I have just returned from Pennsylvania, where I just purchased, directly from the family of the deceased veteran, a chained NSKK High Leader dagger with Hunlein inscription. I video'd about 1 hour of interviews with the family, and got a notarized statement from them, placing the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. I've got photos, DD214s, sworn statements from the son of the veteran (who is a Vietnam veteran as well), as well as a lot of interesting video testimony. Dagger is in outstanding condition, and photos will be forthcoming. I will also be editing the video and posting it on my website in due course.

We can't wait, Craig - even I wish to see irrefutable evidence!

FJS

Oh, by the way, if the dagger is so "outstanding" - why are you having it "restored" - which is what you are known to be doing?

Not quite cleanly "out of the woodwork", anymore, is it?

FJS

Whether real or not (I'm no expert), the dagger can be found of Craig's blog.

http://craiggottlieb.blogspot.com/

I also wonder why(if thats is what your doing with it)would you wish to restore it? I dont have all the facts so I dont really know if this is true. Maybe you can share the real facts here.
Bret Van Sant

I hope you have proof of that attack Fred. You are clearly in violation of the rules of this forum.

Why would he get it restored Fred if he says...

"The dagger is in nearly perfect condition,"

He also says he has NOT taken any pictures of it yet, so how do you know this?

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

I looked at the photos which are here
http://www.craiggottlieb.com/d...ame=NSKK+High+Leader

It does not say a thing about being re-covered, so it must not be.
Bret Van Sant

Gents, the photos of the dagger have not been taken yet as Craig has said in the link provided by Pat. The one shown is another one.

Regards

Russ

quote:

Originally posted by Ruski:
Gents, the photos of the dagger have not been taken yet as Craig has said in the link provided by Pat. The one shown is another one.

Regards

Russ

Thank you Russ, I should've read better, my mistake

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
I hope you have proof of that attack Fred. You are clearly in violation of the rules of this forum.

Houston-
I knew of another that came directly from a veteran back in the early 80's. That was also dismissed by certain experts. I also know of one that is in the collection of a very famous American general officer and knew the individual who saw it and took pictures of it(which I have seen).
When one tries to purport being an expert, it can be a tough fall off the self built pedistal.

Just a note to clarify all points: 1) the dagger pictured in my blog is NOT the dagger I bought out of the woodwork recently. I did not photograph the dagger I bought, because I sent it off immediately to Tom Wittmann within 12 hours of returning from my trip, for two purposes:

a) To have him document its condition so there would be NO issues later of originality or tampering. Especially given that there is something VERY special about this piece that I will show in due course.

b) To have Tom glue down a portion of the leather, which, although 100% original, had come loose over time. Fred and I have spoken about this, and he is in agreement that this was the correct thing to do in this particular situation. Hardly a restoration.

The dagger will be on display at MAX, and the veteran's family who I bought it from will be attending the MAX show. I am giving Tom Wittmann an exclusive on the photos of this piece for his book (I'll likely publish one picture on my blog).

Houston,

I wasn't aware that I was violating any rules - but if I was then I apologise, no problem there.

Craig and I have exchanged some commentary about this dagger already - so he will know that I was having a little tease with him, concerning "outstanding condition" and "restoration". Craig actually told me he was having a loose portion of leather glued back into place. And yes, I agree that is the right thing to do in the circumstances.

My position regarding these "Huhnlein" pieces remains clear, and the same as it was before - I have my own researched evidence - but I am willing to receive with an open mind any new and viable information.

I am not worried about being "knocked off my pedestal" - if the truth is out there, then let it be seen and examined. All I ask is that it be confirmed to the same rigorous standards that are asked of myself.

I have no desire to disrupt Craig's thunder when he presents his new discovery. However, as he is brash enough to make the claim: "NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over", as he has done so in commencing this thread, then I expect to see it followed through with verifiable evidence. So far Craig presents no evidence.

Frederick J. Stephens

If its going in TW's book none of us will ever see it please show it meantime
Well said Fred you are a credit to this hobby and I am surprised that Houston another stalwart is taking issue with you lets just enjoy ourselves and not start sniping at each others

Fred,
There are well respected people who have bought these from vet sources to include a friend who was the first “Hotel Buyer”. You are the only person I know of who questions these daggers, if you need to attack this dagger perhaps you should present your scientifically derived source of information.
Best Wishes,
Bob

I wish to state that I understand Fred was having a little fun with me, as I was having a little fun with him by so-naming this thread. I suppose a few "smiley faces" were in order, within the text

If I had to rely on one of these gentlemen to give me counsel, it would be Fred. Without any hesitation. That is my strong personal opinion.

Mark

Bob: Fred has laid out his opinions, which I can with his permission, summarize:

1) He doesn't like the signature on the blade, believing it to be "unlike" actual Hunlein signatures.

2) He believes the markings on the back of the silver chain version are below the quality standards he expects.

3) He observed the appearance of the NSKK High Leader and a fake "plain bladed" NSKK reproduction, surface at the same time - the late 1970s, I believe. Since the signatures match, he believes they were both made by the same forger.

I don't think there are any more "points" in his theory. I don't mean to put words in Fred's mouth, and hope I've fairly and respectfully summarized his beliefs.

On another forum a while back, there was a long discussion of a particular military issue P-38 pistol. With the new owner actually meeting with the GI who acquired it following a well known tank battle at the end of the war. The new owner had more than sufficient documentation. With a letter and some other details that the pistol was exactly as it was found when the GI originally acquired it. From the GI himself, not a third party.

The problem with it was that it was a late war pistol was either chrome or nickel plating. (For non gun collectors: the Germans did not chrome or nickel plate their military issue service arms.) My point being that while all of us have to respect the GI, and his service to his nation. Postwar “documentation” no matter whatever the source - is not “proof of the matter”. And in the case of the pistol. Was worthless for any other purpose than that the pistol came from the GI.

I’m looking forward to seeing whatever configuration this particular dagger is in. To see how it compares to some of the others that are in currently in circulation. FP

I believe the correct spelling here is Huhnlein.
One agrument,at least IMO, that could be put forth in favor of this dagger is all the other political leaders Himmler,Rohm etc. had their own presentation dagger so why not the head of the NSKK?
I have a documented SA presentation dagger in my collection which was presented by an officer with the rank of Standartenfuhrer which is equivalent to a Colonel in the US Army. I'm stating this to point out that you didn't have to even be the head of a political organization to have a presentation dagger.
Now having said that I,like most,tend to defer to Frederick Stephens when it comes to blade etches in general and facsimile signatures in particular.
I along with many other await the presention of additional evidence here.

Fred:
If you're referring to that P38 with the "Himmler Inscription" I too believe it was done post war.
Jim

Jim, To the best of my recollection at the moment - without going back and trying to find the thread. Was that the pistol was just an ordinary "garden variety" late P-38 by Spreewerke GmbH ("cyq"). Except for the fact that it been either chrome or nickel plated.

And 100 "Certificates of Authenticity" are not going to make it right. Best Regards, FP

I believe that's the one Fred. IMO: The firearm itself(Late War P38),the engraved inscription nor the current condition fit the "Vet" acquisition story at all.
N.B: I don't want to hi-jack this thread so that will be my last comment on this pistol here.

Jim

Jim, I’m not trying to “hijack” this thread either, but I think a clarification is in order. Again from memory, the GI in that thread was involved in a filmed tank battle between a M26 Pershing Tank and a Panther (or Panzerkampfwagen IV?). In a city or town (a built up area) with film footage taken by a combat cameraman.

The new owner met with the GI. Pictures of them were taken (etc.), and the GI gave him a letter attesting to the pistol being acquired after the battle already plated. So there is no question that there is “documentation”. It’s just that the documentation is worthless for any other purposes than that the item was acquired from that individual. Because anybody who has collected guns for more than 5 minutes knows that the Germans did not chrome or nickel plate their government issue combat firearms. Which is something that the new owner had difficulty in accepting. And even now I suspect that he may still believe that everybody else is wrong (which is not that uncommon sometimes with individuals and their prized possessions). Best Regards, Fred

Here is the notarized letter from the family that I bought the recent NSKK High Leader out of the woodwork, from.

It should be noted that to preserve the "chain of custody" and to provide a witness to the condition of the piece, I expressed it directly to Tom Wittmann (who is also gluing down the portion of the leather that had come loose). When it is returned to me, I will photograph it and post pictures in my gallery. My photos will include pictures of the beautiful engraving on the upper scabbard fitting. I have recently completed the research on the person named as original wearer, and he was indeed a Brigadefuhrer in the NSKK, from the Landau area. Thanks to Mike Constandy for finding this information out.

Craig,

I can see that this thread, and its subject matter, is taking on a life all of its own - so Jim M, and F.P. (both of whom I respect greatly) your deviation into pistols and plating is another interesting aside. However, I must concentrate on my main issue, and as Craig has chosen to summarise it in the thread above here, then I will respond accordingly.

Just for the record, there is no animosity or "personal jabs at each other" here - but we are doing a bit of "sparring". Some distinguished observers are concerned that we are "getting at each other" - so I am sure that Craig will confirm that this is all in good spirit.

And so to the business: Craig states:
1) He doesn't like the signature on the blade, believing it to be "unlike" actual Hunlein signatures.
Response: You are absolutely right - there is a serious difference and defect in the signature construction, and it does require some explanation. I have tried, and I cannot find a good explanation to account for this - and please do believe me, Craig - and all the others who genuinely incline towards your view - I really have tried to see if I can find any justification for your unequivocal acceptance for this form of signature - but I have failed to find anything. No doubt your are going kindly correct me, with the missing proof.

Craig states: 2) He believes the markings on the back of the silver chain version are below the quality standards he expects.
Response: NO Craig, I never stated that at all - come along, if you want to play this game then get your facts right. I have stated on several occasions that the issue with the markings on the back of the cartouche, the so called hallmarks and Otto Gahr marking, is that they are FAKED. The are crudely cast into the reverse, and entirely inappropriate. I do not have a problem with your disagreeing with me; but please at least be truthful about why we differ in our views.

Craig states: 3) He observed the appearance of the NSKK High Leader and a fake "plain bladed" NSKK reproduction, surface at the same time - the late 1970s, I believe. Since the signatures match, he believes they were both made by the same forger.
Response: Well, you are almost right in this comment, Craig. It wasn't in the "late 1970s" - it was the EARLY 1970s - but such a distinction is not important in your way of analysing things. The actual details and photos were subsequently published in Angolia's book, in 1974.
As for the identical similarity of the signatures - my conclusion was that they had come from the same original master source. The remaining question is:
a) Are both signatures fraudulent?
or:
b) are we to believe that the fraudulent signature was exactingly copied from a confirmed original master example?

As you clearly feel that you know much better than I on this matter (after all, you are buying these Huhnlein's out of the woodwork all of the time!), please do offer me the benefit of your knowledge - and share it with the rest of the community.

I do not mind your summarising my earlier comments, because I know, Craig, that we are both doing it for the greater benefit of the collecting community.

I await your wisdom, with great interest.

Frederick J. Stephens

Craig,

With reference to the Gruner document which you have kindly supplied, as I was submitting my reply to your earlier comment, would you please supply COMPLETE imagery of all the pages of the membership Card.

The isolated page which you submit, although very interesting, is not sufficient information.

Thank you

FJS

The other portions are entirely blank, so they are irrelevant. I wanted the document to be readable on the forum, thus my cropping. I also cropped out The Mooney's address, on the notarized letter. I have a 2nd document somewhere in my email from Constandy that I will post when I can find it. In the interim, here is another testimony about the aquisition of another NSKK High Leader. It is not as "direct" as mine is, but it's still worthy of inclusion in the body of evidence.

Craig,

I appreciate that if the other pages of the Gruner document are totally blank, then your decision not to waste valuable GD site space with them is entirely understandable. So to save you the concern, and waste of viewer's space, please e-mail the document in its complete entirety to me. Thank you.

Regarding Mr. Mooney, and the notary details, I have no problem with that, and would expect you to protect their private domicile details and any other pertinent information concerning their privacy.

As a follow on comment about R. Gruner - and I do not doubt that the engraving on the scabbard locket is authentic (really looking forward to seeing this!) - my original concept is that these daggers were constructed out of original authentic Honour Daggers, and that the fake chains are the portion which turns them into much more valuable "High Leader" examples. Well it equally applies that the perpetrators converting these unchained SA Honour Daggers, could just as easily convert an original NSKK Honour Dagger into a "High Leader" pattern. So whether or not Mr. Gruner is in fact (or was) an NSKK Leader, becomes an interesting aside to the whole issue. If he can be shown to originally have served in the NSKK, then my argument can focus only on whether or not the chains, markings, and signature, are real. Whereas if Mr. Gruner is documented only as a member of the SA, then your argument becomes distinctly weakened. Personally I hope that he can be shown to be a member of the NSKK - it makes it all so much more interesting, and challenging!

FJS

Are you guys going to start flogging this dead horse again ? The last time there was going to be a big debate at the MAX show with all the experts on hand. When I asked what ever became of that discussion I was told not to bring such matters up ??? So I really do not give a hoot about these high priced relics one way or the other,unless I find one at a garage sale. They have the kiss of death.Just my opinion but like so many other things you already know that.

Apologies. The attachment did not load.



Yet another testimony, albeit not as "first hand" as my recent discovery.

As for Fred's refinement of his arguments, that is fine. No intent to misrepresent on my part - merely a quick summary as I remembered the 3 arguments.

I see failings with the reverse markings on the silver chains, but to me, there are two logical and possible explanations:

1) They are fraudulent
2) They are real, and something else must account for their "slop appeal."

Given the evidence in support of these daggers, I believe that conclusion #2 is the best explanation, and I am fine not knowing the answer "why" #2 is true. One could ask the same question "why" about any number of anomalies and mysteries that hobby experience has shown are not as we would like them to be, but nonetheless are associated with real pieces. Use your imagination, and you'll come up with your own examples of "unanswered questions" about real artifacts. I commend Fred for being the first to notice that the markings on the back of silver-chain examples were lacking in quality and execution.

I have no issues with the signatures, as it's known that no two signatures are exactly alike, and the Hunlein signature on the blade is close enough to other signatures of Hunlein, all of which differ from each other to some degree. However, the most compelling argument was made by an associate. In order to believe the account that these are fraudulent, you have to believe the following:

Someone many decades ago, taking a box of original SA Honor Daggers, hatched a worldwide conspiracy to sprinkle them around the world, with strict orders that they would come out of the woodwork under the most natural circumstances, with often NO profit motif. This is not likely.

Regarding the signatures, I dug this up from an earlier GDC thread:



It's a collage of Hunlein singatures. Note they are all sufficiently similar. In addition, Fred Prinz, on this link:

http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/...573/m/9960043305/p/4

Shows that the signature on the "fake" dagger is similar, but no exactly like, the signature on the original. I think a side-by-side comparison will show that the signatures are different.

But to return to the topic at hand, this thread was started by me to bring to light the first ever documented "direct" veteran family find of an NSKK dagger, which is documented to have been seen in the 1960s, a full 10 years before this craziness was said to have occured. I would suggest that those who wish to review the 'arguments' visit the above-noted thread. No sense in repeating the arguments here. It is in this spirit that I will soon post the THIRD testimony regarding the example that recently surfaced in Denmark, and was purchased by me from the "picker" who has since traveled to the "source" to get a letter signed by the person who found the dagger originally. If Gailen can be convinced to write a statement about HIS find (a most interesting find) we will then have 4 good testimonies with varying degrees of strength, to add to the historical record.

Just a note to all who are planning to attend the MAX Show: The seminar program will MAINLY consist of a Round Table Discussion Forum on German Third Reich Daggers with Frederick J. Stephens, Tom Johnson, Tom Wittmann and a few others concerning questions from eMail and on site attendees on Friday evening.
I was going to introduce this via the different internet forums on September 1, but seeing this as an opportunity, am informing you now.
So, if Craig plans to attend, this topic, along with some others I have already received, WILL be put up for discussion.
There will also be a paper on price changes during the 25 years the MAX Show has been occurring in the field of TR relics as part of the seminar program.
Ron Weinand
MAX Show Seminar Coordinator

Since I was mentioned. So there is no misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Here is some information that (just offhand) I don’t recall if I included in the original thread or not.

The signature on the plaque matches not the blades. Nor that of the earlier other document cited (a souvenir photograph to Göbbels ?). Instead the plaque signature matches the signed full sized photograph on page 3 of the book: “(NSKK) 10. DREITAGE MITTELGEBIRGSFAHRT 1938”. With that copy of the very limited edition book being presented on the flyleaf to “Eduard Dransfeld, Generalmajor u. Inspektor des Kraftfahrwesens der Luftwaffe im R.L.M. [Reichsluftfahrtministerium] Berlin 10. Dreitagfahrt im Jahr 1938”.

With a primary difference being the letter “n” being turned down at the end, not up. As seen in this attached image. FP

1938 NSKK Book Link

It should also be noted that the signature on the plaque also does not match exactly, the signature on the autographed photo. Both the plaque and the photo are real. So you have a case here where NONE of the signatures match each other exactly, which is what we would expect of a signature. If you don't believe me, look at your checkbook. Or, I can quote one of the leading autograph experts in the world - I just have to locate his book, which I just got finished reading

Ron: I think this topic would be an excellent subject for part of the seminar. I will be in attendance and will be glad to share my personal experiences if asked. I would also be glad to bring visual aids to contribute to the discussion.

Thanks for the advanced notice guys.

My apologies Frog: Here is the post I was referring to:



You accurately state in the post that both signatures are NOT identical as alleged. But as I stated earlier, there are other threads where we debate this. I just wanted to provide the latest evidence for the historical record, in the form of my recent discovery, plus the other scanned documents I have presented.

Craig, I’m in agreement that when we sit down to write a check the signature is never exactly the same. Neither are personal hand written autographs. No argument there, although I seem to remember that hand writing analysts (in criminal matters) use certain characteristics to detect fraudulent signatures.

However: When a tool and die maker creates a set of stamping dies. Stamped object # 1 (like a plaque) is probably going to be virtually identical to object # 100. By object # xxxx it might start to break down a little on the microscopic level which can create observable differences.

Likewise in a production environment, etching masks created from a master are going to be very close. Which is why the Himmler signatures on blades from the same maker are not all over the landscape - but are generally fairly consistent from one to the other. This is also why the motto portions of blades from a particular maker are reasonably consistent. (Although sometimes small differences are noted because the masks often have to be cleaned up a little manually after they are applied which can create miniscule variations. The position of the mask can shift a little etc.)

There is much less effort and almost no cost in making an etching mask. As compared to individually creating a raw signature time after time, on blade after blade. With a greatly increased risk of making errors. Like especially (IMO) that very first example in the original discussion, which is at the bottom right of the just posted collage.

PS: To the best of my immediate recollection, it was not just a random signature/dedication to a high level TR leader in the book. Generalmajor u. Inspektor des Kraftfahrwesens der Luftwaffe Dransfeld and the NSKK were working together. With the NSKK helping in training personnel for the Luftwaffe. The first signature that was posted? FP

Agree with you. But to keep matters simple, so we can return to the new information posted, I submit the following, which I am sure we can agree on:

The Huhnlein signature on the back of the damascus blades are all identical to each other with respect to shape. They do not match identically with the "fake" inscription on the back of the plain-bladed fake (as has been alleged), and all observable Huhnlein signatures exhibit variations - printed, etched, cast: whatever the medium.

But again, lets get back to the new documentary evidence, which I will be adding to over the next few days.

Well, there's one thing for sure - the debate ain't over.

Craig, As to what we can agree on, at least from my perspective, I think that it depends on what it is.

1) The Huhnlein signature on the back of the damascus blades are all identical to each other with respect to shape.

