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 �H�hnlein" 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.
And poor, poor Gr�ner. 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 �H�hnlein� 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.
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.)
