mettalic blue tinge like "bluebottle finnish" the same as on the dedicated example shown here on page 7.

Secondly if you look at the picture of the dedication and scabbard fitting have a look at the burnishing in the chasing. Effectively there is a dark line that follows it across on the scabbard fitting. I believe this is caused by a brush stroke following the chasing that had the liver of sulpher on it. You can also see the same odd mettalic coloured patina on the crossguard. It would also age a treated dedication as well.

Lastly look at the picture on page six where you can see the chains as well. No patina on the chains at all, this is because they are not silver or silver plated. Liver of sulpher will not work on these areas at all so they show the actual patina of time since attached.

Now I dont expect people to believe me on my say so. But I can exactly simulate the effect and finnish shown here in ten minutes on a set of crossguards and post a series of photographs to document it so you can make your own minds up?. I can do that at the weekend for comparison if that will be useful?.

In follow up to my earlier submission, I attach a revised photo of Craig's "Jesper/Moshage" document - the revalling paragragh is highlighted.

Mongobongo's submission, which pre-emptied my completion, gives an interesting insight into the workings of silver-smithing, including aspects which I suspect many of my American opponents are not fully familiar with.

Frederick J. Stephens

Frederick, I read your post after I posted mine but WHAT A POST!!! Some undisputable facts there that you can back up. I think you might have just blown the lid off this thing once and for all.

Well seeing how this topic went south as it did ,is really disappointing. Fred Prinz, Mongo Bongo and many others who were not at the Seminars but here on the forum really missed the boat. I was their examining The Daggers Grant Bias owns and a loose blade that had seen better days. I also had the chance to see Craigs piece and it has a super Damascus blade with a gorgeous quality chain to boot! Houston is spot on about Fred and Craig, they must have sparred with each other for 20 minutes over that story with Jesper and never really addressed these daggers as others in the room thought they would. That's when a handful of us got up and walked.

Ed, I'm really sorry that I missed the MAX, but some things take priority over others. I would have my camera in hand to take some macro shots of the signatures, and some of the other details. BTW: Did you see anyone take some close up pictures of the daggers? FP

IMO if the facts are present (and documented in writing). All personal things aside they speak for themselves so the members here can draw their own conclusions. Clearly if it is backed up with evidence then its in the collecting communities interest to know what is happening. On the face of it if that means that people could be parting with their hard earned for items with "inaccurate" provinence and "back to back" sales to try and make questionable pieces right then thats something we all should know about. Especially at $60,000 a piece!!!

Guess i wont be seeing any photos,but thank you Fred Stephens I did save a copy of your post hope that you dont mind? Why cant people just be honest and up front about things anyway? The truth is easier to remember. as a paying memebr I have zero say here but I see no hate in the post. Just a bit of how the hobby eats its own...really sad. Fred again thanks for the inner workings and the "art of the deal" You have my respect as a collector and more as person in search of the facts no matter where they lead us to.
Bret Van Sant

quote:

Houston is spot on about Fred and Craig, they must have sparred with each other for 20 minutes over that story with Jesper and never really addressed these daggers as others in the room thought they would. That's when a handful of us got up and walked.

Ed, If you had known even a part of what Mr. Stephens knew about the "Danish" dagger ahead of time. Can you see why that might have been the way the discussion went as it did at the seminar? When I asked my question about the timeline back on page (5) - I had absolutely no knowledge of what was happening.

And why it seemed so confusing?? Now I know why!! FP

Is VERY interesting how some people say this daggers are original all the way, no question "should" be made about their originality or details because some long time collectors and other not so old in the field say they are originals and have decades on the trenches of collecting third reich items.

Let me make an observation about how the amount of years of study in any field of collectables or art is not everything or proof of unquestionable opinions about originality. Take for example one of the most complicate things a human being can try to reproduce,copy or make a forgery....a painting and even more one of those of the "old masters" with all their finess and details, so realistic that looks like a picture, then we have the forgeries made some times VERY close to the time frame period of the original...AKA as OLD...and of such quality that fooled a lot of experts and collectors for years, Rembrandt comes to mind, a lot of work atributed to the great master himself, now(in recent decades) have been declared to have been made by some of his most talented protegges in his atelier, so technicaly they are "original fakes".