Yes and no. They are generally similar, but exhibit (IMO) noticeably more variations that comparable Himmler signed blades. (See attached.)

2) They do not match identically with the "fake" inscription on the back of the plain-bladed fake (as has been alleged),

I’m not quite sure what is going on with this one. And it’s a little hard to say for sure (at this late date) from an old photograph in print. Could it be just be poor workmanship versus something intentional? A problem with an etching mask, or a less skilled worker? Unknown. See second image.

3) and all observable Huhnlein signatures exhibit variations - printed, etched, cast: whatever the medium.

I disagree. I don’t ever expect to see significant variations in stamped plaques. Or cast ones using the same (master) mold for that matter - other than them breaking down. And I would not expect to see really significant variations in the etched signatures on blades from the same maker (except to the same extent that we see for example minor variables with the Himmler etches). Which does not seem to be the case here. And because the plaque signature more closely matches the one in the book. I think that it has more credibility as to what his “official” signature was supposed to look like.

4)But again, lets get back to the new documentary evidence, which I will be adding to over the next few days.

That’s fine. But I’m not as interested in the documentation as much as I am the dagger itself. By way of explanation: The guy with the P-38 pistol that I mentioned earlier had a ton of documentation. With no disrespect intended to the original owner. His problem was once the item was looked at. There was no question that it had been significantly altered in the postwar period. With the documentation really only proving that he acquired that particular pistol from that individual. My point being that for that particular item - the item itself told the story. And the documentation had no real value as regards its current configuration.

And I would also add, without seeing an item first, how do we properly evaluate the supporting documentation?? (Usually it is the other way around.) FP

Attached: An image of some signatures which I think I’ve posted before in an earlier thread. Showing some of the variables in signatures. My best recollection is that there was permission to post these images, which has not always been the case, and if I have erred I apologize.

And possibly what the blade in the book was supposed to have looked like when the name was etched(??).

I'm glad I tuned in for this discussion. It is very interesting. Thanks for providing the GPB #19161 for Herr Gr?ner on the party file card Craig. He was living in Landau an der Isaar in 1935, so he was a Brigadef?hrer in Brigade Bayerische-Ostmark? That is the Gau where he was registered.

I thought I would add these two H?hnlein signatures to the discussion. The one on the left is from a page of an old Manion's catalog that I found in my copy of Angolia's NSKK/NSFK book. The signature on the right is from a 1936 NSKK clothing/equipment manual. The signatures shown in Hamilton's book on III Reich signatures seem all to be of the "falling N tail" variety that seem to be common for him after 1939 till he died in 1942. Perhaps caused by complications with his health?

Hey FJS, did you ever find out if that two handed sword you sent me photos of eons ago was in fact a III Reich executioner's sword?

Craig,
The images that you show from the 1974 book are misleading, in the sense that the image of the damascus blade was not photographed head-on. The original print of the photo shows the lower edge of the blade (and the signature) to be closer to the camera - and thus you have a slightly distorted and parallexed view of the signature image. This may account for some of the "differences" that you detect.

The photo of the signature on the steel blade was taken more or less overhead, but I do agree that the lighting was such as to limit the clarity of the image.

Subject to minor variations occasioned by etching times and acid exposure, I still feel that the images are identical to each other - and will search my records for better photographic evidence.

Fred Prinz, glad to see your contributions - you have a great eye for the finer details, and I will look forward to your continued observations.

Joe W. Your information about Herr Gruner is excellent (his existence was never in doubt), but where does it say that he was an NSKK-Brigadefuhrer? Even if he was, I still maintain that the dagger has been tampered with.

Regarding the Third Reich "Executioner's Sword" (yes, it is true - such a method was used during the Third Reich, as well as guillotine), I finally concluded that it was a "pageant" sword - as carried in those mock medieval pan-Germanic displays that were popular at the time. My example bears the Alcoso trademark.

Execution swords, it appears, were normally square tipped. They had only one purpose, and it wasn't combat. An recreated example of this pattern is in the Deutsche Klingenmuseum, it was made by Prof. Woenne in the 1930s. Images of it are shown in my "Edged Weapons of the Third Reich" book.

FJS

FJS,I wrote "...so he was a Brigadef?hrer in Brigade Bayerische-Ostmark?" That is a question to be answered.

Remember I wrote to you that axes were also used for executions?

Erich Benndorff did the research and determined that Gruner was promoted to Brigadefuhrer in 1941. Erich can cite the source.

Thanks to Joe Wotka for his additions to the discussion. Especially for what I am assuming is a 1936 print version of Hühnlein’s signature. I don’t ever recall seeing it in what is essentially a more vertical configuration (versus slanted). With the addition of a couple of fairly prominent umlaut dots. A very interesting variation.

I also think that there is now enough evidence to safely push back the “falling N tail" version of his official signature to 1937 (thanks again to Joe for this very apt description - it now has a name). With the further addition (from the other thread) of Helumt Weitze’s award plaque (via Craig) covering the bases for what looks like 1938. (Weitze’s plaque is cut off, but that is what the date looks like to me.)

Which leads me to ask a couple of questions. I’m not an NSKK specialist, and did not do an exhaustive search, but one of my books puts the NSKK Hühnlein dagger at 1938. With presumably the daggers being manufactured somewhere close to that date. Is this universally accepted as a good date? Which leads me to the next. If R. Grüner was promoted to Brigadefuhrer on November 9, 1941. At what point was it supposed to have been presented to him? And when was it supposed to have been made? FP

This dagger reminds me of the die flawed S+L RKs. They were unanimously considered original by all until one self proclaimed expert (who was pretty good for the most part) decided they were fake. For a few years having one was like having the plaque. All of a sudden it was proven to be original, big surprise to many of us! For those of us who have been collecting for some time, the first hotel buyer vet purchased one decades ago. I am pretty sure although someone can confirm this that Gailen David vet purchased one of these also.
Best Wishes,
Bob

JoeW,

Yes, you are right, you did phrase your statement as a question with an interrogation mark (?) at the end of it. I should have been more precise in my comment about it. The issue for myself is, was Herr Gruner in the NSKK? Brigadefuhrers were also ranked in the SA as well as the SS.

Regarding execution axes - yes that is also true. I was really only trying to respond to your question about the sword - and that my ultimate conclusion was that it was a "pageant sword". I still have it, I can make up a better set of photos if you wish - the general style pattern is that of a Landesknecht, a type of general fighting sword which was apparently favoured by mercenaries. But that is another issue,let us not get diverted by discussing it here.

Fred Prinz, you stated: "I’m not an NSKK specialist, and did not do an exhaustive search, but one of my books puts the NSKK Hühnlein dagger at 1938."

OK, Fred, that is a valued observation, so can you pin-point this source of information, please?

My interest here is that if the Huhnlein daggers were introduced in 1938 - same time frame as the adoption of the regular chains - then why do these de-luxe presentation examples have such a poor quality centre mount? To say nothing of the dubious quality of the rest of the chains!

If the Huhnlein Honour Daggers date from this period, then one might expect them to have the 1936-1941 style trademark - regardless of whether or not they have damascus or plain steel blades. Is that not correct?

FJS

FJS, I think you already know what some of my feelings are as regards the quality control of some of the daggers. With over 2500 hits - I’m also fairly certain that among the SA/NSKK plus Cognoscenti/Specialists out there - some of them have answers to your questions.

In the interim I will PM you with the information on the book (which I think I am interpreting correctly.) But what I really would like to see is some input from some others. To either corroborate or refute some of these technical matters like the dates etc.

PS: I think Bob’s (RFI) point is well taken. But there is a flip side to that coin as well. How many thousands of items that have spent years and years in collections are found out to be fakes? On forums such as this one? FP

I think it would be good to heed the remark that Frederick J. Stephens made in the recent thread about Hammesfahr etches:

"Do NOT believe any description proclaiming that something is "TEXTBOOK". There is no such thing - because there are too many authentic variations with the originals (and they are recognised by other collectors)."

Are these authentic variations ?

Dave

One thing that always baffles me is the direct vet buy and it must be good because it was bought at a motel buy or from the estate or family of so & so. My dad was a WW2 82nd airborne saw allot of combat and was highly decorated and I do have a few things he brought back he also picked up some stuff over the years - just because it was bought from a vet or his family doesn’t mean it returned with him . Buy the piece on the merits of it not the story.

I bought a WW II vintage German army sword from a vet a few years ago. It had a shooting lanyard attached to the scabbard ring and the vet assured me this was exactly how he took it off the captured German soldier.
Jim

WW2-Collector...I couldnt agree with you MORE...
Direct Vet Buy...Motel Buy...SO What,does this mean the item is more original?

Sepp

Hi Guys!
I totally agree with the “vet buy” story however, as I mentioned earlier this dagger was never questioned by anyone except Fred. He did wonders for the hobby eons ago but I think times are different now. Those of you who know me know that I truly strive to only handle unquestionable material. I do my research and I know who to listen to on what topics. This is one person against the establishment. Against, many of the most respected people in the hobby who were active before most of us were collecting.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Bob, in defense of Fred (what a surprise, eh), history is filled with one person being "against the establishment" and that one person, still 100% right (Copernicus comes to mind). However, in this particular case, your analysis is, I believe correct Bob - Fred is wrong in my opinion. I also agree that while "I bought it from a vet" is not a suitable "cover-all" for artifacts, these pieces, especially the one I just bought), come with more than that. These pieces stand on their own merits, are surprisingly consistent when they come out of the woodwork. Dave: I do like the Fred Stephens quote you referenced, and think it is appropriate to mention again:

""Do NOT believe any description proclaiming that something is "TEXTBOOK". There is no such thing - because there are too many authentic variations with the originals (and they are recognised by other collectors)."

The only difference is, these NSKK High Leaders do exhibit "textbook" qualities that 99% of the world agree on. Fred has done a good job of observing certain anomalies that are not currently explainable. But we do have a photo of one such dagger in wear, one with a period personalization on the upper crossguard, one that was actually modified to make the "silver-cartouch fitting" more functional, and we have between 1 and 4 daggers of this type with excellent provenance, depending on how much credence you give each of the written testimonies that I am presenting in this thread.

Craig, Obviously you have owned and/or handled multiple examples of these (Hühnlein) daggers. And seem to have done quite a bit of research as well. A couple of entries back in this thread I asked a couple of what I thought were fairly simple questions. The answers to which I hope you are willing to share with us.

* Where these daggers authorized in 1938, or is that a bad date, and what should it be?

* Keeping the above in mind, when do you think they were manufactured?

* And the criteria for the award of the dagger was based on?

Thanks for your help, FP

Fred Prinz, to answer your questions:

1) Nobody (including me) knows when they were created or authorized or whatever. A lot of information has a way of appearing, and it is my sincere hope that, like the Offermann photo showing the silver-chain in wear, more photos will eventually surface.

2) I prefer not to speculate on when they were made (of course, I like 99.9% believe that they were made before 1945 ).

3) Nobody knows the criteria specifically, just like nobody really knows how and why and when the SA Honor or SS Honor was distributed.

Regarding signatures, I wish to clarify my statement about them: it is fruitless to compare a Huhnlein Dagger signature to other period signatures on other artifacts and photos, because as my archive that I am building will show in the other "sister-thread" to this thread, every time a person signs something, the signature is slightly different. It would be ONE thing if Huhnlein's signature on the blade did not look ANYTHING LIKE Huhnlein's other signatures in the body of signatures we observe. But they do, which says to me that there is nothing inherently "bad" about the signature on the back of the blade of these daggers.

Now, if we could only find one of the "plain-bladed fakes" of the NSKK with Huhnlein signature, we could put the matter to rest once and for all whether or not they are identical or not, to the damascus-bladed examples.

Also, it should be stated that the documentary evidence that is being presented about the origin of many of these daggers is not the same as someone stating without support "Hey, I got it from a Vet."

I now see that the item in question is not shown on your site or even here so again my bad for not understanding all this! I just figured with all the hoopla here it was pictured somewhere. Maybe if your looking for other info you should open threads up at other forums maybe you will get others who dont frequent here to look at what information you are posting and maybe they have other photos or know of another type like you say this is. After re-reading all those older 2007 posts this seems to be a rehash of all of that. It looks like the two sides of the fence never were on the same page then and now. Jason and gailen said their peice and if no one knows much more than was posted then,seems a wheel spinning venture now to me. I think this should have waited until you have the item in hand and have photos. When a few members here were debating the luft machete topic this winter the subject advanced pro and con and everyone used their pieces for examples and the topic moved along towards an end even though we didnt know exact dates of issue and why materials were used in some cases. Not everything was answered but the topic closed with everyone learning. This is starting to look like a guessing game.
Bret Van Sant

Hi
I'm not a "daggers specialist" but I like to learn on nskk.
Maybe can I help you?
I know that Andreas Schulz, a staff member of axis history forum; was searching on a NSKK-BF Grüner Richard :
http://forum.axishistory.com/v...f=5&t=23298&p=202487
You can ask him if he found someone.
Your BF was certainly in the Motorgruppe Bayerische-Ostmark or Hochland (renamed "Adolf Hühnlein" after he deceased).
I will see when I have time if I have something in my documentation on this Grüner.
Cheers

Hi Everyone,heres a Huhnlein chained NSKK forsale here,nats

http://www.egun.de/market/item...3a89adc8de4d1c1d#img

And here's a signature on an original damascus piece (the Bias example).



These two signatures are very different.

Hi
at this moment I have found :
1941 was Richard Grüner Oberführer, leader of the Motorgruppe Bayerische-Ostmark.
Promoted NSKK-Brigadeführer at 9-11-1941.
I hope this help you?
Cheers

If 1 was given to Karl Offermann I'd think a possible reference in his Personalakte is worth looking into. Being an NSKK-Obergruppenführer since September 5, 1938, and a Reichstag member from '36 to the end of the war, I'd think he'd have a rather large (detailed) file. His family is probably all gone for any personal knowledge confirmation/details from the period since he died in July 1956 at age 71, but he was living in Freiburg when he passed away if someone has the diplomacy to investigate.

I have some other matters to attend to. But in the interim, here is a quick comparison of three blades. The one from Stan, the Bias example, and the one that started this topic a while back (in an earlier thread) on the bottom.

Everyone is going to have to be their own judge as to the signatures. And while I see both similarities and differences. Taking into account that the one on top is etched on plain carbon steel versus Damascus. Starting with the first "H", and working our way to the right, how different are the signatures? FP

Fred Prinz

Based upon the images that you have presented, the "basic steel blade" appears to display notable differences to the Huhnlein signature as shown on the "regular damascus steel blades".

As the basic steel blade is commonly presumed to be totally fake, then perhaps we may anticipate that some variation may occur with these faked pieces - or should all the fakes display the same characteristics?

By the same definition - that the damascus pieces are presumed to be totally original - then should we not expect that such etched signatures on those blades should also be totally consistent with each other; because they are not!

My argument has always been that these pieces are not right, and the current evidence appears to support that opinion.

FJS

To further explain the commentary on these etched signatures; It seems to be incomprehensible that we have these "Huhnlein signatures" with such a range and variation of quality and appearance.

We do not appear to have this extreme variation with "Rohm" and "Himmler" signatures, so why should we accept it as tolerable on these "Hunlein signatures"? The whole issue seems to be in grave doubt - and none of Craig's glib answers appear to actually address the real question.

This is my honest opinion.

Frederick J. Stephens

FJS you are so positive in you opinion on these blades.It seems that you have somekind of information on them that you are privy to and cannot or will not devulge it.

I hope this digression is acceptable given the subject of this thread. I do not profess to be knowledgeable about all the various and sundry III Reich blades. But please explain to me what happened to the NSKK High Leader dagger shown on Angolia's book and supported with period photo? Was it deemed a hoax?

Craig, Thanks for the followup. If no one knows of any period documentation, and it all hinges on something like the Offermann photo. Then that’s all there is. Also, I wasn't looking for a ‘pre-1945’ answer. What I was looking for was your best estimate/information as to the actual date of manufacture for the daggers.

Which brings me to the signatures: You stated: “every time a person signs something, the signature is slightly different.” That’s true. But that has no relevance in my view when it comes to what is (presumably) an official signature on a plaque. Or in print, where the mechanism doing the printing is fixed. Because unlike handwritten signatures, things like die sets and printing plates don’t change from one impression to the next.

Of course if you are saying that each dagger had the signature added to the blade by hand. Not with an etching mask. But with the individual doing the work for each dagger one at a time, scrapping away a part of a (blank) mask to create the letters. Then I think that we might have some agreement because of the variations seen with the daggers. As exemplified in the last image I posted, and some others.

Also, as regards” “..... it is fruitless to compare a Huhnlein Dagger signature to other period signatures on other artifacts and photos, because ..... every time a person signs something, the signature is slightly different.” Once again, on solid metal objects, or a printed page? Why is that fruitless, and how do we know Hühnlein himself signed some of those photos?

FJS, I really don’t want to detract from the signature part of this discussion. But earlier you stated: “ I have stated on several occasions that the issue with the markings on the back of the cartouche, the so called hallmarks and Otto Gahr marking, is that they are FAKED. The are crudely cast into the reverse ......”. In my humble opinion you are absolutely correct. And while the images I used to show that earlier were posted on the first thread. I have seen much better evidence that I am not at liberty at this time to share.

(And to be fair: With the dagger that is the topic of this current discussion it’s a complete unknown at this point. As the Hühnlein daggers are found in multiple configurations using different quality parts, and I have no idea where this one might fit into the scheme of things.) FP

Fred Prinz has just written about the "template".That is my question ,we know Himmler and Rohm daggers were produced in quanity.Now how often were these dagger we are reading about produced ?.Mass produced sitting on a shelf to be awarded.Once a month ,on a special day to special personal ??.Was the same template used or destroyed and new ones made everytime and finally who did the signatures for all the items ,some worker in the shop copying a signature ? May sound like a lot of dumb questions to the "experts " in this field ( not meant as an insult)But they have been on my mind from the start.

Zorro,

No, I do not have any exclusive information concerning my knowledge on these Huhnlein daggers. Everything I relate to, or refer to, can be tracked on this site as a statements attributable to myself.

My basic problem with these Huhnlein pieces is that an identifiably fake specimen of hallmarking occurred on some of these early pieces. Until I can get that issue resolved, there will always remain (in my mind, and in my opinion) a recurring doubt that these items are not as honest as they ought to be. That is my genuine opinion - and I also believe that it is the truth.

Frederick J. Stephens

To be very short and to the point, my discussion of signature variations is presented ONLY to illustrate that Fred cannot discount the damascus signature merely because it does not match exactly to a single penned signature. That was, I believe, one argument that is now dispensed with.

I would suggest that any variation with respect to the Huhnlein signature on the damascus blade, can fairly be ascribed to the fact that these were not production items. This is shown by the two types of chains, suggesting that these were not all made up in one batch. As is the case with almost ALL of the damascus dagger types, we don't have records from Eickhorn that explain exactly what they were used for.

To return to the main issue at hand, however. There is mounting evidence that these daggers can be traced out of the woodwork with increasing frequency. Fred stands alone as the one expert who doesn't believe in them. He has even gone so far as to dismiss my dagger before even seeing it. This is not fair scientific inquiry. We've seen the following:

1) One NSKK come out of the woodwork through Gailen David in North Carolina I believe, that was MODIFIED FOR WEAR.

2) One NSKK that came out, directly from a veteran family in Pittsburgh, with a personalization to an obscure Brigadefuhrer in the NSKK.

3) One photo of the illusive NSKK with "suspect" silver chain in wear by an NSKK Gruppenfuhrer.

4) One come out in Denmark last summer, found on a farm (full story coming later, as soon as I get the written statement).

5) One that came out through Ken Brethaur, of Herman Goering Wedding Sword fame, in the state of Washington.

