UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons German Sword & Miniatures Forum Presentation Sword to RK Winner

Don't Tell Me!! Did the cartrell strike again and, as I am not in the cartell, did I miss out???
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria
PS: Craig Gottlieb has always been up front with me. Can he make a mistake? Does he walk on water?? Are there nail holes in his hands YET?? Please!

One more thing! I am sick to death of the politics in this hobby. This has all started in the last five years or so. Maybe it's the prices, I really don't know? It use to be that when I disagreed on some thing with guys like Johnson, Wittmann, Weinand, or say Coates, we didn't come back and call the each other a crook, we still don't. Make no mistake that's what's being done here. We simply disagreed and that was the end of it. On another note, I notice Bob Johns commented on this sword. I consider him very good on Presentation pieces since thats been his area of collecting for many years. God,I miss the good old days.

Gailen David

On the Huhnlein daggers, They are without question real. Talk to every knowledable person in the hobby, except one. See what you find out. I not going into a long story how I know they are real, but you can bet on it. In any case, believe what you want, I really don't care one way or the other.

Gailen David

I agree with Ron and Gailen. Craig is a good guy and has made very significant contributions to the hobby. EVERYBODY can make a mistake. We don't all agree on everything and we never will.
No matter what, Craig will make it right if you are unhappy.
The NSKK chained honor daggers are real ( at least some of them ) and there is quite a clear photo of an Officer wearing one in Tom Johnson's new table top book.

None of the SA's nor any other items sold all that cheap at the table, Patrice. I really didn't see any of the SA's that would have interested me at any price. If Witty would had wanted any item, he certainly had 1st choice before anyone else.

JR is right. None of the daggers on the table were cheap. But there was a few bucks left in a few of the better pieces. Wittmann did not have the rights to buy them at the time he priced them out for the family. He was told he would get first crack at them when and if they sold them, which he didn't get. He was not happy.

Gailen David

Rob, Knowingly No. I don't think he would.
And I do feel it is unfortunate that that a friendship has been broken over this. It's a too common occurance to my liking in this hobby.
However Craig could have gone to anyone else for their "opinion" but he went to Mr. Stevens. He must have regarded it highly at the time. And the way I read this whole thing is Mr. Stevens didn't like it...NOT the answer Craig wanted. TOO BAD. Guess you got the answer you were looking for from T.J. Good! The bottom line is, and what other members have mentioned, that your happy with it. It's like that with anything else in life..cars ..women..etc.

-wagner-

quote:

Originally posted by JR:
None of the SA's nor any other items sold all that cheap at the table, Patrice. I really didn't see any of the SA's that would have interested me at any price. If Witty would had wanted any item, he certainly had 1st choice before anyone else.

Sorry , I was under the impression that the daggers were priced wayyyyyyyyyy below retail value.
My opinion was only based on Craig's quote when he said, "TW's prices were at 1/5 of their retail true value".

You have to admit that it was a bit confusing.

I am with Pat on this one...
Confused.

TW did nothing wrong at all.

Gary

Gary, I did not attend the Max show last year.
Once again, I'm only making an opinion on what has been said by Craig, which he claims that the daggers were at 1/5 of their true value.
If it wasn't the case, so be it and I'm sorry for having suggested that TW was doing it on purpose. However, anyone who would read Craig's thread would've only come up with the same conclusion as me.


No hard feeling about it.

Case closed ! Got to run as I have to sale a Toyota.

I personally did extremely well buying from the Henger table (aside from the Schnaufer piece, which has caused me more undeserved negative publicity than I care to remember). Probably my best single table visit, margin-wise, at the MAX. The only reason I did not buy more (a mistake) was because I had plans to purchase a huge group of 30 SA daggers from Don Wood, which I did buy). This entire thread has devolved into a silly gossip-match, and I think it's about worn out it's usefulness.

Thank you Craig for your honest opinion and stating that indeed, it was "your best ever single table visit, margin-wise".

Geeee, I wish he would do the same with his own daggers.

Craig et all: You quickly fined out who your friends are and are not in the hobby. Jealousy and rumors abound and regardless of what the truth is, there are those who will remember you and those who will hope to destory you. I have just learned to plod on and make a mark by the names I need to remember. Period.
JMO,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Ron, it's been this way for the last 2 million years and highly suspect that it will not end in a near future.