Is interesting because some of these collectors express their concern with some pieces of militaria at the diferent forums or militaria shows that do not conform to the traditions or details of known and VERY WELL documented originals, but when they are the ones with the never seen before item, out of the ordinary,stange markings,no real bullet proof provenance etc, all these details and faults can be forgotten OR NEED NOT TO BE DISCUSED....in fact the saying "BUY THE PIECE NOT THE STORY" comes to my mind very strongly every time I read this thread.

The denial of detailed photos of an item that have SEVERAL PROBLEMS in diferent areas of the dagger and to top that it have a price tag of an entry level Porsche rise more and more questions about why the owners of such an expensive and rare piece don't want to clear the bad reputation these daggers had from the start of their discovery. This is no small change in my humble opinion. I mean we do not have ANY detail PERIOD 1933-1945 photo of the daggers blade or construction details, we dont have ANY direct VETERAN SOLDIER,OFFICER or CIVIL ALLIED ATTACHE SERVING IN OCCUPIED EUROPE provenance for any of the pieces, just second hand provenance from family members...some of them kids or young persons that saw "for the first time" in the 1960's or 70's their fathers or grandfahter war booty with no interest on the pieces or history behind it, so no hard evidence or details can be obtain from them, I am not saying these family members are laying or making any false statement, they just are put in a spot where their recolections...what ever they are about the item are needed to keep the "discovery" momentum going for the piece. The ONLY real provenace that should be found and investigated are those by the veterans themselves, after all they are the ones who can say where and how they obtain these special items, and we know that even those have to be studied carefully to corroborate the facts.

Now, apart from the detractors of the daggers, no one have answer my observation about the irregular etching on the nametaht appear on the balde. If one of the owner of these daggers is willing to put an end at least in this area of the signature execution, they could take the blade to an laboratory with an nice micro camera scan, we could see once and for all if the signatures are etched or machine done....to me it looks machine done all the way, even in the poor photos of the blades that show this area. Etching is a chemical prosses and use no mechanical "tool" to make the impression, this is why is used by craftmans to do delicate work on metals, until recently it was the "cleanest" prosses to make an artistic impresion on metal, now lasers guided by computers can do almost anything in any type of shape or form....ask gun makers and engravers who now can offer pieces at a more affordable price using the laser option....of course if you still want to have the magnificent "old world" crafmanship of hand engraving you will have to pay dearly for it since they are truly handmade works of art and perfection without equal, which brings us to the signature "crude" detail and execution if was made by hand or machine assisted engraver master craftman at the time.

Dear Houston, thank you for your comment, "CA--I think everyone accepts that the silver proofs are not proper. No one knows why. BUT-when you know people for 50 years and they tell you that these daggers were found in the woodwork and were often bought for nothing--all over the world since approx 1958--I don't call them liars and thieves."

You have cleared the situation about the silvermarks.They are not proper, is a very charitable way of describing them. This is crusial evidence that they have been been put onto the dagger incorectly. Thus the dagger has been tampered with, enhanced or any other description for a falsied piece.

Again, I am not suggesting or would call them liars and thieves. If you find apiece out of the woodwork, then you genuanly think it is original. But many people have found collectables out of the woodwork, but this dose not make them original. The question is how they got there and how old is the woodwork.

But the greatest step forward is the coming to the conclusion, that most realise the silver marks are wrong.

CA You jump to a conclusion-just like the other naysayers. Just because the marks are not proper does NOT mean they were applied post war

With the avalanch of re-hashing going on here, and due to the fact that hardly anybody's even reading this thread anymore except the small NSKK-doubter crowd, and a few honest bystanders, and a few experienced collectors and dealers who know better, I'll stick to one important theme.

