Craig states (extract from previous posting)
. . . Oh yeah, he modifies TWO of the daggers for wear - something no collector would ever do. I don't know why I didn't think of it. But don't listen to me or Johnson, or Wittmann, or Gailen David, or Houston Coates, or Grant Bias, Jason Burmeister or Keith Cornford, or just about ANY seasoned collector . . .
HOUSTON: I did NOT state that you had traded or otherwise dealt with any �Huhnlein piece�. I merely quoted the list of names that Craig had specifically mentioned regarding these Huhnlein pieces. I have reproduced Craig�s exact wording above � so may I respectfully point out that you have taken me out of context.
The first point I was trying to make, before I was censured, was that I was not aware of any publicised comment by Keith Cornford on the subject of these daggers. I am therefore interested to learn what Mr. Cornford has to say.
My second point relates to Craig�s comment regarding the �modification� by the crude addition of the spring clip. A modification that would never be performed by a post-war collector on a valuable dagger � �something no collector would ever do� - according to Craig. Therefore if the modification had been performed pre-1945, then that surely would prove conclusively that the chains, centre mount, et al, are real. This is the proof that the supporters of the Huhnlein daggers are looking for. The concept opens up a very interesting question, and it is this:
If it was genuinely believed that the modification, involving the spring clip, was really performed pre-1945, then why remove it in the process of �restoration�?
Such a distinctive feature could be of value in identifying an item to its� time, location, and personality � if it were to be seen on a period photograph. Of course, I do realise that such a possible piece of evidence has odds of millions to one against its� existence, let alone to be able to find it. The point that I wish to make is that such believers of �scientific truth� (see Gottlieb submission, GD, 07 March 2010) can seemingly accept that it is right to remove such evidence from history. This is nonsensical in my belief.
If the trace evidence had even the most microscopic chance of proving the authenticity of something � then should it be obliterated? My answer is NO. It does not matter that the evidence goes against my personally projected beliefs, all that matters is that the evidence is seen to be true.
I will make this analogy to you, and you may judge me accordingly:
I made the comparison that the removal of �period� modifications to artefacts was absolutely akin to vandalism�. I suggested the comparison that it was no different to remove such �period modifications� than it was to deliberately remove the engraved name or initials of a former owner that were placed upon a dagger. In my view such �corrections� are acts of vandalism � and a disruption of history.
If my viewpoint is such as to be viewed as pernicious, or offensive, or insulting. Well then so be it! I see no reason to sensibly change my perspective. I stand by everything that I say.
Frederick J. Stephens