Personal endorsements are OK, and not out of line if relating one’s own experiences. But they are also like character witnesses at a murder trial. They show the relationship or standing in the community from the perspective of the one who is testifying. As to the character of the individual as far as he or she knows it.

But they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not the individual did the act that they are accused of committing.

The most logical way for the Schnaufer dagger to be PROPERLY ASSESSED as a legitimate period artifact is to present the dagger for an appraisal on this forum. Let the dagger be judged on its own merits!! If there are other daggers to follow that’s fine - but one item at a time.

When Craig started this thread at some point it became in effect a “trial”. And presumably with Rob’s approval a number of exhibits were prepared and presented to forum members. What is behind this seemingly irrational fear of having the Schnaufer dagger examined in a public forum?? Why is one specimen OK to discuss. And the other verboten?? I don’t get it.
Most Respectfully, FP

This is not court of law. People can make up there own minds what they believe is real and what isn't. I'm personally not trying to convince anyone of anything. At this point in my life and career I have stop worrying about it. Everything I write is just my opinion. if you believe it fine, if you don't believe it that's fine to. There is really hardly a way to prove a lot of this stuff. Sorry some of you "don't get it."

Gailen David

Rob NL

I have noted your posting of 01 August, plus your recent previous submissions, so I will endeavour to answer all of your questions.

Firstly please allow me to make these two separate extracts from your posting this morning:
----------------------------------
??? Mr Stephens , didnt we talk aout those SAME questions when you E-mailed me privatly?
Didnt you get an answer also ?

If you are so sure that the Wolf sword is a fake , then why do you e-mail me that you wish to inspect it in person?
Is it because your not so sure anymore?
---------------------------------
The first reason that I e-mailed you privately is because I wanted to discuss the Wolf Sword with you in an off-line capacity. My doubts about the piece are serious, and I wanted to explain them to you fully, and to allow you the chance to question me face-to-face.

The second reason I e-mailed you is because I suspected that you were the buyer of Craig’s Schnaufer Dagger - so I wanted to talk to you privately. I did not wish to confront you with the embarrassing public revelation on this site, that you had been the victim of another fraudulent transaction. However, you did not respond to my invitation, and rejected my approach by stating on this site that I was being patronising to you.

OK, that was your prerogative - you don’t have to answer my questions anywhere privately or publicaly. So I chose the second option of going public with the Schnaufer photos - which Craig quickly had removed. Of course I must point out that if the dagger was fully authentic and flawless, why would he bother to remove it?

In fact I must ask: Why are YOU frightened to discuss this dagger?

I have a comprehensive selection of photos of this piece, but out of respect for your integrity I choose to allow you to decide when you will publicise photos of this dagger, before I present the images that I possess.

Copyright of photos is not an issue here. Craig has challenged me to reveal all that I know so he can shoot it down - well it is time he realised that his own profile is right there up on the target. This particular victim is prepared to bite back!

I have noted, today, the further submissions of Craig Gottlieb on this site - particularly those directed at myself. I will reply within 24 hours.

I further note some comments by Gailen David. OK Gailen, if you have something to state the please say it clearly. After all - we all claim to be to be acting in the interests of the general membership. What point do you wish to make?

Best regards
Frederick J. Stephens

Frederick: Everything that's on this forum is an opinion. That means what I write is an opinion. The reader can decide to agree or not agree. I feel they should also view your opinions in the same way. They can believe them or not.

One the Craig issue: I just thought, in so many words, you were basically calling him a crook. If he called you dishonest then I would be saying Craig was wrong.

Gailen David

"The point is I have no point to make." Sound like something Bruce lee would say dosen't it.

Gailen

Fred: Read my lips (or read one of many earlier posts by me) - I do not wish to rehash the controversy surrounding how I obtained the Schnaufer Dagger, which is why I don't wish to discuss it. There are plenty of other pieces that you don't like which I have sold, which I don't wish to discuss for a number of other reasons, which are legitimate reasons. Not everything is fodder for public discourse. Regarding the Snaufer Dagger, my actions were entirely misrepresented, and it took me a lot of hard work to win a public relations campaign, that I DO NOT wish to relive again. The dagger will always be steeped in controversy because of how it was allegedly obtained, and that is all I will say on the matter. I don't know why you insist on taking all of this so personally, and why you insist on using emotionally-charged conspiracy-theorist language to incite intrigue where there is none. I also wish to express my thanks at the wisdom of Ron and Gailen's posts. You are both wise counselors. Now, why can't I follow my own advice and stop coming back to this thread? It's like quicksand, hydra-fighting, or a pile of sugar that I can't help tasting. I am so confused, I can't figure out which analogy is best!