Fred (and the NSKK-hater crowd) have cleverly side-stepped my request for an explanation. I am not asking for you to explain the existence of the silver chains and why some "faker" might have used them. I am asking you to explain this scenario:

How you think real SA Honor daggers got discovered in a box somewhere, ruined, then sprinkled throughout time (50 years) and the globe (4 countries and many US states), without motive for profit, and how the faker got it JUST RIGHT, compared to a photo that was discovered decades after his creation.

Regarding daggert diskusion
Posted 22 October 2009 17:17 page 2
signature does not say Karl Moshage It says Karl Ulvshage
when I read the letter in Danish, I can not believe that it is a man aged 80 who has written it, I am 45 years I write in a different way than my daughter at 24 years, when you're 80 years old you lived in another time, expression reflects the time you come from.
it's just my personal opinion
Henrik

Henrik, Thank You! That’s a very interesting observation from someone who is from Denmark. FP

Craig, If you’re not contesting all of the other evidence. And you just want to address this one issue - that at least is some progress forward and will save a lot of time.

quote:

“How you think real SA Honor daggers got discovered in a box somewhere, ruined, then sprinkled throughout time (50 years) and the globe (4 countries and many US states), without motive for profit, and how the faker got it JUST RIGHT, compared to a photo that was discovered decades after his creation.”

First I don’t know that they all necessarily came out of a single “box”. Although certainly there were large scale operations making fakes in the period after the war. Which gradually accelerated to the extent that Mr. Stephens book on fakes was very much welcomed by the collecting community when it was first published. With earlier published ‘booklets’ actually preceding it. And I think its safe to assume that the counterfeiting activity had been ongoing for a significant period of time prior to the various publications. With at least one well known NSKK fake going back to 1955. And a large number of others made on or about the same time.

And if we go back 50 years or so to some other much less expensive fakes. Fakers who altered groups* of original items as their primary method of faking most likely (in my own view) acquired the items in singles or in small lots. Made the “product improvements". And sold them for a profit - albeit not the hugh ones like some fakes are currently bringing today.

As for the distribution of the fakes it happened the usual way, with items being sold all over the world for years and years and years. And just because the war was over it did not mean that veterans did not want to own a piece of history that they may have “missed out on”. There was guy I worked with who was a “Huey” pilot in Vietnam. He was so busy staying alive, and doing his job, that he did not have time to acquire any souvenirs while he there. I had a VC Chicom Tokarev pistol, and Mosin–Nagant carbine with a whole lot of shrapnel in the wood. Both of them are his now because I thought that he would appreciate them more, for which he was very grateful.

And PLEASE forget the Offermann photo as “proof” of the legitimacy of the current “Hühnlein" daggers. It's NOT the same dagger. And the dagger that FJS posted doesn't help you either.

PS: When you have some spare time, maybe you could look at the observation from Mark C. Yerger the SS historian/author?

NSKK High Leader - An Alternate Discussion

And Houston: Even if if you choose to completely ignore it, a reasonable ‘burden of proof’ for the silver markings being fakes has already been met. FP

* Fakers, being businessmen who wanted to maximize profits and decrease costs (like a regular business). If they were are going to invest in making molds for casting etc. etc. Would they want to make just one? Or would they want to make a batch of fakes to spread out the costs?? Which is what happened here. Which accounts for the different types of chain sets as they ran out of parts. And the oftentimes noticeably indifferent quality of the machine engraved signatures.

Interesting point.Puts "Another" slant on
things,wouldn,t you say
Seiler

quote:

and due to the fact that hardly anybody's even reading this thread anymore except the small NSKK-doubter crowd, and a few honest bystanders, and a few experienced collectors and dealers who know better,

53,000 views and counting shows that this is probably the most interesting thread on GDC for years, which ever way you lean!. I check in every day.........its better than Eastenders .

Yes, this is the great soap opera for dagger collectors. I have to admit I'm hooked. Just think about all the time the script writers are putting in.

Gailen