These daggers found all over the world, spanning across a period of 4 decades or more, which totally eliminates the profit motive for any faker. Remember - in order for this to be a fraudulent dagger type, someone in the 1960s had to volunteer his stash of original SA Honor Daggers to be taken OFF the market, modified, and then slowly released over almost 1/2 of a century to the collecting public. Where is the sense in that? Would ANY reader of this thread choose to dispense with a box full of SA Honor Daggers in this way?

This evidence continues to mount, and the family of veteran Mooney is planning to attend the MAX show, and will be glad to face Fred Stephens, who is free to interview them. I'm sure that when he's done speaking with them, he'll believe their story. They are good people, and their father was on record stating that he brought this back from the war. This is NOT a "chrome plated PPK" we're talking about here.

Ed, A long while ago I was in correspondence with a blade maker, and one of the topics was the etching process. He very kindly sent me an unused mask (blade template) which I think that I still have that is packed away somewhere with some correspondence. The blade templates (masks) themselves were used one time. Makers kept the screens to make the masks, and usually made them in at least small quantities to keep on hand to avoid unnecessary handling. Or to replace one if a mask already on a blade was damaged for some reason before etching. With the masks being stored until needed.

Craig, If you are saying that every time when Hühnlein hand wrote his signature it was different, then we are in agreement, and that component of the discussion can be dispensed with. And I'm hoping that there is enough evidence for you that his signature did not change using fixed media. And that part of the discussion can also be dispensed with as well.

“I would suggest that any variation with respect to the Huhnlein signature on the damascus blade, can fairly be ascribed to the fact that these were not production items. This is shown by the two types of chains, suggesting that these were not all made up in one batch.”

As I described to Ed, even if Hühnlein ordered these 8, 10, 12, 20, 25 or ? daggers one at a time. Why should the signatures be so different? Including that messed up example I posted earlier. This is the Carl Eickhorn firm we are discussing not some small mom and pop business operating out of a storefront. And does nothing to explain those amateurish castings with the fake cast in (supposed) “Gahr” markings that F.J. Stephens commented on.

“To return to the main issue at hand, however. There is mounting evidence that these daggers can be traced out of the woodwork with increasing frequency.”

An interesting statement. But the proof is with the items themselves. Sprinkled in among all these daggers all “coming out of the woodwork” there might be an original. Who knows?

BTW: “This is NOT a "chrome plated PPK" we're talking about here.” A quick FYI: Although the Walther firm designed and manufactured both the PPK and P 38 pistols. They are quite different, and Spreewerke GmbH never made the “PPK”. FP

A better close up of one of the signatures already posted:

Fred Prinz: let me be clear on one thing. I don't have to explain anything with regard to these daggers. The testimonial evidence is credible, IS important, and should NOT be brushed aside, as you suggest. Tell me, do you believe these daggers are real? If not, I want you to explain one thing: please paint the scenario of how they were likely produced and disributed into the woodwork throughout the world, at little or no profit, and throughout nearly 1/2 a century of time. You've got to come up with a credible hypothesis to explain hwo this happened. In fact, I ask ANYONE to come up with a credible hypothesis? At the end of the day, I will stand with the Mooney Dagger as my proof that these are real.

Craig, You don’t have to explain anything to anyone. None of us do. But testimonies are just that. Testimonies. Which by themselves, are just one more factor to be taken into account. With some more credible than others. And still others lacking any credibility.

You asked: “do you believe these daggers are real”? Maybe. But do I believe those Hühnlein daggers with the (amateur week) poor quality silver fittings, and fake markings are real? No way. Although parts of the daggers no doubt started out their existence as genuine daggers.

As to a scenario - maybe you should reread Mark Yerger’s comments. With fake and/or altered items from the even the 1950's, and of course the 60's and 70's (and later) constantly emerging as the owners pass on. I'm absolutely certain that you have seen some of them in your travels, as most of us have. (I once started to prepare a list with images of fakes/altered items that I have seen since my time on the Internet, but gave up. It was overwhelming and took too much time.) I would also add that what seems incredible now does not really apply. Because as Mark mentioned, a lot of what we now see now at high prices was sold years ago for very low prices. And if the item was a little tired or worn - there were discounts at even those low prices. And there was a LOT of fooling around.

As for: “At the end of the day, I will stand with the Mooney Dagger as my proof that these are real.”. Maybe it will. And maybe it won’t. But if all you have are testimonies. And it has those fake silver parts, don’t expect me to be won over on the basis of some postwar testimonies or paperwork. FP

quote:

Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb:
I have just returned from Pennsylvania, where I just purchased, directly from the family of the deceased veteran, a chained NSKK High Leader dagger with Hunlein inscription. I video'd about 1 hour of interviews with the family, and got a notarized statement from them, placing the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. I've got photos, DD214s, sworn statements from the son of the veteran (who is a Vietnam veteran as well), as well as a lot of interesting video testimony. Dagger is in outstanding condition, and photos will be forthcoming. I will also be editing the video and posting it on my website in due course.

Craig, I don't think you can accurately assert that the notarized statement places the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. The statement by the seller merely states that his first recollection of seeing the "knife" (dagger) was in 1963 when it his father displayed it. There is no evidence when the dagger was acquired, no "bringhome papers", nothing? The knife/dagger was seen in 1963 and found 46 years later in a safe deposit box. Was the son joint owner of the safe deposit box with his father? If not, was there a wife as co-owner? If not, there should be an inventory of a deceased single owner box, or how would the son gain entry?

And the son's testimony offers no hear-say evidence of what the vet said. He didn't talk much about the war or how (or when) he acquired the three items: knife, pistol and binoculars.

These are logical questions that arise from your opening statement and the "testimony" of the seller.

Craig, I have to apologize for misreading the testimonial letter from the seller of the dagger. Of course he wrote that his father died in 1980 and it resided in his own safe deposit box until his wife closed out the box. So it was not unseen from 1963 until 2009. He received it from his father in 1980.

Joe: Good questions, and no problem misreading the letter at all. I know you've got good intentions. However, more information is all on the 2 hours of video that I shot at their home. I'll likely re-shoot it at MAX this year, under better lighting conditions and with more professional sound. My intent was to document this story in it's entirity, which I have done.

Also, Fred and I have been corresponding privately and have agreed in a renewed spirit of accord, to just disagree on this issue. So you won't see us arguing in public about it anymore. The dagger is posted on my website, and I hope you all enjoy it.

There appear to be accusations or insults creeping into this discussion. I would to all concerned to be polite and understanding.

Thanks

Should this unfortunately continue Dave, we would hope that a Draconian solution not be adopted that would close the thread. Rather those offending persons should be punished. This is much too interesting and informative to be closed.

First, I would like to thank Craig for posting the images on his web site which gets right to the heart of the matter. (And I think helps to cut out a lot of the unnecessary back and forth, which I suspect at times has sometimes been a little less than productive.)

Here is some more ‘food for thought’ - with hopefully some input from others who have some technical expertise in this area. This is the best that I could do at the moment, with a reasonably close up comparison of three of the signatures, including this latest example in the center.

I may have to re-calibrate my thinking on how the Hühnlein signatures were made. Before this last example I thought that they were acid etched. As exemplified by this close up of the squirrel, showing the visible “grain” in the Damascus steel with the etching acid eating away at the unprotected area.

Here is a close up of the signature for this latest dagger. I can’t be completely sure from the image because there may be computer generated artifacts. But it almost looks like it was (rotary?) engraved to give it more depth before being treated with acid? With my thinking being that acid left in it long enough too make it that deep. Would also have attacked the softer steels more aggressively making the grain structure at the (letter) bottoms more pronounced, instead of having what seems to be some letters with relatively smooth bottoms. (Perhaps some even closer images will help. But this is what I seem to be seeing at the moment.)

The two together. FP

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion but I think this is related so here goes.
Fred:
Didn't we hit a similiar problem when we were discussing how the inscription was completed on the recently surfaced damascus Goring Industrial sword?
Jim

Jim, Yes, it is somewhat similar. But only to the extent that I think that there was agreement during the discussion that the letters on the sword had been engraved. Versus being forged by hand which I think had been suggested by the seller or someone representing the sword (?) when it first surfaced (I’m not entirely certain with that particular recollection). If memory serves me correctly Damast (James) in the GDC discussion even suggested a particular type of machine that could do that type work.

But with the dagger I think that there are some differences. The borders of the letters in the Hühnlein signature are, in at least my view, noticeably more irregular than those of the sword. Which to me suggests it could have been done by hand. Or possibly using a light duty template? Not a certainty at this point. But is an area I would be looking into more closely based on what I seem to be seeing at the moment. Fred

I took another look at the signature of the Hühnlein dagger belonging to Grant Bias, and another I had on file. Both exhibit what I am at the present interpreting as machine engraving. Either of the hand held, or light duty template variety.

While some new ultra close images could possibly change my opinion, for the present my confidence level is growing. I’m also reasonably certain that everyone viewing will ultimately make their own judgments as to what they are seeing in these most recent images. FP

Could this be similar to an autopen or pantograph signing machine? They have been around since about 1800. Thomas Jefferson used one.

I am thinking something similar, but with a miniature grinding tool instead of a pen. The "engraver" just follows a signature on a piece of paper.

?

Dave

Dave, I was thinking of something else, but that’s not a bad idea, and it certainly could have used something like a paper template to follow. I’m also thinking of something more like a Dremel tool, with some kind of a base plate contraption attached. (Similar in concept to a (woodworking) fixed router base with the router bit sticking through the base plate.) Using as you suggested, a ‘ball’ type cutter.

The reason is the 3D nature of the dagger blades, with no seeming evidence of a change in the depth of the cut. Whereas a Dremel tool with a fixed base would follow the contour of the blade. I’m also not locked into the idea of a Dremel tool per se, because there are some 3D pantographs using rotary engravers out there. But they were not as common as now. Here’s another image where I tried to minimize the computer generated artifacts. (It’s not great, but was the best I could do.) Fred

I do not think master swordsmiths would resort to such a rudimental process. If they could put a gold motto and trademark on a Damascus blade I am sure a signature would be no problem. Also there is noway someone is going to hold a hand held rotary tool ridgid enough to cut steel with anykind of precision,maybe a pantograph system could be used but why? and are there any other TR blades with such a process?

My personal view is that they are acid etched. Not only were the manufacturers proficient at this sort of thing, but close up inspection leads me to conclude this. I will try to see if I can take an ultra close-up of the signature. I have seen other "etched" presentations and characters on damascus, and up close, under high resolution, it's easy to see the effects of etching.

Craig, If the blades were later “freshened up” with an acid bath, then they will be etched inside the letters, but most likely not as deeply as they would have been under normal circumstances. My point being that the interiors of the letters should be at least comparable to the squirrel etching if not deeper. So if possible, please also take some more images of the squirrel as a control for the inside of the letters.

Zorro,  There is no factory use of rotary engravers for TR Solingen blade makers (for presentation blades) that I know of, instead using more conventional  methods. There is evidence, however, of engravers being used after an item was sent to the end user. 

One example that comes to mind are the 98K combat bayonets that were sent to the German Kriegsmarine. Engravings were used to add the Naval control/property markings.  As seen with these markings, they are fairly small, being roughly 1/8 inch in height.  Reasonably decent workmanship IMO (the 1939 date is a factory stamping.) FP

Hermann Historica have another of these in their catalogue. Looking at the signature under their web magnifying glass, it does appear to be acid etched. Seem to be few appearing !!! JMO

Rereading: “I do not think master swordsmiths would resort to such a rudimental process. If they could put a gold motto and trademark on a Damascus blade I am sure a signature would be no problem.”

A very interesting point! How much additional cost and effort would be needed to put Hühnlein’s signature in gold on the blade, with the same reasonably precise result as seen with the motto? Instead of the fairly inconsistent ways the signature is actually executed. Or would it actually be less expensive? FP

Spock, I’m not necessarily of the opinion that etching was not used with some of the Hühnlein daggers. This particular example with the (demonstrably) fake cast silver Gahr marked fittings has what looks to me like it might be a botched etching process that “went south”. So it could have been failures that prompted a switchover to rotary engraving. Not a certainty at this point, as a much closer look would be needed with this example to try and make a better determination. Is there any chance that you could post the image(s) that you mentioned? FP

here are some, the best i could manage, hope they are informative

sig

even the previous sig shows slight variations.

Here is the entire item. Good luck with the investigation, this is what forums are for....discussion....

Managed to get a good pic of grip fittings hope they help

upper

This topic needs to be discussed at the Round Table on Daggers at the MAX Seminar Program on Friday nite.
Also, as each damascus blade exhibits different hardness and any etching would vary with the metal, there will be minor changes in the application.
This model honor dagger has been found over the years from different veterans and I know of at least 3 different ones than those mentioned here.
JMO,
Ron Weinand

Ron, That this topic was going to discussed at the MAX I took as a given. And there are a number of other daggers out there, and I don’t if you were including those attributed to Jason, or some others (or not). I’m also in agreement that etching is affected by the composition of the steel, which is something the Germans were counting on. Without those different layers there would be no Damascus pattern.

As for the dagger that Spock contributed, I’ve seen a lot of Hühnlein daggers with tired blades. Some more than others. But this example has set a new boundary, at least for me. I don’t ever remember seeing one quite as bad as this.

My thanks to Spock, because the more daggers that we see now. The better we are informed, and prepared for any discussion or discussions. The motto:

The best close up that I could accomplish of the signature.

The signature a little further away, along with a filter adjustment and the squirrel for comparison. I would like to get a lot closer to the signature to be absolutely sure. But considering what the blade has gone through it does not IMO look quite right. With no rust in the signature, and not seeing any grain structure visible either. It looks to me to be more of a later add on to the blade. (But of course, everyone can be their judge as to what is. Or is not, going on with the blade.) FP

I am ALL FOR a discussion of this dagger type at the MAX show, and will be glad to provide anything by way of contribution to the topic. Regarding the "ugliest NSKK" competition: myself and two other dealers purchased one from a guy who rode into the Kassel show on a bicycle, about 3 years ago. It was void of any scabbard, and the blade was slightly less "holey" than swiss-cheeze. It was truly awful, and I'm glad I don't have a picture of it! Anyway, my NSKK will be on display at the show, and the Mooneys are scheduled to come for a visit. Maybe they would be willing to tell their story for the seminar. I'll ask.

Here are some additional images of the dagger Spock posted, but from a different time frame and web site. A brief look at the images will verify that it’s the same dagger using the location of the pitting spots, and a piece of the blade that is missing as references.

With the most discernible differences here being that of the condition of the logo. With more rust in the vicinity of the logo still being present as compared to the earlier image from Spock (that is labeled "current"). And with both, evidence of rust still being present at the juncture of the crossguard and blade.

With the better overall color values of these images what really caught my eye was the condition of the interior of the Hühnlein signature. I wonder what kind of a story the signature could tell?? To have survived as well as it seems to have done, especially with a blade which has been so abused. It’s really pretty amazing when you think about it, with no discernible rust, and a nice relatively even grayish coloring inside the lettering.

Unfortunately, however, the image is not of a high enough resolution to really see if they is any Damascus “grain” inside the lettering still present or not. To resolve that issue some better images of the dagger would be needed to cross compare the signature with the logo.

With the original Hühnlein dagger thread being able to invert the images was very helpful. Helping to both detect and to confirm that the silver “Gahr” Hühnlein fittings were fakes. So I thought that it might be useful here as well, to help readers in making their own evaluations. First, the signature.

And the Eickhorn logo(s) for comparison. FP

Here is the latest documentation concerning the example that I purchased through a friend of mine in Denmark (Patrice knows this gentleman). So now we have 3 with good documentation. One in Pittsburgh, one in Denmark, and one in Washington State.

I have a quick question: Is there more to the story and photo (like some reasonably decent close up pictures of the dagger). Or is that all there is?

And a typo correction for the dagger images just posted. Make that: “..... the image is not of a high enough resolution to really see if there is any Damascus “grain .....” inside the lettering” FP

Let me try that again: “..... the image is not of a high enough resolution to really see if there is any Damascus grain inside the lettering”..... FP

I have closer photos of the dagger, but not good enough for any serious study.

I would be happy with any photos that you would care to share. Sometimes even less than optimal images show where items fit into the overall scheme of things. FP

Very interesting topic.
Clearly a lot of effort is put into place to make the collecting world accept these daggers with controversial Hühnlein signatures via written testimonials of vet's families, by dealers passing the daggers around, ...etc.

My personal opinion: Fred's analysis and theories are very convincing and seem to hold out!

I also wonder: why such a highend artifact, that (unlike common daggers) started to be collected right after the ending of WW2, never was proved to be original during the past 65 years? The original owners, their families, their friends and their colleagues were still alive and could easily confirm if Hühnlein did award signed daggers or not!

But now, when everybody that could now the truth about these daggers passed away, now, some people want to absolutely proof that they were original after all...

Best greetings,

Herman

Hermann, some of your comments amaze me. When one realizes that the FIRST attempt at identification of any of the daggers appears on the scene in 1958 and there were NO authorities who had any idea of what daggers were associated with which units or people, how would you expect any research or attempts at dagger authentification would have been done??
I was already collecting at that time and believe me, no one really cared and the only reproductions were the parts pieces that the GIs brought back by themselves.
I think that with Fred at the MAX Show Seminars and the roundtable discussion, there will be enough people who have been in the hobby for over 50 years that we will be able to debunk most of this arguement.

Ron, I have some other commitments today so this will be brief. As we speak there is an American dealer who has for sale a presentation SA dagger to SA Standartenführer Ziäbler, another presentation SA dagger to an Otto Voss. And still another presentation (differently done) to Hühnlein himself, by none other than Adoph Hitler. The first two are done in the manner of the Dutch Heilmann "Hühnlein" dagger. Presumably by the same individual or individuals, and I think that there may be some others(?). As for the timing issue (1958), those were from well over 50 years ago. So I think that it's a very fair assumption that somebody had to have been reading some books back then to have come up with those names. And they were originally most likely made to target those who were looking for the rare and/or unusual to add to their collections. Which does not at all preclude a non-collector from buying a postwar altered item, which sometimes happened, especially before many things became so overvalued.

When Craig started this topic a little over two years ago, “Hühnlein” daggers were not on everyone’s “radar screen”, and the daggers were introduced as a rarity. At the subsequent MAX from what I understand, there was not an observable Hühnlein dagger to be found at the show.

My point being that at a round table with someone presenting letters, and testimonials or those relating their personal experiences of 10, 20, 30 etc. years ago is all well and good. But the ultimate test are the objects themselves. (Which is what happened to the “Kaltenbrunner” SS sword (another forum). An absolute fake it had to be physically seen before a reasonably accurate determination could be made).

And that is why this discussion is so important. Because if no daggers show up to be photographed and examined in detail. Then the only physical evidence for any discussion (besides the one Craig has at the moment) will be what has been presented here. Regards, FP

I have removed some insulting/trolling posts that had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Dave

Talk about the Energizer Bunny ! This debate is NOT over

NOTHING has been PROVEN about the silver stamps. NOTHING has been proven about the Kaltenbrunner sword. OPINION is all any of you doubters have-and everyone has one of those.

Houston, you make a statement, and I quote you herewith:

quote:

NOTHING has been PROVEN about the silver stamps. NOTHING has been proven about the Kaltenbrunner sword. OPINION is all any of you doubters have-and everyone has one of those.

I do not know what this business is with the Kaltenbrunner sword (at least not yet, but I am sure that it will come my way - ANY ONE WANT TO TELL ME?); but the general comment should be this:

YES, something HAS BEEN PROVEN about the silver stampings - we have the documented proof - legally defined - CONCERNING WHAT THE SILVER STAMPS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. These marks and forms have been decreed by an act of National legislature. If you wish to check this, and you can do so through any library in the Western world - then the document you want is:
Reichs-Gesetzblatt, Nr. 1, 10 Januar 1886.