And Pat - I'm having a special sale just for readers of this thread - half of 2x the price of anything on my website!

And short of Fred calling me names again, I'm going to try to live up to my promise not to return to this thread I'm willing to let Fred have his opinion about NSKK daggers, Schnaufer Daggers, Wolf Swords, Birdsdhead Daggers, Railway Dagger flaws, and anything else he wants. Just please refrain from calling me names

Gailen,

Let's get it right in this scenario. Craig states that I am "totally wrong" - that is NOT an "opinion", that is a statement of belief. Does Craig truly believe this (No, I don't think that he does)? He prefers to hide behind innuendo, smoke screens, and the support of his friends - such as you.

At no point does he present credible evidence to suggest that I might be wrong.

If you think that this matter is otherwise, then please step up and prove so. Isn't that what we all claim to be about - the verifiable evidence? Now is your chance, Gailen - all it requires is firm proof - so please speak up - or shut up! It is as simple as that.

Frederick J. Stephens

Does this look like the face of someone who would hide behind a lackey-induced smoke-screen of innuendos?

Gee, I would just like to see the photos guys. Nobody's wants to bring up the old Oct. thread. However there has been a lot of emails between members and I just hope the 2 main parties can just put up the photos after 12 pages of this thread. I think we can handel it. Let us see what your ALL taking about. Mr. Stevens seems to want to. I would like to see Craig prove him wrong on this issue.

-wagner-

Fred: What firm proof is there that can't be disputed? Anyhting you put up here can be disputed. Unless your going to bring someone back from the dead and even you can't do that, or can you? I guess I should have thought before I spoke.

And by the way, Craig being a friend or not has nothing to do with this.

So I'm going to take your advice and "shut Up." You can have a good old time all by yourself. I don't need to be told twice by you that I'm not wanted here. No sir, not me, I can take a hint as good as anybody. I promise you Mr. Stephens I will never ever respond to anything you say again. I'll be quite as a church mouse......I'm fading away as I'm writing this.............take care of all the daggers for me.........

Gailen

Here you have it, Craig. "wagner" wants you to put up the evidence that I am wrong - not the "statement" - but the physical evidence that I am wrong.

I personally do not need to put up with your hyperbole that I am wrong, just because you say I am wrong. So far I have yet to see you make a statement that demonstrates that you are right.

FJS

Gailen,

Just remember that when it suited you to speak up, or attack me ("Flaws on Daggers" thread, etc.) then you were quite happy to do this. I was given no advance warning, and just had to take it.
Now the power-base of the respective roles has changed - why are you whingeing?

FJS

I want to add one small thought to all the members reading this thread:

Everything you are reading is OPINION expressed by the various posters. Don't loose sight of this. Whether you think it it true, gospel, or otherwise is up to you.

Dave

Nobody even commented on the portrait of the young Kaiser!

I think it's cool ...

Yes, the photo was taken during his infamous visit to the Empire State Building in 1976. HINT for those who don't see the resemblance: It's me!

At this point, I'm afraid to, or on any other topic on GDC...............

Notice the absence of the chinscales on the Spike Helmet - obviously a sign that the photo is a forgery. The Kaiser would NEVER wear a spike helmet without the chinstrap!

I probably should take the same approach as my friend JR did above and not comment further on this thread but I think this needs to be said.
First and formost I've known Craig Gottlieb since I've been in this hobby and any insinuation that he would knowingly peddle a fake is ludicrious.
Secondly Frederick Stephens has an impeccible reputation for calling things as he sees them and,again, any insuniation to the contrary is ludicrious.
With this in mind, I'd again like to propose a solution to this dilemma. Bring the disputed items to this years MAX and have an impartial panel rule on them. I think it is highly probable that the MAX promoters could pull together such a panel.
I also would like to remind the participants here of the effect this public bickering is probably having on the newer members of this hobby.
IMO: We as a group of collectors are going to be in for some tough sledding ahead and we don't need these types of public diversions.
Jim

Uhh .. yes, indeed..

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:
I also would like to remind the participants here of the effect this public bickering is probably having on the newer members of this hobby.
Jim

I agree fully.

