I've been watching this very interesting thread from the beginning. I have no stake in this discussion either way. I have no opinion as to its originality since it is beyond my expertise. And for the record, I have never even seen one of these daggers (in person).
I have friends on both sides of this dicsussion so I thought long and hard about this posting.
If I was to weigh the arguments put forth by both sides of this discussion, I would have to say that the "non-believers" have put forth the only solid evidence against this being a totally pre-1945 dagger. The "believers" have only put forth opinions based on experience for it being totally pre-1945. And you know what they say about "opinions"
One thing has been gnawing at me that no one else has raised. For Himmler and Rohm daggers to be accepted as being pre-1945, the dedication and signatures have to be identical to an accepted format. In other words, they can't vary. The Rohm and Himmler signatures are analyzed ad nauseum for even the tinyest of deviations. To me, that means that all manufacturers of these daggers had the same template to work with.
So why then do the Hunlein signatures seen so far vary so much from dagger to dagger and are accepted as pre-1945 by some? Like the Himmler and Rohm daggers, should the Hunlein signatures not all be identical on all daggers?