There is no argument that these alternative designs or possible "variations" should ever be considered - it just SIMPLY THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT LAWFULY EXIST.

Are you about to tell me that these declarations in law have no relevance in history?

I am sorry Houston, we just made friends again, but on this issue I have to challenge you.

Frederick J. Stephens

I am going to try and interject some information into this thread about silver that I think will be useful considering we have an international discussion going on here.
As someone who used to deal in antiques and both American and Continental silver items from time to time I can assure you there are stark differences in the way this material is regulated here and abroad.
The are NO Federal regulations in the United States inre. to marking silver as this is left up entirely to the manfacturer. The usual markings you will see on silver here is "Sterling" for solid silver which indicates a .925 silver content along with the makers name and perhaps the specific pattern for flat wear. Anything else but solid silver is generally marked with some sort of term indicating silver plate.
In Europe however the regulations for marking silver are stringent,highly controlled and strictly enforced. The silver content is indicated as for example .900, various touch marks are pressed into the metal,indicating the year made and other information and the Government is at liberty to assay metal objects at any time to assure adherence to the regulations. This is and has been true in Great Britian,France, Italy,Spain and of course Germany for Centuries as well as other countries.
When someone from Europe is talking about marking issues with silver items Americans must understand that there are severe penalties for mis-marking items in their Countries and this is treated very seriously.
I don't know if this helps but perhaps it will minimize any misunderstandings about the importance of markings on silver from a Eurpoean perspective.
Jim

I really don’t want to get away from the primary focus now, which is more on the differently executed signatures on the Hühnlein dagger blades. But seeing that is some disagreement, here are a couple of images of the silver “Gahr” marked fittings, so that everyone can see what is being discussed.

The “Kaltenbrunner” sword was mentioned because it is just (IMO) one more example of a supposed original Third Reich artifact with a very long history which had been in an advanced collection. That as soon as it made the light of day sparked controversy. While I have some archived photos and documentation. I really don’t want to dilute this discussion and will only touch on one aspect. Myself and some others were in one camp that it was a fake. Houston, and at least I think one other participant here, were in the opposite camp. When the time comes - we can let the facts and pictures tell their own story.

The images: Example “A” shows a very poor quality silver casting with the fake cast in place supposed “Gahr” markings.

Example “B” shows the supposed “Gahr” cast markings better, being a slightly better executed casting. With the seemingly amateurish “800” markings on both, appearing to be over-stamps from a conventional set of individual metal number stamps. FP

quote:

YES, something HAS BEEN PROVEN about the silver stampings - we have the documented proof - legally defined - CONCERNING WHAT THE SILVER STAMPS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. These marks and forms have been decreed by an act of National legislature. If you wish to check this

FP:
As an interested bystander here I had no intention of trying to steer this thread in another direction. I was merely trying to clarify what Frederick Stephens is stating in the quote from his above post:
Jim

Jim, There is no problem there, and I understood where you (and he) were coming from. With the pictures I posted simply to give those who have not seen them something to think about. While we hopefully get back to the main topic now, which is all of the differently executed signature variations. Which (if I remember it correctly) is something that Frederick J. Stephens was concerned about right in the beginning with the first thread. Regards, FP

I have to say I find this thread most interesting. Also I have to declare that Daggers are not my Fortey, however Nunmismatics and silver is. The silver marks are most interesting.

The statement, "NOTHING has been PROVEN about the silver stamps. NOTHING has been proven about the Kaltenbrunner sword. OPINION is all any of you doubters have-and everyone has one of those." is intriguing. Firstly the, Kaltenbrunner sword. This I must ignore for the aformentioned reasons, but to the silver marks, these are obviously cast into the designe. This alone makes them at best invalid, at worst fake. The whole point of these is to mark the piece, to give it silver grade and to identify the maker and place of manufacture.

This explanation is a fair appraisal from possibly American perseption, "In Europe however the regulations for marking silver are stringent,highly controlled and strictly enforced. The silver content is indicated as for example .900, various touch marks are pressed into the metal,indicating the year made and other information and the Government is at liberty to assay metal objects at any time to assure adherence to the regulations. This is and has been true in Great Britian,France, Italy,Spain and of course Germany for Centuries as well as other countries. When someone from Europe is talking about marking issues with silver items Americans must understand that there are severe penalties for mis-marking items in their Countries and this is treated very seriously."

British Hall marks have been inexistance since the 1100's, their purpous was to give quality, were produced, when and by whome. On early coins, possibly up till 1600, the date was represented by a symble as a hall mark. The monarks head gave it authority, also in later times that duty had been paid on the item. In the Napolionic wars, there was a shortage of coin, captured Spanish Pillar Dollars were stamped with the Kings head hall mark and curent at 4 shillings and nine pence.

This part of the statemen, "there are severe penalties for mis-marking items in their Countries and this is treated very seriously." has great poinancy. The Master of the Royal mint has a duty to procecute false moneyers. This is still current today in Britain. The penalty for forging was hanging, drawing and quartering. Issac Newton when in latter life became Master had the onerouse task of procecuting such a person.A new work has just been published on the subject. It illistates the subject very well and I would recomend it to those who would like to be enlightened on the subject.

The method of marking is such. The Silver smith compeats his work, marks it with his TOUCH MARK, then it is sent for assay to one of the Assay houses. Here the item is tested, then stamped with the date letter, hall mark, eg London and the silver grade mark. AT NO TIME ARE THESE CAST INTO THE BODY OF THE ITEM. This would carry the highest penalties. Similar system is in place in Germany.

I hope this clears the possition on these markes. I am sure as a retiered Police officer, mr Houston Coates will appreciate the evidence and see that the casting could not happen. If it did then his profectional services would definitly have been called on.

I understand the concern that the silver stamps are not in the form that we think they should be.
I don't think the government of the Third Reich cared much about what we think things should be

Photos show the wear of this type chain

Several collector/dealers that I know have testified about these pieces coming out of the wood work for little cost-I choose to believe them

No silver chain with box fitting or other silver chain has surfaced with the "proper" silver stamps for comparison.

So-my conclusion at this time is that while there is testimony and proof that would hold up in a court of law that there are problems and questions with these chains and the signature-nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.There is no question that the testimony would also be admitted. That is my opinion and I might add it is also the opinion of the VAST majority of experienced collectors who have been around for the past 40-50 years--- and IMO the parties on the other side just express opinions but continue to express that things have been PROVEN.

There is a VAST difference between the words-- proof and PROVEN. Let's be a bit more objective-many things that have been "Proven" have been found to be false.

One mistake here is the assumption that "the collecting world" = "people participating in this thread." In reality, the collecting world is SO MUCH BIGGER than even forums, and without doubt this thread. It's obvious to most that great effort is NOT being expended to prove these daggers are real to the "collecting world" but to a small band of people who continue to ignore testimonial, photographic, and logical evidence. The day someone describes to me a theory that makes sense as to WHY some faker would take a box full of original SA Honor Daggers, deface them, and then "hide" them around the world for people to find their barnes, safe deposit boxes, and flower beds at no profit to himself - that is the day that I will start to listen to arguments about "how hallmarks should be."

As an aside, we often romanticize "the German way" with regard to manufacturing, and adherence to law in Germany. What we know is that the only law that mattered was Hitler, and that Germany was ANYTHING but a law-abiding society during the period of 1933-1945. We know that MANY silver items were NEVER hallmarked: consider the Totnekopf Ring. Even the blood order was ONLY silver-content marked. SS and SA Honor Dagger crossguards were not hallmarked either, so this notion that "hallmarks had to be a certain way" is not at ALL born out by the facts. And when you consider that these silver chains were no doubt custom made and not sold on the open market as manufactured goods, the situation begins to reveal itself as NOT at all "proven" by the small but vocal opposition to these pieces. Besides, I can think of several very logical explanations for why these chains might have ended up so-marked.

The sad thiing for me is to watch the burden of proof shifted by the opposition, every time new evidence surfaces. I was once challenged to "find a picture of one in wear" which I did. Then, I was told that since there was no provenance to back up these daggers, I set about finding good documented provenance that would please 99% of collectors, which I did. Then, I find one out of the woodwork actually named to a Brigadefuhrer in the NSKK, in the hands of the veteran's family. Someday, I feel that we'll locate written period documentation about these daggers (something we don't even have concerning things like Himmler daggers and Birthday Swords). When we do, will the opposition say something like, "Well, Huhnlein in his letter to Gahr must have been talking about another kind of dagger, because as all three of us know, the hallmarks on these examples are bad, so they can't be the ones Huhnlein was talking about."

It should also be noted that Gaspare, in an earlier post, stated this:

quote:

For those interested here is the law regarding the stamps to be used. After Hitler came into power this law was ignored for the most part and pieces were not being stamped 'Halbmond und Krone.'. Many makers continued to do so but from I've learned it was not mandatory..Smaller pieces didn't even have to be maker or content marked during the 3rd Reich period.

Now, can someone post the photo of Offermann wearing the NSKK High Leader with silver chain, so "newer" viewers can see the photographic evidence first hand?

Houston, Trying not to get sidetracked, the statement was made: “I don't think the government of the Third Reich cared much about what we think things should be.” They might not have cared much about what the Western Democracies thought, but this was Germany in the 1930’s. Not a Laissez-faire political state.

But more to the point, look at the castings themselves. We see at a minimum: solidification shrinkage, evidence of outgassing, and (as already discussed) cast in place markings. From the Gahr firm in Munich? And they were too poor to afford a proper one piece “800” stamp? And had to use instead, a one at a time individual set of number stamps? Or is that just an opinion?

Craig, There is not a problem with no assay marks, or lack of markings in general. There is a problem, however, with cast in place fake markings (see above).

With your knowledge of metals and silver casting etc. perhaps you could explain some of what I mentioned to Houston, and perhaps also provide your input on the ‘flat top’ connector links in the attached image?

PS: Is there any progress to report with the photos? FP

If the fakers could not afford a fake stamp(s how could they afford to have faked these daggers with VERY costly original parts? Come on.

Houston, Costly today, but how much did you pay for your first SA dagger in 1955? How much were “beaters” being sold for back then, and when did it start to get really expensive? We also don’t want to forget what Jim Atwood had to say about all of those leftover parts that he found in Solingen. How many trips did he make?

What I think you may be overlooking is the fact that it’s NOT the cost of the stamps. Look at the whole casting (especially Example "A"). It is not very well done at all. So it makes perfect sense that some amateur caster. When he failed with cast in place markings, had to use an individual number set - because your average local hardware store doesn't stock jeweler's supplies. (And if the work was done at someplace other than continental Europe. An “800” stamp very likely would be a special order from even a supply house.)

But more importantly - how do you explain the misalignment of the numbers in the attached image? FP

Cost is relative-its tough to compare 1958 with 2008--but these parts or whole daggers without chains and signatures were ALWAYS very expensive unless bought for nothing.If Atwood found some it would IMO have been very stupid to alter them and not cost effective--a fact that the doubters fail to note and continue to ignore. It fact the first models without chains are much rarer.
In fact the one photo of the square fitting type chain was not known until recently-so how could it be faked--or if it was--how could it be authenticated without showing the photo?
So why do that--why not just fake a regular chain --in silver if you like.--So-who had the photo?

IMO your only argument is that you don't like the form of the markings and/or signature--you ignore everything else. I say again --NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN.--except in your own minds-and IMO it is a VERY minority OPINION--that's all.

The originality position is also just IMO an opinion also. If I can admit that why can't you?

Houston, I’m pretty sure I said it before. But just so you know that I am open to the idea, I don’t have a quarrel with the idea of specially manufactured daggers. Where I have a problem is with the details. Because I am absolutely confident that the silver fittings I posted are bogus, postwar creations.

And I’m certain that at one time or another in your career you studied “the fruit of the poisoned tree” doctrine. My point being that if those chain components are fakes. What else might also be a postwar modification/creation?? Because the bad castings, the markings, and those misaligned numbers are not going to go away. They are now a part of the permanent record. FP

PS to Leipzig: The "835 RE" marking represented what exactly?

I think this debate better start at noon on Saturday, not in the evening, as it is going to be a long one !

The challenge is that there are very few provable and inarguable facts other than: 15-20 have turned up in various conditions, with two types of chain, and that signatures do vary in detail and placement.

Beyond that, it is all a matter of opinions and these can (and will) be argued several ways in exhaustive detail without conclusion.

Dave

If we are all so concerned about silver markings and the fact that medal manufacturers were MORE likely to be exposed to regulation than dagger manufacturers due to the amoount of silver used in their everyday practice, how come the Spanish Crosses in silver don't have the required markings?
The Silver Spanish Cross, made well before WWII started, has yet to be found with said marks that I have ever seen.
JMO,
Ron Weinand

I still don't see the words "In my opinion" from the doubters. Or is your opinion the same as "correct without a doubt"? Sorry--I don't think so. JMO

Dave, From my perspective, if no further actual new information comes forward from this point. This year might might not be any more productive than back in 2007. With instead the debate resembling more of a “he said” - “she said” spectacle in a divorce court.

Craig started this discussion in 2007. With this thread in 2009 proclaiming that the debate was over. As part of his “documentation effort” I seem to recall he even sent a picker or somebody back out to get a letter.

With on 31 August 2009 saying: “One come out in Denmark last summer, found on a farm (full story coming later, as soon as I get the written statement)”. And on September 7th: “Here is the latest documentation concerning the example that I purchased through a friend of mine in Denmark” ........ Followed up the same day with: “I have closer photos of the dagger, but not good enough for any serious study.”

Which is rather interesting as compared to 14 August 2009 where he says: “I have just returned from Pennsylvania ........ I video'd about 1 hour of interviews with the family, and got a notarized statement from them, placing the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. I've got photos, DD214s,.......”etc. etc.

After all the Sturm und Drang from 2007. With his obvious interest in the daggers, he didn’t even think to take some good pictures of the Danish dagger?? How do we know if it was even a good example or not? Is the Pennsylvania dagger machine engraved (as it seems to look like in the image he posted) or is that just an optical illusion? With the point I made earlier still standing. With no or minimal data to go on, why even have the discussion, unless it’s to promote a single item?

Ron, No offense, but what do Spanish Crosses have to do with this? The issue with the "Gahr" marks is that they are cast in place. Bear no relation to German law that anyone has been able to ascertain to date that I have seen (from the Gahr firm in Munich no less). With the supposed assay marks elaborated on in the next paragraph.

Houston, my observations on the silver fittings are just that, observations. So unless you have some more informed manufacturing based knowledge to dispute the observations. They stand as is, unless of course you think that the Gahr firm used a lot of little “8” and “0” stamps to mark their products. Or do you think that using individual stamps is just an “opinion”, or maybe an optical illusion, instead of a fact? FP

Sorry, don't know anything about the dagger,,but I gotta agree with Fred,,those are the worst looking silver marks anyone I'll bet has seen..

Gahr marks are pretty well known. ,,none look like these..

They should be stamped in,,not cast in as these obviously are..
Gahr made some really beautiful pieces. IF he made these links he'd want people to know it,,the stamp would be nice and clear,,it would be a matter of pride.
Silver guys familiar with the early German law would also point out that is not the proper crown. I've seen some variant with the moon,and some slight variants with the crown but that is no where close..
Fred,your spot on,,no little 8s and 0s..............

Unfortunately, in many cases reputations tar and cloud opinions, as good intentioned as they might be. Agendas,both past and present can obscure objectivity. I do believe that these daggers existed but I also believe that many of what today are purported to be genuine are indeed put together or outright rubbish. Period documentation, both written and photographic should be the determining factor.

Fred: Your characterization is not at all informed by all of the facts. The reason I didn't document the Danish buy is because I drove to Denmark to buy it from Hamburg, during another trip to do other business, and sold it the very same day. Sorry my schedule doesn't fit in with the care and planning that went into the Pittsburgh trip, a year or so later. The dagger is the same dagger that Weitze now has. That should be enough for the conspiracy theorists to have a field day with!

Ron's comment about the Spanish Cross is noteworthy, and relevant, as it speaks to the notion that "Germans had to do such-and-such with their markings." It further corroborates the claim that German manufacturers were not always concerned with exact placement of crowns and moons on their silver items. True, the Gahr markings are definitely sloppy. However, remember that Gahr was mostly a casting company. They sand-casted most of their poll-tops, and investment casted their jewelry (an arguable point of course, but evidence points to this).

I still have not heard ONE of the doubting-crowd tell us a believable or sensical scenario that would explain the proliferation of these daggers over the span of 50 years by some faker who allegedly destroyed a hundred grand in SA Honor Daggers, for no profit to himself.

In the mean time, we have the photo of Offermann wearing the NSKK with silver chain, and many documented "surfacings" of these daggers worldwide. Please explain, doubters. I think Ron Weinand, Tom Wittmann, Grant Bias, Tom Johnson, Gailen David, Ken Brethaur, Jason Burmeister, Brian Maederer, Houston Coates many advanced collectors, Brigadefuhrer Gruner, and Obergruppenfuhrer Offermann, our Danish connection, and the Mooney family, just dying to know the answer!

Folks: I once more ask someone to provide a close-up scan of Offermann WEARING the NSKK High Leader with silver chain, as pictured in Johnson's German Dagger of World War II: A photographic Reference, page 458. This seals the deal in my view. A photo that did not surface until many decades after the first NSKK High Leader is recorded as having been observed.

OK, But I’m a little confused. The “Hühnlein” dagger with the beater relic blade. And the fresh/new appearing signature. Was obtained in Denmark (or Hamburg?). On a trip from Sweden? Was sold to Weitze, who has it on his web site. But Spock showed some pictures of it with the rust at the ricasso removed. So does Weitze actually have it, or did he dump it? FP

The different conditions of the logo .

The opposite side.

IMO this all has to be with old incorrect idea that everything German has to be correct, identical and perfect--and textbook to be correct and period. NOTHING could be further from the truth. There are too many examples to even be noted here. Just try and get a 100% agreement on many items. It won't happen. These "rules" are often many years old without revision and their supporters are in many cases destroying the collectibility of these non textbook original items via the internet and present the idea that they and only they are right and can't be wrong.Some of these doubters don't even really collect daggers and/or have not for some time. Some are newer collectors and don't really know the history of some of the pieces they doubt.
IMO this is misinformation as the vast majority of serious and experienced collectors do not concur.
Just take a look at your collection-any non conformist items in there? They must be fake then? right? Wrong, Wrong ,and Wrong. They may be-but they may not.

We have always known that almost always, just one red flag or non-textbook characteristic or even two in many instances too numerous to mention or list here is not conclusive enough to PROVE an item is altered or fake. Now-many collectors may want to avoid these pieces but we are still talking OPINION-not facts---and the doubters STILL won't admit this--Their position is that they can't be wrong. I say this is destructive to the hobby. Just say it!!! Say you can be wrong. Do it for the good of the hobby. YOU--Yes you! Can be wrong. We ALL can without exception IMO.JMO

AND--the sad fact it that it is almost impossible to get 100% agreement on MANY items. MANY times an experienced collector will say " I just don't like the look of it" Why? " I don't really know but something does not look right"??????????? Or "I don't like it-Im not really sure" It is not listed in regulations and there are no wearing photos--YATTA, Yatta. Just opinion-not what we wanted to hear--but there it is. This is the hobby you have chosen-accept it--don't expect even close to 100% agreement-you won't get it. JMO-over 55 years experience.

Sorry you are terribly confused, Fred. There were two. One in Denmark, which Weitze eventually got, and a 2nd one in TERRIBLE condition that several of us bought together, in Germany. Weitze never the beater. Furthemore,I have no idea what he does with his inventory. Lastly, I know of no dagger found in Sweden.