I just dont see why the esteemed gentlemen cannot agree to disagree on the presentation sword to Wolf, and stop discussing the "ghost" of the Schnaufer dagger, a dagger members are not entitled to view in public pictures.

As stated quite a few times now, what matters is that the current owner, Rob, is happy with his items.

I only have one question for Rob in regards to the Wolf sword:
Are there any more documents/letters, something that describes why the intended swap of swords between Gen. Wolf and Mr. Piller did not happen in '68/'69?

Cheers,

I agree with Jim about the bickering. It seems this thread is morphing into something besides the discussion of that sword and that dagger. Please avoid posts which appear to poke the other guy, or I will edit them. We don't need that.


Dave

This reply is directed to Craig, in response to his lengthy submission (above).

Craig, you have targeted me in a deliberate campaign of intimidation - let me show you the evidence because it is all here on this thread.

You and I had previously discussed the Wolf Sword, and you knew my opinion on it. We had our differences of opinion, but that was simply in the course of debate. That, I thought, was the end of the matter - but it wasn’t to be. You decided to go public in an attempt to draw me out:

3/3/07 - You opened this thread, and following the display of your images, you introduce the matter of the spelling of the word “Verteidiger”. Yes, I had made that mistake concerning the capitalisation of the German word for “Defender” - but that was a grammatical error on my behalf. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I am totally wrong about the inscription, and how it has been applied.
3/3/07 - Bob Johns (Etched Blades) joins in, with a comment about the unbelievable fact of someone questioning the authenticity of the sword.
3/3/07 - Craig - “I leave it to the critic to mention his objections”.
4/3/07 - Deutscher notices the feature of the strange “dot” after the word NSDAP.
4/3/07 - Craig says the “dot” is perfectly OK
6/3/07 - Craig, repeats that he has asked the critic of the sword to speak up.
2/6/07 - Craig again points out that he is “still waiting” for me to speak up.
5/6/07 - Ron Weinand ventures his opinion that he is unhappy about the sword construction.
5/6/07 - JR makes a similar point.
22/6/07 - Rob NL mentions me by name, and asks me to speak up. Rob also produces the documentation which accompanies the sword.
23/6/07 - Fred Prinz reveals that according to the documentation the scabbard for the sword did not have a hanger - yet the example as we now see it is complete with a hanger. Either the hanger has been added, or the whole scabbard has been replaced. What is now glaringly certain is that the sword has been tampered with.
24/6/07 - Craig confirms my name as being the person who doubts the sword.
24/6/07 - Craig states that my opinions about the sword are wrong.
25/6/07 - Rob NL fully confirms my name and demands that I speak up.

25/6/07 - OK, so after almost 16 weeks of being pestered and slandered by people who don’t actually fully understand the subject matter - I spoke up. And guess what............Craig was shown to be wrong and I consider that I proved my case most adequately. The etching on the Wolf Sword is, in my opinion, faked - and I have shown why this is so. Therefore the correspondence between General Wolf and Howard Bayliss - although authentic in the terms that it really did take place - leaves open to question and speculation the real purpose behind General Wolf’s replies to Mr. Bayliss.

Craig, it is obvious that you passed my name around, and solicited supporters to demand that I speak up. Because I never revealed myself or communicated with anyone other than yourself during the period 3/3/07-25/6/07, so it is obvious that you were the leak that put my name around. There was no way you were going to leave the matter alone. You thought that by provoking me into a response (plus the numerous private e-mails you sent me, demanding my reply) that you would be able to destroy my reputation and humiliate me. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Well, Craig, you got it badly wrong. You forcibly prized the genie out of the bottle, and now you are complaining because it is wreaking havoc. Did it never occur to you to double check the things that I told you? Do you really have such hubris and arrogance that you can’t believe that I just might be right? After such a campaign to get me out in the open do you not think that you have invited the problem upon yourself? Who can blame me for putting up such a defence? Now you are playing all injured and demanding an apology.

Well, the only thing I am sorry about (or rather, saddened), is that you thought it would be a bit of fun to publicly humiliate me. You went out of your way to set me up - it is perfectly clear from the thread entries that I have detailed above. Check them yourself, if you want, they are all visible on this thread.

I didn’t deserve to be treated in such a manner, Craig. I deserved a little more respect. In fact I think it is YOU who owes ME an APOLOGY. I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation of receiving one from you - after all, it takes a real man to face up to his own failings.

Frederick J. Stephens