The doubters have a responsibility to explain the Offermann photo, explain the fact that MANY silver items do not even contain moons and crowns (and many that do show a VAST variety with respect to style, quality and placement), and explain a convincing scenario of how anyone could have profited from the destruction and hiding of valuable daggers, around the world, into the hands of non-collectors, for profit (and sometimes not) decades later. Until those three issues are addressed to our satisfaction, their skepticism will be seen as simply uninformed.

Who does the "our satisfaction" refer to Gottlieb? I sincerely question the statement that Fred Stephens is "terribly confused". This is turning into a "where is the pea" thread. In my opinion YOU have to prove statements, not what you propose...that others prove whatever you say is incorrect. I have seen that movie before along with other collectors and that is not the way it's done.
The main problem you are having, in my own personal opinion, is that you are moving all over the board with items (rings, tunics, daggers,etc) and that severely hampers anyone's ability to want to take your "this is conclusive proof and the end of the story" proclamations seriously. I think that this is the reason your statements are routinely hammered on the different forums. Your credibility and ethics have wounded you in all these area's, not this one thread. This is a supportable fact and not a personal statement of my own creation. Good luck...

Mark

Craig, Confused yes. "Terribly confused" I'm not so sure. I used to live in that general area, and what was throwing me off was the “another” part of: “The reason I didn't document the Danish buy is because I drove to Denmark to buy it from Hamburg, during another trip to do other business, and sold it the very same day.” I had no idea of what (" another") trip you were talking about, or if there was a particular sequence involved?

So you sold it to Weitze the same day you purchased it? According to Spock, Hermann Historica had it in their catalog. Unless it's confidential, what date did you sell it to Weitze?

And maybe what our definitions of what a "beater" is are a little (or a lot) different. Weitze got the (Danish ?) dagger that I posted just above with the motto side that is all pitted and worn - right? FP

Yes sometimes dealers will say "I just don't like the look of it" but many times they will give you a reason and actually tell you what is wrong with it..but god forbid that you question the integrity of a "great authority" with 75 years of experience..because then you will be called crazy...well I had such an experience recently and the item was shown to some of the most respected headgear names in the hobby and the consensus was unanimous....bad and not period and post war but it did not deter the "respected" seller/dealer from placing it back out for sale 20 minutes later gentlemen what Kingtiger states is true..and I direct this statement at no one individual..we have not created nor nutured your reputations, they are your doing..if I ever venture into the arena of salesmanship I would expect to be held to the same standard of ethics and decency to which I held others...I did not expect to be chastised nor ostracised for holding people accountable...

[quote]We know that MANY silver items were NEVER hallmarked: consider the Totnekopf Ring. Even the blood order was ONLY silver-content marked. SS and SA Honor Dagger crossguards were not hallmarked either, so this notion that "hallmarks had to be a certain way" is not at ALL born out by the facts. And when you consider that these silver chains were no doubt custom made and not sold on the open market as manufactured goods,

We know that Very few 3rd Reich awards and badges were marked in regard to metal content in any way. A few of the exceptions that come to mind are ,Oak Leaves and Blood Orders. These items were NOT manufactured to be sold on the commercial market but rather manufactured as awards to be presented so IMO the rules for marking commercial goods didn't apply. This should also answer the question raised elsewhere as to why other awards wern't marked at all.
However; This doesn't excuse the shoddy marking exhibited on some of the chains shown in this thread. Hallmarks I am very certain were NEVER cast into objects; They were stamped. Again IMO; Items have to stand on their own and this type of deviation has to be accounted for. I would be more than willing to review any variances to the accepted silver stamping procedure inregards to flatware or other silver items from Germany during this period.
Jim

Jim,

I have a pair of cuff links, which my mother bought for my father in England in the 1960s, that have the Hallmarks cast into them. I'll post a pic when I find them.

There was an immediate lawsuit by one of the Guilds, the result of which was a judgment which essentially said that if items were to be sold as silver, they must be Hallmarked, but that the method of applying the Hallmark was NOT limited to any method.

Dave:
I can't address this particular instance but I've looked at hundreds of silver items over the years and have NEVER personally seen cast hallmarks. The practical reason for this is while hallmarking changes from year to year many patterns remain for several years and stamping makes meeting required regulations easier.
Again; I'm not trying to paint myself as an expert but just commenting on my own observations over the years. Hopefully someone with more specific knowledge of German hallmarking will join this discussion.
Furthermore I don't personaly have an opinion about the authenticity of these particular daggers one way or the other and if the subject of markings hadn't arose I would probably not have joined in the discussion.
Jim

british hall marks are strictly controled and are not put on by the manufacturer so cast hall marks on a british made item are illegal and prison sentences are still handed down for fake ,be they stamped or cast, marks
i believe this has always been the case with german hall marks??
i have no comments to add about the rest of the dagger but that top mount looks very amateurish and not up to any jewllers standard i think at best its a later addition pehaps copied from an original

if the item is small the word sterling or .925 can be stamped into it by the maker but i have never seen the word cast into an item

Craig,, 'The doubters have a responsibility' ...No,, you got that wrong,,YOU have the burden of proof :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof


Anyway,,I've been lucky enough to have in my hands a few pieces of Gahr jewelry:
Rune necklace on pg.71 & 100 of NSDAP / SS Silversmith book.
A stylized set of SS cufflinks very similar to those on pg.92 of same book.
A few of the SS civil pins..
ALL had nice clear marks.. The sand cast pole tops also, they appear to be nice clear marks.. EVERY Ghar mark shown in the NSDAP / SS Silversmith book display nice clear marks whether they are cast or stamped pieces..

Is it possible there were some leftover postwar without the chain and the chains were made up early postwar? Or the links made up 20, 30 years ago to go on the daggers or,,,,well, you guys figure that out.........

As I've mentioned I'm not a dagger man,,but I do know those are very poor quality cast links [pitting,bubbling,uneven surface etc.] with incorrect Gahr markings.

http://www.925-1000.com/Fgerman_marks_a1884.html

I ask anyone to see the above link and find just one open crown similar to the one on the dagger link! Or any set of marks as messy as the dagger links.
,, yes there are some variations on the German hallmarks.. But the basic is a partial moon and Imperial State Crown or Coronet type,,that is a closed top. ALL the marks on any German hallmark site will have the variations of that type. The one on the dagger link is a type of circlet. Look at the document showing the law for hallmarks posted by Craig. Those are the marks,,back then the law. Again, not enforced by the 3rd reich but when they were used they just used their old hallmark stamp,,same one they used in the turn of the century and 1920s etc.

1960s England isn't 1930s/40s Germany... By the 30s the old '2nd reich' marks were not enforced,,anything or real silver was marked in England to some degree... But, if you wanted to sell a high end piece in Germany you can be sure the manufacturer put a content and makers mark even if it is just the initials. Some more elaborate, some not.
For just about all jewelers/manufacturers it was a matter of pride, they wanted the admirers to know - 'We made this!' .. The links are marked,,you must ask yourself why?

nickn2 ,that's a great senario! :
"top mount looks very amateurish and not up to any jewllers standard i think at best its a later addition pehaps copied from an original"

The statement, " have a pair of cuff links, which my mother bought for my father in England in the 1960s, that have the Hallmarks cast into them. I'll post a pic when I find them.

There was an immediate lawsuit by one of the Guilds, the result of which was a judgment which essentially said that if items were to be sold as silver, they must be Hallmarked, but that the method of applying the Hallmark was NOT limited to any method."

The applying of Hall Marks are undertaken by the Assay house. IT CAN NOT BE CAST. This is an iligal opperation, punishable with very hard time. If you want to cheque this, then contact the Assay House London, they will confirm this. I would put it liker this, would an American citizen, by and sell the Congressional medal of honour. There would be no penalty. I could go to the Max and sell one? I hope the analagy has some bearing. Would the US authorty take no notice? On the other hand would the Asay office take no notice?

Those are the worst Hallmarks ever!!! I dont think they should be cast!!! I guess its down to people if they would ever want to take the risk on buying one of these.

Personally as collectors it comes down to what you are happy with, I would probably pass on owning one of these unless it was a real bargain as I would always have the doubt in my mind about it being right.

Can anyone post a hallmark from a chained SS Honor?

We’re getting away a little from the signatures aspect of the discussion, which is just one aspect of the Hühnlein daggers.

But the input of those who have more knowledge of silver and silver markings is certainly most welcome. For that part of the discussion here is a composite of the faked markings. Showing another example of both the cast, and the individually hand stamped # 8’s and # 0’s with them all grouped together. While it seems quite obvious to me and a number of others, it may not be to everyone. So if anyone questions that interpretation I would be happy to elaborate (at least from my own perspective).

And something good may still come from this part of the discussion:

“In the mean time, we have the photo of Offermann wearing the NSKK with silver chain, and many documented "surfacings" of these daggers worldwide. Please explain, doubters. I think (#1 Craig), (#2) Ron Weinand, (#3) Tom Wittmann, (#4) Grant Bias, (#5) Tom Johnson, (#6) Gailen David, (#7) Ken Brethaur, (# 8) Jason Burmeister, (# 9) Brian Maederer, (#10) Houston Coates many (?) advanced collectors, (# 11) Brigadefuhrer Gruner, and (# 12) Obergruppenfuhrer Offermann, (# 13) our Danish connection, and the (#14) Mooney family, just dying to know the answer!”

I would imagine that with the combined institutional/accumulated knowledge of at least some of the still living individuals cited above. They could figure out among themselves when they first saw the silver fitted Hühnlein daggers appear on the scene. Which would provide a possible start date for a counterfeiting operation to have been in operation.

And by using the signatures. And other criteria of those daggers as compared to the rest. Possibly find some original examples - that could help set a baseline for what a legitimate Hühnlein dagger would or should look like?? No guarantees, but I think it might be worth the effort. FP

BTW: I don’t think that anyone has commented on this yet. But like the “8”s and “0”s, the ‘flat top’ small connector links would be another indicator of a not very well equipped counterfeiting operation (at least in the beginning). FP

My Father has been an antiques dealer for over 50 yrs. We have both seen thousands of Hallmarks. I have never seen cast marks. I too would be highly suspicious of a dagger hanger links marked this way.

F.Y.I. Third Reich, dated 1934, stamped hallmark, 835 RE. on all four pieces. Leipzig

pic-2

pic-3

Hi Everyone,heres an Gahr maker mark on a gold brooch,also an SS one on a Thors hammer,nats

#2

Gahr SS Stick pin.nats

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.co...1105856&d=1230388807

For Mr. Ailsby and Mr. Modena, here are photos of cast cuff links:

Close up of one link

Another - these are not stamped in

Side view

Each link is numbered "194" on the back, so there were quite a few made.

The NUMBER was stamped

Translating the Hall Marks ( and I am open to correction on this):

JS = Jack Spencer (Silversmith) Ltd, Sheffield
Crown = Sheffield
Lion = Sterling Silver
"D" = 1971

I did get the date wrong in my first post when I said 1960's and I probably made a mistake when I said a Guild initiated legal action. It was more probably the Assay Office or the Crown that initiated legal action.

I got these in the 1980's from my father. He said there had been a bit of controversy at the time as these links used the Hall Marks as their main theme or selling point when in fact they were supposed to used only to certify purity of metal, maker, etc.

So, yes, cast Hall Marks do exist. The only reason I point this out is that when I see "never" used in this hobby I wonder how long the statement will stand.

Meanwhile,

Hi Dave.that Hallmark is Sheffield England 1971,
Stan

Dave,

I have to comment, your cuff-links are impressive, and so is your explanation. But I must point out that the "hallmarking" is not hallmarking - it is a decorative design based on hallmarking emblems. So it is not the same thing - regardless of the metal content of the artifacts.

FJS

And now I offer my more complete reply to previously voiced comments.

Houston,
Please allow me to make a couple of comments about your statement (Posted 09 September 2009 08:18) concerning silver stamping. You state, and I quote herewith:
I understand the concern that the silver stamps are not in the form that we think they should be. I don't think the government of the Third Reich cared much about what we think things should be.

I am sorry, but this statement is inaccurate. The Reich Government - like the Weimar Government, and before it the Imperial dynasties, had to establish an assay quality and reliable marking for precious metals.

The reason for this is because in previous history, ruling governments in times of financial crisis, would degrade the metal content of their currencies - in order to make the gold or silver content go further. To correct this degradation, the assaying system was revised to ensure that all bullion (raw metal without dilution) achieved a minimum standard of purity. And if it met these standards, then the “appropriate markings” would be applied as a measure of guarantee. What this meant was that anywhere this material was taken to be used for trade, payment, or promissory settlement; then any analytical analysis would confirm that the material was truly of the precise minimum content claimed by the assay marking.

Houston, I am not challenging your beliefs, or your reputation, or anything else concerning your standing as an authority on this subject - or indeed your conviction concerning these Huhnlein pieces. What I am saying to you is that we (us Europeans) have a very precise and definite understanding concerning hallmarking. It is not a laissez-faire situation where the marks can be applied in any haphazard style - it is actually governed by laws throughout the respective European countries.

If you think that the Third Reich did not concern itself with matters such as hallmarking, then I can tell you now that false, or inappropriate hallmarking, could be punishable by death. It is a very serious matter, and Nazi Germany had very serious ways of dealing with it. So please do not be dismissive of the argument concerning hallmarks. These are real issues.

Ronald Weinand:
Ron, you are one of the scions of our hobby, and anything that you say I must consider in an air of seriousness. You are not known for fabricating facts, or inventing circumstance to suit the claim. Therefore I know that you are genuinely convinced about these Huhnlein daggers. May I accordingly - with all respect - call into challenge a statement that you have made - Posted 09 September 2009 17:25 - statement as follows:

If we are all so concerned about silver markings and the fact that medal manufacturers were MORE likely to be exposed to regulation than dagger manufacturers due to the amount of silver used in their everyday practice, how come the Spanish Crosses in silver don't have the required markings?
The Silver Spanish Cross, made well before WWII started, has yet to be found with said marks that I have ever seen.

Well, Ron, this is a very good point. You are absolutely correct - these things are not normally hallmarked. But let us take the point to its ultimate conclusion. I am not a collector of medals, and I believe neither are you - they are just things we have come across in our life:

Any awardee of any medal in the Third Reich could - in theory - commission a medalist to make him an example of the medal he was entitled to wear. I have no issue with that - it is obvious that it could be done (although exant examples are rather scarce - I have seen English jeweller-made examples of the WWI Iron Cross, but that is extremely rare).

So, Ron, with no personal argument between us, my case against your analogy is this: The Silver Spanish Cross is not a declaration of content, it is a GRADE relating to the award. Grades, concerning medals and coins, come from Roman times. Originally this was defined as: Lira, Sestertius, and Denarius (generally denoting gold, silver, and bronze). It is from this that we get our “gold”, “silver”, and “bronze” medal awards. Originally the items were produced purely in these metals, but since the 1920s use of such pure metals has given way to plated metals of the same appearance when describing an award as being “gold award”, “silver award” etc.

To refer back to your example of the Spanish Cross; as such, the manufacturer could have made the base medal out of tombac - or other similar material - and then have it silver plated. It would still be the Spanish Cross, silver grade. In an equal situation, any recipient of the award could have, privately made, an example of the medal in platinum, or even white gold - the metal would not matter. It would still be a Spanish Cross in silver grade - it is the rank or grade of the award, not the metal content. So I must challenge your concept that everything has to be hallmarked - this is not so. But if something is to be hallmarked, then it most certainly has to meet a certain standard and be hallmarked in a particular way.

Craig Gottlieb:
You seem to relish the publicity that all this debate is creating - but then of course your objective is to get your latest Huhnlein acquisition into publication - another of these incredibly rare daggers found - right out of the woodwork! My goodness, this is the third one you have unearthed, and they are all so fantastically rare - One can hardly believe the charmed life and luck that you have! Of course, I am sure that you are promoting your dagger purely out of academic interest and edification for the collecting community - what other noble reason could you have?

It is true to say that this recent acquisition is of the “more standard” type of chains, and not the wide silver cartouche version which is discussed elsewhere in this thread. However, I must comment, that the piece still has some similarity with the silver chained version, in that it shares the same Huhnlein signature on the blade. Because of that, we must accept, that there is some probable “same point of origin” with all these pieces?

Now all this brings me to a very important point in our debate. You have produced and presented in this thread the image of the Reichs-Gesetzblatt that I referred to previously. To the best of my knowledge this document was originally presented up by Gaspare, way back in the 2007 thread. But no matter..............if you want to present it and claim the provenance for it, then go ahead. We both agree that the document is authentic and authoritative.

So this now highlights a very important feature in the Reichs-Gesetzblatt. I am astonished, that with your claimed proficiency in fluent German, and your Nobel Peace Prize standard of intellect, that you failed to lock onto the all-too-revealing comment in the document where it states:
....Bestimmung der Form des Stempelzeichens....

Anybody with school level German would be able to tell you that this statement means: “Determining the appearance of the Stamped Emblems”.

Because of this, and the faked up cast markings seen on some of these Huhnlein pieces, there is no alternative “variation”. The hallmarks can only be stamped! And therefore the Huhnlein examples with the "cast" hallmarkings must be considered to be falsified. Because of this, the other "Huhnlein daggers" must also be considered to be suspect. You see it is not just the hallmarked cartouche that is wrong. It is the other distinctive and crude features of this dagger that are now to be questioned.

I do realise that this revelation is going to upset many people - but I have no control over that. It is the fakers and pushers of these frauds that have committed the crime. I am only guilty of telling the truth, although I realise that I will get precious little thanks for it.

Perhaps, when all the outrage has died down, my noble peer group who disagree with me may finally look at the evidence, and graciously concede that I was in fact totally correct all along.

Frederick J. Stephens

Frederick:
Quote:
"your cuff-links are impressive, and so is your explanation. But I must point out that the "hallmarking" is not hallmarking - it is a decorative design based on hallmarking emblems. So it is not the same thing - regardless of the metal content of the artifacts."


You took the words right out on my mouth. For that I owe you one bottle of Chateau Lafitte!
Pictured below is another example of a spurious "Hallmark" on a gold item. Even in this small picture you can see how sloppy it is.
Jim

Fredrick,Sir., When I look at these photos of this High Leaders NSKK, in my mind the piece from the stand point of the following, conforms in very much in the way that I would expect to see one of these daggers discovered untouched:

1. The Honor crossguards are all black and display a patina that is consistent with a dagger that has not been cleaned for a long time and quite possibly going back to the time of when it was taken as a war souvenir.

2. The shape of the guards themselves from what is seen, is consistent with what we know to be the fittings used during the period on Honor & High Leader edged weapons during the 3rd Reich.

3. The fitment to the crossguards and hourglass shape of the grip is quite correct for an Eickhorn product, and right down to the high neck eagle emblem.

4. The Maden Hair Damascus blade,gilt, and Eickhorn trademark are exquisite, and appear to match known period examples that the collecting community has referenced over many years.

5. The undisturbed patina on the scabbard fittings and the expert engraving on the upper chape of the scabbard, show age and perfection in what we would expect from such a special presented edged weapon.

6. And lastly the old, scarred, bumpy black leather that one would associate with a dagger made during the 3rd Reich period, reeks of originality to what has been described as Moroccan leather used on these Honor & High Leaders daggers.

For my understanding if you would please Sir............... are we only debating the chain and Huhlein signature on this one particular piece ? Are you comfortable with all of other attributes that I've listed above ?


As my buddy "Del" signs off........................................... Respectfully, JR

2

Deflection of the main point of conversation is not going to be effective. As we know, patina is a bleach drop away as is aging of leather in the right hands. I certainly do not profess to be an expert on these daggers, but I must say Fred Stephens seems to be a neurosurgeon in the midst of a high school biology class. That is my personal opinion. He is eating Craig Gottlieb alive and the point was hallmarks, I recall...not nice pictures? Which you do have in any event.

Mark

Mark, I'm not trying to deflect anything. If the 6 points that I brought up do not coincide with the characteristics of a period 3rd Reich dagger, then no one can prove a single dagger that they own, was made during the 3rd Reich period.

What I've outlined is consistent characteristics as we know them, to fall within the guidelines of a period made 3rd Reich dagger. I'm not talking signature or chain at this point, but refer to only the scabbard & fittings, crossguard hardware, grip/ emblems, and blade at this time; to get an agreement or consensus on those as being original pieces. Those items are in tune to what we know as period produce dagger parts. Even Fred Stephens I believe has agreed to this point.

Jr, No offense, but I’m not quite sure that we are all on the same page or not. I think that it’s almost 3AM or so in England, so I would not expect an answer from FJS in the immediate future. I also don’t think that I have ever heard that the daggers were not built on a period Eickhorn chassis, body, core, or however you want to describe the basic dagger.

The chain that is being discussed right now is not on the one on Craig’s most recent purchase. It’s the cast silver ones with the phony Gahr markings.

As for signatures, I asked Craig for some better pictures of his Gruner dagger a short while ago. Because of my sense that his might have been machine engraved at some point instead of etched (I’m not saying that it is, but it seems to have some of the characteristics of machine engraving). FP

Understood Fred............. so do you agree that the Eickhorn "chassis" is correct in terms of grip, fittings, scabbard fittings, emblems, screws, crossguards, pommel and the basics that I set forth in my 1st post ? On Craig's most recent, is it the signature that is the stumbling block mainly?

Deflection? Someone needs to seriously read over the content and grasp all aspects of the study involved! Experience and time is also of the essence, I may not have 40+ years of experience as most of my mentors do although I do have 30 years in the hobby. Natural age and wear is a substantial factor in determining originality. This is true of helmets, badges and daggers as well as any antique or collectable. JR’s question is truly relevant to the analysis, if someone does not understand this they should stay out of the argument.
One last point. I agree it is extremely improbable for one person to find three of these out of the “woods” as Craig has. However, my buddy Jim found 13 RKs and 4 SA High Leader daggers from vets over the years. My other friend has found many National treasure Japanese swords out of the woodwork so, probable no, possible yes!
Sincerely,
Robert Iqbal

Once again as Bob has pointed out, I would just like to take the analysis of the dagger from the very basics, and then all the way through to where the disagreement starts. Does anyone disagree that the following parts are all 3rd Reich period manufactured ?

1. Crossguards ?
2. Pommel ?
3. Grip ?
4. Grip eagle & runes ?
5. Scabbard upper and lower chape, screws ?
6. Blade ?
7. Motto etch and or trademark ?

Also,do you see any askewed fitment problem with the above pieces? This usually is the 1st sign that we see with a dagger that may have been parted together

JR, Once I figured out that the very first “Hühnlein" dagger. Numero uno for me, that Craig posted (with a glowing description) was a parts piece - something else that I have a problem with is the nickel silver(?) center mount. And the widespread acceptance of silver, nickel silver chains, it doesn't matter. Wide and small connector pieces. All good!! Or at least so I was told.

With Craig’s most recent purchase, the “Gruner” dagger. Has the mouthpiece been removed? I don’t know for sure, but don’t the mouthpiece screws look like maybe they have been backed out a tad in the image?

And then there is the “Danish” dagger, one of the primary pillars of his “woodwork” argument. He has it less than 24 hours(?). And the guy who got it, either dumped it, or tried to dump it with somebody else? And when I look at the blade/signature of that puppy it looks to me like someone: “tuned it up”, “humped it up”, or however you want to describe a blade with a very bad side. And a noticeably better one, with a new or newish appearing signature.

With my point being that I think that the topic is about a lot more than just one very recently acquired dagger. Regards, Fred

The Danish dagger "good side" with the signature.

The Danish dagger "Bad Side" with a whole lot of pitting and other nasty things going on.

Fred, the throat screws on a "typical" 33-36 manufactured Political (SA,SS,NSKK) dagger, as you know, are of this lower dome type displayed on the dagger that you show above. In or around 1937, manufactures went to a more higher dome profile on these fastening screws, most being made of a magnetic metal. Is there a throat in the scabbard shell, is there a weight in the bottom of it, I don't know. But I can see that it will be a very slow and delicate process for us to analyze the most recent dagger, from each grain in the wood grip, to every feather on the eagle emblem. We can do it..............and everyone can help.

When we throw in the mix of a half dozen other daggers, it just clouds eveything all together. The dagger that started this topic is the one that Craig bought recently. That is the one that I wish to discuss to stay on the topic.

JR, Please don’t take offense, but am I really off topic? I thought this was supposed to be about the silver chains and signatures. But instead we are going into the discussion of just one single dagger, without Frederick .J. Stephens who I think is the one you wanted to have in the loop not me.

As for the screws, tomorrow I’ll pull out an untouched early Eickhorn SA to take a look to be sure. But I'm not talking about “domes”, but the gap between the screw head base and the body of the upper mount.

As for the “Gruner” dagger I would love to discuss it. Just as soon as I see some really, really, good close ups of the Hühnlein signature. And especially some of the interior. Fred

Understood Friend. As far as my answer to the scabbard screws being a minor hair not flush to the upper chape............... one has to ask themselves ............ can a grip eagle be crooked ? Can a pommel not be flush on the top crossguard ? Can the wood on the grip overhang the crossguard a bit ? Can an SS runes in a grip be at an angle ? Yes to all of these and as long time collectors, we've seen all of these minor imperfections. Why even a Pack SA/SS daggers will have offset screws on the bottom chape of the scabbard. The screw placement and flushment look fine actually. Appreciate the help and enjoy the discussion, as always Fred.

Ya miss a few days ya miss alot! where are are these high dollar high tech microscopes and dental scopes that was the rage a few months ago. that should be the gnats azz as for close ups on what Fred is asking about,Craig seems to sell them also so I'm sure he could take a few great shots of the questionable area and maybe get all this cleared up or most of it anyway.
Bret Van Sant

A few years ago I had the opportunity to examine and photograph a top conditioned SS Honor Dagger. Since there are questions voiced above about both the screws and the trademark of Eickhorn-made honor daggers, these might be interesting

Lower fitting

Trademark

I have a few more pictures, but these are the best. Need more ?

Dave

Dave, Nice job on the photography with what looks like a very good looking dagger in the images. It even shows evidence of what looks like a secondary protective mask used to make the blade logo.

Here are a couple of comparison shots of the Grüner dagger. I had to enlarge them a little more than I normally like to do. In order to match them up (as best I could) to the ones you posted. To me the screw/locket gap looks a little bigger than yours.

Attached: The first image shows the screws. Which unlike your image, looked like more of a yellowish metal.

With the second image seeming to confirm that, with the screws not being as silver colored as the ones you posted. Looking more like some of the chain components next to them. FP

Here is Fredrick's direct quote in reference to the personalized Gruner NSKK dagger.

"Regarding the specimens under review, I acknowledge that I consider that the basic dagger (Honour guards, grip, damascus blade, basic scabbard shell and upper and lower fittings) seem - in my opinion - to be original pieces"

Does anyone disagree with Fredrick on this statement ?

Not me, JR. I agree 100%.

Dave

And also with you Dave, and Fredrick. All the basic parts that I've mentioned conform to an SA Honor as they have been referenced over the years and we have come to know in this configuration. So is the theory that someone intentionally destroyed the integrity of one of these valuable daggers by adding the Huhnlein signature and chain, to an otherwise proper period dagger ? Just talking about the one NSKK High Leaders that C. Gottlieb started this thread about.

Hello JR,

Nice to hear from you - probably the first time we have spoken since our meeting at the MAX two years ago.

To respond to your question, I must admit to be a little confused as to exactly what your question truly is; and I quote your words: “For my understanding if you would please Sir............... are we only debating the chain and Huhlein signature on this one particular piece ? Are you comfortable with all of other attributes that I've listed above ? “

JR please allow me to take the initiative, and to explain the issue the way that I perceive how it really is.

Some quantity of original SA (and also maybe NSKK) basic Honour Daggers have been converted into NSKK High Leader Honour Daggers with chains.

The conversion has comprised the etching of the blade, or otherwise decorating it, with an alleged signature of Adolf Huhnlein, Reichskorpsfuhrer of the NSKK.

The conversion has also comprised the fitment to the daggers of a set of chains and centre mount, thus rendering it into the form of a “chained NSKK dagger”.

This chained variation is found in two forms, one of which comprises a wide cartouche with the silver chains, in an image seen to be generally of a similar style of dagger borne by NSKK-Obergruppenfuhrer Offermann - in a photograph dating from 1941. The image may be found published on one of the Johnson books.

The image of Offermann with his dagger is not in doubt - it clearly displays what might be realistically viewed as an authentic NSKK High leader Honour Dagger with chains.

The examination of two of these examples - presumed identical to the Offermann example - showed that the chains bore fake hallmarks, therefore the chains and central mount were declared to be fake. It has therefore brought into disrepute that other, associated NSKK daggers, with similar chains and/or scabbard central fixture are also likely to be of the same disputed provenance.

The dagger itself is real, but a clearly false and dishonest attempt to upgrade them with faked chains has been identified - and is now recorded as a matter of fact.

I hope that this answer now fulfills your requirements.

Sincerely yours,

Frederick J. Stephens

Fredrick, greatings! Friend, with the C. Gottlieb dagger that this thread was started with in mind, would it be logical to embellish a rare dagger like this, by adding a bogus signature to a period Paul Muller Damascus blade ?

quote:

by adding a bogus signature to a period Paul Muller Damascus blade ?

Sorry JR The blades on SA SS etc.. honor daggers were not made by any real Damascus smith..( the billets were yes)but after that they were out of the picture. In reality these blades back in the day did not cost as much as we think. The blades were dropped forged to shape from a Damascus billet etc...
Damascus steel (maiden hair pattern) was almost to the point of mass production.. The Other patterns took more talent more work hence Damascus Smiths ...Turkish is super hard and the most expensive..Regards: James

So in the military collecting market, Damascus SA Honor daggers were cheap to buy or just cheap to make in Mullers time ?

Why does a SA Honor cost 50K on up............ mark up and the middle man ?

quote:

So in the military collecting market, Damascus SA Honor daggers were cheap to buy or just cheap to make in Mullers time ?

Muller had nothing to do with these daggers...
No SA honors are not cheap to buy in the collecting community....Right, in the big picture the drop forged Damascus pattern blade from a Damascus billet cost the least amount in the 30s and 40s... I guess I'm saying these blades cost less than a Army dagger Damascus blade made by Dinger or Wester in the 30s 40s
I past on one at ten grand years later I past on one at 20 grand (early style) while they are a rare type dagger I collect damascus by the talent the was used to make it and this type of damascus blade was more a production piece than a one off. This is just the way I collect...
Regards: James

quote:

Why does a SA Honor cost 50K on up............ mark up and the middle man ? Big Grin

Yes, you hit it on the head And the SA Honors are a rare dagger..

James, A second off of the NSKK topic since it seem to be slow, how about the " SS Birthday Swords"........... Muller involved in making these ?

He sure was, Cannot believe you even asked that question.. The ones that were period made were made by Paul Muller in Turkish Pattern Damascus..There are some postwar turkish damascus blades out there made buy Muller and Robert Kurten.. Sooooo that was a nice break back to the NSKK saga. Regards: James

Its the old supply and demand, as with most things that are expensive.

While I was hoping for some new pictures to see if what I seemed to be seeing in the Grüner dagger blade signature was correct or not. In the meantime perhaps some visuals might help? Here are some labeled images with more on the way.

And a question from a cost/benefit analysis point of view: Why would the Eickhorn firm go to the extra effort of creating the signatures this way (cut into the blade) with the additional potential for seriously damaging the blade? With the very inconsistent, dare I say sometimes “shoddy” results seen? Instead of doing the signature in raised gold like the mottos which was a technique which they were not only familiar with, but had perfected??? FP

Here is another composite showing some more signatures. I have some other images, but first need to do a little reorganization as some of them are in various different files.

With this image showing a phenomena seen with some of the signatures on the blades.

An etching acid deposited on a blade should eat away at the metal at a more or less uniform rate. In other words, the characters should have a reasonably uniform appearance and be the same depth (Damascus steel is a little different as the hardness of the layers varies, with the layers seen as the "grain").

This might not be a very good way to explain what I’m seeing in the image, but here goes: With the large letter “H” where the red arrow runs parallel, it looks like a freeway overpass going over a smaller road beneath it. With the green arrow showing the crossover point. The same is true for the lower case letter “L” with the large (thicker) part of the loop crossing over the thinner part. This is not uncommon with mechanical engraving. With the cutter removing/displacing metal and then cutting a new path as it crosses over a preexisting one.

And after a little acid bath which would help erase some of the evidence. Who would know how the characters were applied to the blade? FP

I still have more sorting out to do. But in the meantime I tried again with the Grüner signature. With the large upper case “H” maybe, maybe not. With the lower case “L” - I think it probably is machine engraved. But at the low resolution of the images no certainty is attached.

In my sorting I did come across another image of the gold(en) appearing scabbard upper mouthpiece screw, Everyone has their own interpretation of tolerances. But from my own perspective it’s not a “minor hair” separation between the screw and the upper mount. It’s a fairly good sized gap. And I have no doubt it’s been removed (or at a minimum been backed out), and that it might have even damaged the screw slot in the process. Although to be fair, I can’t be completely certain of the screw being damaged from the angle the picture was taken. FP

Am I missing something here ??? I thought these dental microscopes that usb'ed to a computor were all the rage now I see the ones Craig sells are just plain microscopes??maybe?? Craig you should put this under one of those dental scopes and that should really tell the tale on the engraving. Even Dave has a thread on these things in the SS section I think? They look rather like a good buy if your into these high end items.
Bret Van Sant

Bret, Having the right physical tools can certainly help in looking at something. But you also have to have the right education and mindset. Please permit me to digress a moment:

I grew up in Southern California a “target rich area” (to borrow a term from the military) where you substitute counterfeiter, or faker, or seller of reworked items, for “target”. There was a guy in Hollywood, one out at the beach, east of East LA to just cite a few. Who had made or otherwise acquired altered or new items for sale to the “collector market”. And not all of their stuff was bad (except for maybe the Hollywood guy as I never heard anyone speak well of him). Blades, medals, you name it.

We also had a really big show, which got only bigger with thousands of tables. And the fake and/or altered items would constantly trickle out into the show from guys who had bought them earlier - and some of the dealers. To be sold to the locals, and buyers from all over the U.S and world. Who then put them in their collections, or took them back home for their customers. In that kind of a “toxic” marketplace some of the old time collectors (including some folks in Aerospace who were more technically inclined and educated). Those who had their hearts in the right place, would take younger collectors and steer them away from buying junk. And teach them to “think for themselves”, and some of the tricks of the trade on what to look out for to try and avoid getting taken.

With my point being that some of the mistakes being made might not necessarily be with a malicious intent. As much as it might be the lack of an eduction to actually know what they are looking at. So the tools can really only be the most effective, when and if, you know what you are looking for. Which is something anyone can do better at if they put a little effort into learning for themselves. Instead of being told what to think by someone who might not have a clue. Regards, FP

Digression Over: Back to the Hühnlein daggers.

Dave Hohaus, thank you for posting the cuff links. This just the marks that were in question when they were used as a designe. These are clearly not HALLMARKS. I must say I have been looking for examples for a while. I have a similar set produced in the 1880 in Canada. Owning such, in Great Britain would see a very interesting HOLIDAY. Your input with this in my opinion, the fact that the marks we see are VERY SPERIOUSE. Thank you.

Christopher,

Those marks are there for design and there is no doubt about that. But besides the design, they also certify the maker, location, purity of metal, and year of manufacture.

That is what got the authorities so upset: They were not supposed to used for a design and hallmarks are supposed to be stamped, not cast, but these were both.

That firm is still in business in Sheffield. Why not call and verify ?

Dave

The use for designe was as you see. But this is not a HALLMARK. This copying was outlawed. The firm maywell be in business, but this is an irelavance. The markes are bogus.It was popullar at this time to use HALLMARKS in jewellry as the designe, I have a number of examples. The more upmarket use was on the Amarda dishes, they used the staggered HALLMARK. This designe is still very popullar in the UK. I have a number of pieces so marked. Kieth Thomsan, unfortunatly not with us, was a master of Goldsmiths Hall and it is to him I have a great thanks to understanding marks. He made a nuber of touch marks and put them on a piece of silver for me as an example of what where and how. Unfortunatly this has been misplaced over time. Barry Wittmann another master, has been restoring silver and antiquies, gives very good guidance. Thus we say, the cuff links are great examples of what was done in the heady 70's. Again I think this emplifies the fact that the marks shown are VERY QUESTIONABLE. Lets say good fun

dave
the problem was they were using a hall mark as a design not that the design was the hall mark
manufacturers do not stamp their own product ,unless the object is small then they can stamp sterling, they are sent to the local assay office and have been since the 14th century
sorry you cannot have genuine cast in hall marks they are always stamped

If the cuff links are an example of what a casting should look like. Then it only shows to even better advantage how bogus the silver "Hühnlein" dagger connectors actually are - even disregarding the phony Gahr markings.

A front view of what looks like just a tad worn cufflink face

The same inverted.

A fake cast Gahr connector. This is supposed to be an example of their work?? FP

DAVE, I AM SURE YOU CAN NOW SEE THE WAY HALLMARKS ARE APPLIED. I do thank you for bringing this forward, because I think some American collectors do not have this perseption of Hallmarking. The marks shown for the Dagger are without question false. This brings the dagger into question. I have little knoledge of them, but when you see false marks, then one has to question. Again I thank you for sharing with us the marks, this is so valuble to showing that the others are, shouls I say very questionable.

Christopher,

Exactly. Congratulations on your perspicacity!!!

I was illegal or unlawful but it was done. The cast hallmarks not only decorated the links but they also identified what they were: Links made in Sheffield in 1971 of Sterling Silver. That why all the hallmark chappies were so upset.

But, hallmarks were cast at least once !

Dave

Sooooo is the topic closed on NSKK honour daggers or back open? cheers, Ryan

Ryan, As far as I know it’s still active. Here is an image that I think might help visualize the 3D aspect of the Hühnlein signatures as compared to conventional etching on carbon steel. It should be noted that almost none of the writing of the characters is horizontal, but more or less vertical.

On conventional carbon steel the signature is level with no really perceptible changes in elevation.

However, on many of these Damascus steel blades (with the writing being at right angles to the grain, not with the grain). That portions of the signature go over on top of other parts of the signature. Which has little or nothing to do with the grain structure per se. Regards, FP

Dave, thank you for the kind words. The fact that an illegal action took place dose not leed to authenticity of the action. Hence cast Hallmarks, by this very nature are not legitamate Hallmarks. Thus they are not Hallmarks. Counterfiet coins or notes have been made. These are not ligitamate currency of the State. The Hallmarking allows the product to be used as currency. This has happened on many occasions in Great Britain.

An interesting dialogue as regards hallmarks and their application.

From my perspective, the fake maker w/hallmarks type of markings were put on the castings expressly to deceive. To establish a connection with a known TR maker of silver artifacts. Whereas an unmarked casting (especially of such poor quality) might have set off some alarm bells causing prospective buyers to be less accepting of the daggers. It would seem that the deception has been successful for a number of years. Probably (my opinion only) because of an overall lack of specific knowledge about period practices, and manufacturing processes in general.

I haven’t seen anything to contradict some of my early impressions. And while going through the images I could not help but notice a strong similarity between these two examples. For now labeling them the “thick” signatures, I’ve arrived at the (tentative) conclusion that both the Grüner and Bias daggers were machine engraved by the same individual. Probably at about the same time period, with some small, but noticeable differences with some of the details.

I’m still working with the others. To try and match up those that are closest to each other in the way that the signatures were executed. FP

I have been in manufacturing for 16 years and I was a foundry casting Engineer I can say without a doubt the link that link Frogprince posted "example a" is 100% casted as you can see all of the trapped gas bubbles. I have never seen any period pre 1945 TR dagger with casted chain links. This is also a sign of a VERY poor caster! Looks like a garage type casting to me.

If the signature was machined you will see signs of cutter marks. aA x20-30 power lense will show this.

I would imagine that at the MAX, a closeup look or two at the Grüner blade will help determine how the Hühnlein signature was applied. And there is no question about it, a 20X or 30X will get you “up close and personal”, and the extra magnification could be very useful. Especially if a blade was treated with acid which could help erase or minimize the smaller cutter marks. (For myself normally I like to use a 10X first because I like the larger field of view.)

For the silver fitted versions of the dagger a “garage” caster/casting works for me. Somebody or a small group that did not even have some of the more commonplace relatively low cost tools of the trade. Like a one piece “800” stamp. That might have had some skill in some areas, but lacked the expertise for casting silver.

But, it doesn't stop there. There’s even more evidence that it was a back room type of operation. For example: the right kind of bending apparatus for the small wire chain connector links. Which is why you see a lot of them flat or flattened, instead of being round - on multiple examples of the daggers. I’ve seen other counterfeiting/faking operations where when they ran out of parts they knew that they could not replicate exactly. To avoid getting caught, changed part of the design so they could keep in production.

Below: The green arrows showing some of the more noticeably flattened rings in the images. Regards, FP

Some additional images.

The Discussions on the form of the “etched” Huhnlein signature are interesting, and it might well be that a “craftsman” (those quotation marks are “tongue-in-cheek” deliberate) might have presumed he would get a better result if he went over the etched design with some cutting tool.

That might well be the case – when it comes to faking items the forger does not need to use old fashion skills, just something that will give his product a passing resemblance to the “real thing”. However, there is also another curious feature about the Huhnlein signature – and that is the unusually thick vertical line of the letter “H”, compared to the thin vertical line on the same letter. In terms of calligraphic technique this does not make sense!

The attached image will show why, and the explanation is this: The professional etcher, or the professional engraver, is perfectly capable of producing an exacting facsimile of the text offered to him for reproduction. Considering this, the signature as shown must be the same as the original signature presented – and that is where the anomaly of the signature form arises; because:-
a) If the signature had been written with a normal flat-nib pen, the vertical and horizontal strokes would be different to each other in thickness (according to the pen angle when the signature was penned).
b) If the signature had been formed with a round-end pen (or a pencil, etc), then the thickness of the vertical strokes AND the horizontal strokes would be the same – for there is no difference in the marked image whichever direction the implement is moved.

That this signature presents both thick and thin images in the same plane suggests that this is not a signature at all. It appears more likely that it is a sketch of a signature; a drawing of a signature; a cartoon of the real but produced in cartoon form – a bit of a joke, rather like the dagger itself in some respects.

Moving aside from the issue that the signature is recessed (intaglio) into the blade, when the blade motto and trademark are raised form (embossed) images – the implication here is that the signature was added at some later date to the construction of the finished blade. Yet the question remains: Why just a signature?

The signature tells us nothing. There is no qualification for the purpose of the award; no dedication to account for it; no explanation of who the donor is or what he does. The bare, bald signature has no relevance or apparent purpose to explain anything. It is just some scrawl upon the blade.

Of course if Craig can come up with some reasons to justify this bare signature (in an e-mail to me he suggests that he can come up with several explanations but didn’t actually do so). Then perhaps the time is now for him to explain why the views of those of us who oppose this Huhnlein concept are so wrong - and why it is that his account of its authenticity is to be accepted without explanation or challenge?

Frederick J. Stephens

I AM HAVING TROUBLE UPLOADING MY IMAGE FOR THE ABOVE TEXT -0 so I will seek assistance and then see if it can be accepted.

TRY IMAGE THIS SIZE

The image posted is too small for me to see (on my screen) and there are not enough pixels to use without losing a lot of definition. I can re-size it, but will be away from about 2200 hrs to 2400 hrs your time (1400 to 1600 hrs on the West Coast). Please send me the original copy and I will do it ASAP or when I get back. FP

Send to: **fprinz2000@yahoo.com**

Here is another attempt:

No, it didn't work, I will seek other help. Please stand by. Thank you.

The last few pages of dialogue on this topic seem to involve the same individuals. Where are all those that were involved at the beginning? cheers

Posting photo for FJS, Nats

In the first discussion my focus was more on the areas that were in my comfort zone, with a number of points that FJS was making outside my experience. But time has elapsed. More knowledge gained, augmented by some of the new photos which have more recently come to light.

I also now understand why there was so much argument about the “individuality” of the signatures. And why it was “OK” (but not by FJS), because they were done one at a time by hand just like handwriting.

I’m going to have to go back and gather some images to show parallels. Because what we are looking at just above is an example where an engraver messes up and can’t afford to toss out the item. And instead has to widen the engraving to salvage his work - and the blade. FP

Fred, your contributions are enormously helpful and educational. the pronouncements of "the debate is over" seem to be (as usual) premature.

Speaking for myself, I enjoyed your thoughtful and very professional analysis as well as Fred Stephens contributions and comments.

Mark

This is much better than CSI......

To show something is a fake without a doubt you -IMO- must show what an original looks like-- It really does not matter that you don't like the way something was made---and we know there is at least one original chain with the different top fitting out there somewhere.
So IMO and in the minds of many-you have presented some interesting facts but there is other worthwhile evidence also on the other side that you fail to note.
Conclusion -IMO-nothing has been proven. Many questions remain. Without the original chain-doubt and opinion is all that is left.

Dear Dave, may we please return to the Hallmarks. These are nor right. You show how these can be used fraudently. Your cuff links tell all. If the chains show faulse marking, what goes for the rest?

Did the cufflinks not have the "real" hallmark silver number on the back or was that an issue number or something?.

sorry it has been proven that the top hanger is a fake as it has cast hall marks which you just do not get on genuine silver items .today the punishment for faking hall marks is very severe imagine what they were during the 3rd reich

Thank you Mark. For me the discussions have been a very interesting and educational process as they have gone back and forth, and touched on a lot of areas. With the credit for bringing the Hühnlein daggers into question belonging to Frederick J. Stephens. Who as I recall was somewhat reluctantly dragooned into the original discussion by Craig. Two years later here we are again revisiting the issue.

Houston, While Craig for some reason seems to be having an unusually hard time in getting the “Offermann” photo posted. No one has questioned its existence. With the photo being around not since the book, but from when it was originally taken. And there are still a lot of photos out there which have never been published but in circulation with specialists in that area.

As for: “To show something is a fake without a doubt you -IMO- must show what an original looks like” doesn't really apply if the original no longer exists or does not come into public view. (And it does matter how things are made, or if they have fake markings or not.) “but there is other worthwhile evidence also on the other side that you fail to note.” With my question being: How much of it is what we might call ‘hard’ evidence? And how much of it is in the form of postwar documentation, testimonials, recollections, or the personal experiences of those in the business of TR memorabilia? Both have or can have value. But when there is a conflict at some point prospective buyers are going to have to make a choice.

As for “proof”: From my own perspective I have to first look at the pictures. With Third Reich artifacts some things make sense, and some don’t. FP

PS: A few entries earlier I should have said: "For example: the lack of the right kind of bending apparatus for the small wire chain connector links. Which is why you see a lot of them flat or flattened, instead of being round ...."

Right on!! With Third Reich artifacts some things make sense -others don't.
If testimony is next to worthless then there is no recorded World History that has much value either. If that is the case then you just simply have to choose what you are willing to accept until some other proof comes along to change your mind.
For me, and for many others, we are willing to accept these daggers as period based on testimony and other factors that we choose to believe until better proof than you have presented comes along.
I doubt if anyones cares much for the way these chains are constructed or the signatures applied-but what we think does not matter. As Tom Wittmann is fond of saying "Sometimes it is what it is"
As for all the ,IMO, hype about proper silver marks-the Nazi's were just a tad arrogant enough to do whatever they felt like-and they made their own law. To compare England or any other European Country to them is, just, IMO, "apples and oranges". Not comparable.

Houston, Maybe I can illustrate my point better with something that happened a number of years ago when I was more in my gun collecting phase. At a major Southern California show a guy had for sale a Russian M1940 Tokarev rifle. There are period photos of German soldiers with the M1940.

The rifle in question had a number of Waffenamts stamped on it, and he wanted a lot of money (for that time) for the rifle. The guy had a “story” to go along with the rifle and why it was so valuable.

To cut to the chase: It turned out that the guy had borrowed an original set of stamps. From someone who had no knowledge that the guy was going to create a fake (altered) rifle to extract the maximum amount of money from unsuspecting TR weapons collectors.

Some things make sense, and some don’t. And no amount of paper, testimonials, or photos was ever going to make that rifle legitimate. (And somewhere it's in somebody's collection because it got sold, and at some point is going to reemerge into the marketplace, only to disappear again.) FP

Dear Dave, I would like to high light your thoughts on NAZI Marking. They were just as perdantic, they had the RZM, LDO marking which was regourously enforced. The production of Orders was stricktly controlled. Take the silver marking on Eagle Orders. The silver mark with maker mark on the 20July wound badge. As another example of the control, with very precise ramification, is illistrated by the markings on some Goring silver given to him on his wedding. They bear the silver content and makers mark. When this silver was loaned with the Caren II TO THE NAVY, EACH PIECE HAD A NAVAL EAGLE HAND ENGRAVED UPON IT WITH THE ORIGINAL MARKING. This was a very precise piece of work.They did not make a punch, this would have shown through the silver on the obverse.The silver produced by Zitner, was very carefully marked. Witness the silver frames of Hitler and Goring. The honour goblet, produced in silver, duely marked, that in alpaka stamped as such.One could go on.

quote:

As for all the ,IMO, hype about proper silver marks-the Nazi's were just a tad arrogant enough to do whatever they felt like-and they made their own law. To compare England or any other European Country to them is, just, IMO, "apples and oranges". Not comparable.

Houston:
I am going to have to disagree with you here. In my time spent in the general antiques field I had the opportunity to examine many pieces of hallmarked silver including ones from Germany made during this period. An occasional piece would turn up with a spurious mark as there was fakery in silver as there is fakery in practically any collectible area.
However, In all the pieces I examined I never once saw a piece with cast hallmarks. I am extending an invitation to anyone on this forum to produce a piece of silver from Germany with cast hallmarks.
You have often stated the "One red flag doesn't necessarily make a piece bad" and I agree. However there's a big difference between some German craftsman have an off day and an item slipping thru inspection or someone marking a silver item in an illegal way.
Jim

Houston,, This is really silly,,,we do not have the burden of proof! Craig does,,and he offers none..
How about him showing a 100% Gahr item with those hallmarks?!

Here are some,,do they look even close!

nice, clear, crisp.:

FJS: “The Discussions on the form of the “etched” Huhnlein signature are interesting, and it might well be that a “craftsman” (those quotation marks are “tongue-in-cheek” deliberate) might have presumed he would get a better result if he went over the etched design with some cutting tool.”

I think sums up nicely what seems to evident with this blade. Very likely caused by little or no experience with deep etching on Damascus steel. This partially ruined blade demonstrates why it might have been necessary to change how the signatures were applied to the blades, with mechanical engraving being the next best choice. With later produced blades possibly using a very light etching to first create the design. Which was traced/followed by the one doing the engraving. FP

PS to Gaspare: I can’t argue with that. They bear no resemblance to those on the daggers.

For me, and for many others, we are willing to accept these daggers as period based on testimony and other factors that we choose to believe until better proof than you have presented comes along.
I doubt if anyones cares much for the way these chains are constructed or the signatures applied-but what we think does not matter. As Tom Wittmann is fond of saying "Sometimes it is what it is"
As for all the ,IMO, hype about proper silver marks-the Nazi's were just a tad arrogant enough to do whatever they felt like-and they made their own law. To compare England or any other European Country to them is, just, IMO, "apples and oranges". Not comparable.

Houston:
I'm still patiently waiting for some sort of proof of these statements. You can make any claims you want but you are purely speculating. IMO. These "hallmarks" are in violation of the law and I see nothing contrary to this being posted by you.
Jim

I agree that the Nazis were very arrogant people, certainly the ones in the top positions, wearing daggers like these.

Sorry, but to me it seems impossible that people like that would accept a dagger with such ugly and clumsy applied signatures and bad silver chain links,... They would have sent the piece immediately back to the Eickhorn factory for correction!

Best greetings,

Herman

It seems to me that if Gottlieb found it, it must be accepted. I just read the alleged MAX program highlights announcing Fred Stephens seminar and it is a pure, unadulterated set-up calling Mr. Stephens views "extremely unpopular with the collecting community". WHO exactly are they unpopular with?

Simply disgusting, if true.

Mark

Here it is...

SEMINAR PROGRAM

This year the MAX seminar program presents an “Evening with Frederick Stephens”. Mr. Stephens, an experienced British author and well known 3rd Reich daggers expert, will be on the “grid iron” this year for the MAX seminar presentation. Fred says he is ready to speak on varied topics and answer attendee’s questions.



In recent years, Mr. Stephens’ militaria related statements are not without controversy, as recently he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. This is a great time to attend the seminar and express your personal observations and experiences, and give Mr. Stephens’ a sound verbal challenge!

You hit the nail squarely on the head Kingtiger

To put this in proper perspective...

1. Gottlieb finds the dagger and "video tapes some interview". The dagger is first seen by the current owner in 1963! But his father brought it home in 1945? The video is being "edited". No kidding.

2. Gottlieb gives Whittmann exclusive rights to show the dagger. Why? Is Gottlieb making a token offer after he escaped the inquisition that was supposed to be be held at the MAX? Why would he not show it off himself...only to give it some more credibility I think.

3. Gottlieb admits he and Whittmann have serious problems. He e-mails me telling me that to please don't run any of his problems past Tom as they are having disagreements.

4. Whittmann tells me personally that "whenever there is controversy, Gottlieb is right in the middle of it every time".

5. The MAX Certification Program has no written ethical standards and now they must be written.

6. The invitation to beat up on a respected researcher is sent out TWO WEEKS before the MAX Show.

7. We are expected to be quiet and not raise any voice in all this?

8. Anybody that want to come to my house and video tape a dagger and use that video as proof it was real is welcome to do so. It must be accepted...is this not what is being said here in the opening of this thread and the letter from the "veterans son". Plus, I too am a Viet Nam veteran..what the heck does that have to do with anything. Is Gottlieb a Viet Nam veteran? I think he was in diapers when I was in the field. This stinks gentlemen...all of it.

Mark

As I read it from the content of this thread the debate really is over these NSKK Leaders daggers are all humped up FAKES
Lets have a forum vote on it then let it rest but leave FJS out of it

PLEASE!!! The comments concerning the Seminar Program Friday Night at the MAX were written and composed over a year ago when the original program was set up for LAST YEAR'S PROGRAM, which had to be cancelled at Frederick's request due to personal problems. So, don't attach this current discussion to the written comments concerning the seminar program.
Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

What can one say? Smoke and mirrors. Fake "Hallmarks" and "Old Programs". Could this be a wonderful fairy tale? Goblins goules and gosties?

The problem that I’m having is that when I looked it up. I found an online bulletin for the Max show on the "Military Trader" website not from a year ago, but a new one dated September 2, 2009. With a description of the new facilities, a list of attendees (ie: recognized names in the collecting). The fact that a TV film crew is going to be there, and some other things.

And the same description of the MAX seminar program that Mark posted is simply an oversight?

Here is a link: MAX show agenda

FP

Frogprince: HELLO! We are using the SAME press release that was written for the SAME PROGRAM that was cancelled last year for this year's seminar as IT IS THE SAME PROGRAM now that Frederick can come over.
There is no disrespect here, just a disagreement on certain topics in Third Reich edged weapons? What's NEW??

If you all want an example of what the discussion will be about, just look at the old threads on the RAD "FAT MAN" Hewer that Frederick was involved with on this forum in the past.
It will be one of the topics for discussion as I already have collectors asking for this to be brought up during the program.
Ron Weinand

Hello Ron! OK, lets assume that in a best case scenario the writer simply reused what was published last year. (If I have a copy from last year I don’t know where it is.)

The bulletin on the Military Trader website is very well written. And I am going to make the assumption that the writer read it at least once or twice before it was published because his name was attached to it.

“In recent years, Mr. Stephens’ militaria related statements are not without controversy, as recently he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. This is a great time to attend the seminar and express your personal observations and experiences, and give Mr. Stephens’ a sound verbal challenge!”

To an outside observer, wouldn’t that look something like a challenge to try and intimidate him?

PS: Not to distract from the Hühnlein discussion. I think I saw somewhere that another topic might be on the agenda ie: the many varieties of knives that use the “DJ” knife as the basic “chassis” or building block (to create all those different themes with diamonds, stag grips, etches etc.). Is that on the list also? FP

After seeing Max 2009 it could be read as "Now’s you chance to try and humiliate FJS in person...."

I cannot standby and what and watch a principled honest man (and personal friend of 30+ years) being set up for a fall…. Because of big $$$$

I can only hope that ALL the dealers who own theses NSKK's will be bringing them to the show,
to compare each of them together and all their "Unique Characteristics", if not why not...they should have nothing to hide.

Remember FJS has NO financial involvement in these items just an academic research involvement, whereas the Dealers just have big $$$ at stake.

And some are the dealers that turn to FJS for Advice. !!! Which is rarely mentioned.

Some will have asked for “Favorable reports on a piece” and then “Lose the plot” when FJS will not give it, at any price, if not deserved.

I’m still amazed at the “Let just ignore the silver marks, red flag ….. They don’t count in this case… ” because we’re talking big $$$$, if it was a $100 item it would be dismissed as junk.

I’m sure a lot of other people are thinking what I’m thinking.

Mark

Bottom line if a junior member had posted that dagger here it would have been instantly denounced as junk ten pages ago the hypocracyin this hobby these days astounds me

[quote]I’m still amazed at the “Let just ignore the silver marks, red flag ….. They don’t count in this case… ” because we’re talking big $$$$, if it was a $100 item it would be dismissed as junk.[/quote

Unfortunately that's exactly what's happening as there hasn't been ONE reasonable explaination for "hallmarks" which are not only bogus but would have been illegal. I guess when there's $$$$$$$$$$$ involved no matter whether it's a bad TK ring or a highly questionable "enhanced tunic" or a dagger with no apparent hard documentation it will get stonewalled until the discussion just goes away.
Jim

I’ve got to go and dig out some images. But I sincerely hope that the discussion doesn't die out until the center mounts have been looked at - in the context of what has now been revealed.

Back to the issue at hand, the acceptance as OK of fake hallmarks. FP

The discussion won't die, but there are, again, insults that have nothing to with the subject being posted.

On the other hand, I seem to be seeing the same pictures over and over with little new info

Dave

In my opinion FJS has contributed more to this hobby than any member of this forum....and certainly more than any dealer member of this forum...he has my respect and admiration and has done NOTHING to harm this view...I have yet to catch him offerring reproduction or made up junk to customers..I wish that I could say the same of some others...you live or die by your reputations and unfortunately some of the reputations here are not as unsullied as they were when some started out in this hobby/business...IMO

Dave, I have to agree with you. Current owners seem to be unwilling to share new images in order to make an effort to dispute some of what has been said. That was the problem with the first discussion. As soon as the discussion started to go sideways the new pictures dried up.

That said: Some of what is different here is the wide based confirmation that the Gahr marks are fakes. And that the Hühnlein signatures, besides being all different, are engraved on at least some of the daggers. With both some of the new (and first discussion) photos being used to illustrate the various points.

Also, “stirnpanzer” made the comment: “I can only hope that ALL the dealers who own theses NSKK's will be bringing them to the show, to compare each of them together and all their "Unique Characteristics", if not why not...they should have nothing to hide.”

Why wait? A discussion now along with some images of daggers in the possession of some of the current owners should streamline the seminar. Especially if the seminar is loaded up front with the testimonials that have been called for in the MAX bulletin. Which might not leave enough time to actually discuss the daggers.

I’m also in agreement that insults don’t further a discussion, and can sometimes cloud the issues under discussion. And they can, on occasion, also get a topic shut down which (if I’m remembering it correctly) is what happened with the first one which was unfortunate. Regards, Fred

"he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community.


- you guys aren't kidding,, it stinks. That's pure bull**** whether it be last year or this year,,,and you guys proved they are running it again this year... Hey Fred,,how much they paying you to attend this thing?! ..

No disrespect Ron?!? If that was about you you'd be the first one crying about it to have it changed.. How about playing fair, You have some pull being a major stock holder. Why don't you re-arrange that to make it that Craig's views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. and sound verbal challenge to him...

Hopefully the younger / new collectors are smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong. To know that guys with items like this,,that use forums like this, to try and legitimize their unorthodox pieces are doing this hobby wrong. To try and not frequent their sites to purchase and to make a stand and leave shows like this to the good ole boys and let these good ole boys trade these questionable pieces back and forth between themselves..
Sure the debate is over..I'd say the second he showed those hallmarks again it was over........

quote:

Originally posted by Gaspare:
"he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community.

Why don't you re-arrange that to make it that Craig's views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. and sound verbal challenge to him...

Been a real interesting topic for sure, but this question really makes sense. There has been a clear line of attack on multiple authorities who have no real monetary motivation, yet two of them have been the subject of clear attacks or attempts to discredit them and even a clear attempt to alter findings or opinions. Maybe this was an oversight by the Max with the wording as it is, but the wording leaves no question who worded it. The Gahr marks make no sense and video tapes mean nothing nor do they prove anything and one really has to question all the parties who do have an interest. Even if they believe the item is correct, the words utilized in the Max announcement reflect on the Max, no matter who wrote them or when. While benefit of the doubt for Mr. Weinand maybe in order, it might be wise for the establishment as a whole to take note of the issues when involving themselves with those who act in a manner that may not be best for the hobby or the collector community as a whole.

Been following this thread for a bit it just reminds me of the last one.
I never had a "Huhnlein" anything but I look forward to seeing this dagger at the MAX.

Where are the other owners of them? Gone Turtle? -Yes, why does that happen?
Does your Huhnlein have a cast Gahr hanger cartouche or the standard clip varient?

-serge-

Gaspare: This is EXACTLY what concerns me about what appears on these web sites. I am NOT nor have I EVER been a stockholder in the MAX Show.
Jumping to conclusions, spreading untruths, mis-information!! Exactly what is wrong with these threads.
Come to the Seminar program and see what is decided about some of the questions that have never been solved in this hobby from the beginning. Don't just throw bombs and never appear where the principals can be approached in person and a fair and open dialog can be had for all to see and hear.

Yes new images have dried up. again I ask about these new dental microscopes.... I thought they were cheap and everyone seemed gung ho in using them on etchings,engravings or what ever. This topic seems ripe for the use of this device. But without the owner of the item coming forward with more postings and images to me the debate is over. AJ has the correct thought in his posting if this was another members item!! at least then we could have had several more photos from a memeber looking for information or wanting to share images of a suspect dagger.
I for one want to see the money shots of this item and lets put this new microscope to work. Yes a very telling thread!
Bret Van Sant

My word, my fame spreads - invitations to my "stoning" now feature in "The Military Trader". Well OK then. I will be there, and I promise the writer of that article that I will give as good as I get. Perhaps more so!

In response to the request for a change of illustrations, here is a new one to consider. It shows Huhnlein at the Berlin Olympics, 1936, and the view of the dagger is reasonably clear. Enough to determine that the form of the centre mount is quite different to that on the faked up pieces currently circulating.

Frederick J. Stephens

That's obviously not an NSKK High Leader dagger. To see what one looks like, post the Offermann photo.

Craig, No offense, but if the Offermann photo is one of your key pieces of evidence, why aren't you the one posting it?? FP

Whatever happened to the old adage, "Buy the dagger, not the story"?

The Hühnlein dagger center mounts are an “interesting” piece of work. We know that in general the makers of these specifically marked daggers had on the plus side:

* Access to acid etching materials.
* Access to mechanical engravers.
* Access to silver in either bullion or coin form.
* An ability to melt and cast metal.
* Access to the types of alloys that used to be used to manufacture general use items like metal (food) serving platters etc. (A more difficult piece of the puzzle, with multiple choices of alloys.)

And on the minus side. They lacked the right tools for the job ie:

* No one piece “800” stamp.
* No legitimate “Gahr” stamp.
* No proper bending fixture.
* No ability to electroplate metals.
* A poorly executed amateurish ability to cast silver (silver is more difficult than with some other common metals).
* A somewhat indifferent skill set with the engraving process.

The pictures of the center mount shows what seems to be a machined(?) internal border area with a thin wall casting. (Although to be fair, that is not a complete certainly without a closer look.) As was mentioned it’s a little on the crude side having a different surface finish. Silver plating apparently either being too expensive or not available for the center mount maker(s). Also (even excluding the presumed recovered scabbards), having more noticeable gaps with some specimens than others. With the black patination seen with some examples, being either as first manufactured. Or done yesterday.

With the addition of the somewhat bizarre (IMO) two toned finish of the scabbard mounts. Which of course would be somewhat less noticeable if the actual silver parts were polished every day (or as needed). But even then still does not match up exactly.

PS: I don’t know what the problem is with the Offermann photo. But it would be nice to see some followup, inasmuch as it has been touted as a major item to be used to prove a point. After all it’s a period photo, not a dagger. Right? FP

Some examples of the center mount.

A few more.

Well I will say one thing...from the pictures just posted of the center mount..it appears crude and amateurish as opposed to the work of craftsmen..how does it compare to the center mount of SS and SA honour pieces? The quality seen in other blades seems lacking in many aspects on the NSKK pieces..does anyone want to offer an opinion as to why this is? Certainly an honour dagger of the NSKK would be of the highest quality and craftsmanship..afyer all look who's name is on the blade...I have seen many and have held SS and SA honour in hand, never owned an example..they do not seem comparable at first glance in this regard...cheers

I simply haven't had the time to scan it and post it, but I think it was posted here elsewhere. Although I had a large-format scan of the entire photo, this is a clip of the relevant section. Note the "suspect" cartouche suspension device and the "crude" center scabbard fitting. This photo was not discovered until WELL after the first NSKK pieces began to surface. In the photo, one can clearly see the honor crossguards as well.

With regard to center-scabbard-mounts, the crudeness of the NSKK mount (as seen on all examples, including the one in the Offermann photo) indicates that there is SOMETHING we don't know. It is my view, however, that the photographic period evidence, combined with provenance of many of these daggers, plus the illogical claim that someone ruined a box of SA Honors and planted them all over the world over a span of 50 years, trumps the structural observations.

Of interest by way of comparison: the faux-diamonds example of the oakleaves swords and diamonds is an utter piece of crap compared to the platinum and diamonds examples. If all we'd seen were the latter, then the former would appear "fake" by comparative standards of what we erroneously expect from Germany's "top" awards. But we know, through provenance, that the cheaper examples are real, just as we have provenance backing up many of the NSKK daggers that are on the market.

what about the cast in hall marks which would have been unlawful in the 3rd reich ?

To you, I answer the question with another question: what about the photo? What about the provenance of many of these daggers? The hallmark anomaly is trumped by the mounting photographic, provenential, and logical evidence supporting these. There are plenty of strange reasons why the highest ranking NSKK officer in the Third Reich may have ended up giving these away with - gasp - inappropriate hallmarks. I'm sure that is what he was most worried about when they were given to Offermann and Gruner (though Gruner's dagger doesn't have this hallmark problem).

Perhaps unlawful but who had the time to enforce such a small thing. Who with the knowledge would have scrutinized this dagger. The picture appears to be unaltered. I think this is evidence of the rubbish proposed on this dagger.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Yes, Bob - this photo is undoctored, unaltered, and accepted by everyone as genuine. The photo appeared much later than many of these daggers on to the scene, and clearly shows what is to 99% of the collecting world, the NSKK High Leader with silver chain, "sloppy" center scabbard fitting, and cartouche-style clip. And now that we have a named example (one with the nickel chain) bought out of the woodwork, and one with the silver chain that Gailen David found, which had been modified for easier wear, plus all of the other testimony evidence, the issue of the silver content markings begins to shrink into the background as nothing more than an genuinely interesting quirk - much like the "flaw" in the Banschutz crossguard. We don't know why it is there, but it is there nonetheless.

Maybe Gahr only made the sample chain, and then Huhnlein got angry at them and gave the chains to another factory to reproduce for him. Maybe HIS NSKK High Leader (the one he is wearing, which appears to have a similar cartouche style suspension clip) was the original made by Gahr, and he sent his off to be reproduced so he could award "attaboy" awards to his friends for some last-minute road race. We will probably never know why the chains ended up being produced the way they were produced. I'm okay with that. I am not proposing any of these as serious theories, because I lack evidence of them. But they are all logically possible, and given the mounting evidence in support of these being real daggers, we are forced to accept that something strange happened - an event, the details of which, may be forever lost in time.

Craig, I've got some other things I'm doing today, but you can send the photograph to me and I would be happy to re-size it for posting. For myself, I prefer to have it full size as sometimes some of the small details get lost. Or if not to me, perhaps to someone else you know? FP

**fprinz2000@yahoo.com**

hall marks in europe are no small thing
faking them today can result in an unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison imagine what the penalty in nazi germany was
could the mount be a replacement?

Well, my goodness, the Gottlieb had finally crawled out of his hole and responded:
----
Posted 19 September 2009 10:18 Hide Post
That's obviously not an NSKK High Leader dagger. To see what one looks like, post the Offermann photo.
------
The first question must be is: Why is that 'obviously NOT an NSKK High Leader Dagger'? The man bearing it is actually NSKK Reichskorpsfuhrer HUHNLEIN. The personages of the period do not actualy come any higher - unless of course you know something that I do not know. So does he not bear an NSKK High Leader Dagger - well not unless my concept of history is wrong, maybe you are going to tell me otherwise?

FJS

quote:

Originally posted by nickn2:
hall marks in europe are no small thing
faking them today can result in an unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison imagine what the penalty in nazi germany was
could the mount be a replacement?

NicH
I pointed out the issues with hallmark fakery as well did others several pages ago and I keep getting met with a stony silence whenever I ask for anyone to provide a plausable explaination for the bogus ones on the dagger fittings in question.
Jim

Jim, I was going to point out some as yet not discussed problems with the Grüner dagger, but took time out instead to take a quick look at the Offermann photo. And I don't think anyone is going to have to explain the fake “Gahr” silver fittings. Because the Offermann center mount in the photo itself is different than these (I have to assume) fakes that are currently in circulation. Which means that they are all fakes, as clearly seems to be evidenced by the photo of the center mount that Offermann is wearing.

More specifically: The Offermann dagger does not appear to have an (upper mount) embossed border. But much more importantly the center raised portion of the Offermann dagger is much more pronounced - not flat (please note the shadows). And the “wasp waist” of the center mount is not only closer to the raised central area (right next to it). It is also narrower.

PS: Can somebody please tell me what kind of XRay machine can tell what (if any) signature is on that dagger blade in the photo??? FP

Without the arrows.

Showing the before and after shots of the daggers I used for a quick comparison.

I don't know why I even bother. Fred Prinz: the photo is clearly that of an NSKK High leader with crude center scabbard fitting, cartouche fitting, and HONOR fittings. You can even see the oakleaves on the crossguards. If you're going to dismiss this photo as somehow lacking, then I really have nothing else to say.

Why don't you answer ONE question: explain to us a logical scenario whereby a faker would have benefited by this bizarre scenario of ruining a box full of SA Honors, and then secretly inserting them into private hands, to be discovered over a period of 50 or so years. Neither you or the very few who share your view have EVER answered that question.

You guys are going to look very silly when ANOTHER picture comes out, someday. As to Fred Stephens' comment about "The Gottlieb" (clearly a violation of the code of conduct, I must sadly point out) coming out, why would Huhnlein give himself a dagger? Whatever dagger he has, it's probably not have what collectors know as the NSKK High Leader, though it does appear to have the identical cartouche fitting.

My challenge to either of the Freds: Give us a logical scenario to explain the 50 year gradual release of these so-called "ruined SA Honor Daggers." I daresay, you must propose a theory in order for your position to hold ANY weight whatsoever, especially in light of the Offermann photo.

Relating to my experience only, many years ago I worked very close with old established companies in Germany with regards to signatures. They would never just grab up a signature and use it. Someone had to authorize the use of that signature especially if it was a person of stature and used on something of importance. This was done by requesting the individual write his/her name down three times and then choose the one signature that was to be used. The old timers related to me that this was the method used for as long as they could remember.

Craig, Let me see if I can break it down to something you might possibly understand. With another image to hopefully illustrate the basic concept.

Below I have put an inverted version of the Offermann photo next to the B/W version. An unseen light source in the photo caused reflections. There is a shadow underneath the center mount. Which is caused by it sticking out. All of the current center mounts that we have seen to date are essentially flat not raised.

I don’t see a border embossed into the scabbard top mount. Do you?

As for “scenarios”: I don’t think that you were in Southern California when the unreal proliferation of fakes drove a lot of really serious collectors out of collecting TR. Do you remember me telling you about Dick Deeter (a friend and one time owner of the “Wolf” Luftwaffe sword)? He was not the only one who bailed out of TR. There were a bunch of guys that did the same thing because of the fakes, and they started to have problems telling the real from the unreal. And these were the guys who started from “ground zero” - not beginners.

So all this “scenario” stuff means nothing to me. Because there were lots and lots of fakes/altered items. And lots and lots of liars and dishonest individuals back then. Who preyed on the fact that collectors were not as well informed (back then) as today. They would tell you anything if they thought it would open your wallet. And all that stuff they generated did not disappear - it just keeps getting recycled over and over.

I also know to a certainty that you are not really - shall we say: “technically oriented”, which sometimes can make detecting fakes difficult.

But show me an NSKK dagger with a raised center section mount and I might become a believer. But if it has one of those silver fake “Gahr” marked fittings, or one of those haphazard mechanically engraved signatures. No Sale !! FP

Here's a couple more Huhnlein pictures to mull over. I'm NOT at liberty to disclose the provider. In case anyone doesn't know this blade was made by Paul Dinger. The question is WHEN did he make it?
Jim

Another for your viewing pleasure.
BTW: I didn't have an opinion about the legitimacy of this dagger one way or another when this thread started. However; Since I have been totally stonewalled for ANY explaination as to the bogus hallmarks I certainly have developed an opinion.
Jim

I don't know when the answer to your hallmark question might appear, but I think it could be around the time I get the answer to these questions:

1) Why is the wide connector on the Offermann dagger (dimensionally) different than this silver "Gahr" marked example to its right?

2) Why are the small (wire) connector links on the Offermann dagger of a much heavier gauge (thickness) than the "Gahr" wide connector example?

3) Why are the chain links on the Offermann dagger also different?

Of course I could always get the "logical scenario" argument again. But that doesn't explain all of these strange "characteristics" that seem to afflict this one particular dagger. If the current daggers don't match up to the Offermann dagger - what can that mean? FP

OK Craig, my previous reference to you was not in order, and I apologise for that.

The photograph that I posted of Huhnlein was taken at the 1936 Olympics. Dr. K.G. Klietmann has stated ("German Daggers and Dress Sidearms of WWII", pub. Field and Fireside, 1967) that the order to paint NSKK scabbard black, was issued on 19 May, 1936, but that the introduction of the chained dagger was not decreed until 1938.

So the example that I show being worn by Huhnlein cannot be the standard chained dagger, and the distinctive chain cartouche and the central mount appear to confirm that distinction. I submit that it is a "High Leader dagger"; and that it does not necessarily have to have "Honour fittings". The "Honour Dagger" is a separate category, although it would appear - when considering the SA examples - that it can be combined with a "High Leader chained pattern".

The one thing which is most certain, is that these distinctive items will not feature the cast spoof hallmarking, and crudely made centre mount, that you are so keen on promoting.

FP is absolutely right - his photo analysis clearly shows that the "existing chained daggers" have a suspension that is NOT IDENTICAL to that shown on the Offermann photo. The wide cartouche is visibly different - seen even with the limited quality of the photo; and the connector links are seen to be thicker and the chain links more substantial.

There is no way that the Huhnlein dagger shown is the exact same type of item that Offermann is wearing.

FJS

1. From CG on page 5 ""Now, can someone post the photo of Offermann wearing the NSKK High Leader with silver chain, so "newer" viewers can see the photographic evidence first hand?""

2. From CG on page 5 ""In the mean time, we have the photo of Offermann wearing the NSKK with silver chain, and many documented "surfacings" of these daggers worldwide. Please explain, doubters. I think Ron Weinand, Tom Wittmann, Grant Bias, Tom Johnson, Gailen David, Ken Brethaur, Jason Burmeister, Brian Maederer, Houston Coates many advanced collectors, Brigadefuhrer Gruner, and Obergruppenfuhrer Offermann, our Danish connection, and the Mooney family, just dying to know the answer!

3. From CG on page 5: ""Folks: I once more ask someone to provide a close-up scan of Offermann WEARING the NSKK High Leader with silver chain, as pictured in Johnson's German Dagger of World War II: A photographic Reference, page 458. This seals the deal in my view. A photo that did not surface until many decades after the first NSKK High Leader is recorded as having been observed."""

1. The evidence is shown as above.

2. Where are all these other daggers just like the Offermann one?

3. Perhaps it does seal the deal - you've provided evidence which does not support your own case. In fact, far from it. (Just my opinion Houston..)

Regards

Russ

quote:

Why don't you answer ONE question: explain to us a logical scenario whereby a faker would have benefited by this bizarre scenario of ruining a box full of SA Honors, and then secretly inserting them into private hands, to be discovered over a period of 50 or so years. Neither you or the very few who share your view have EVER answered that question.

Sorry, Craig but that is a very easy question:

- The exact same thing happens today with regular SA's and SS's being transformed in full and partial Röhms. I know personaly several collector with fake inscription Röhm daggers in their collections and these poor guys are convinced that they have the real thing...

- In 50 years someone will ask: "Why would someone have ruined all those boxes of good SA's and have them hidden all over the world? It does not make any sense..."

- And don't worry, the grandchildren of the duped collectors will be happy to testify and write letters of authenticity, certainly if some dealer offers them interesting money for the pieces...

- Will that turn all those fake Röhms into originals? No, but the ones that own them at that moment would like it... Does it sounds familiar?...

Best greetings,

Herman

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):

As for “scenarios”: I don’t think that you were in Southern California when the unreal proliferation of fakes drove a lot of really serious collectors out of collecting TR. Do you remember me telling you about Dick Deeter (a friend and one time owner of the “Wolf” Luftwaffe sword)? He was not the only one who bailed out of TR. There were a bunch of guys that did the same thing because of the fakes, and they started to have problems telling the real from the unreal. And these were the guys who started from “ground zero” - not beginners.

So all this “scenario” stuff means nothing to me. Because there were lots and lots of fakes/altered items. And lots and lots of liars and dishonest individuals back then. Who preyed on the fact that collectors were not as well informed (back then) as today. They would tell you anything if they thought it would open your wallet. And all that stuff they generated did not disappear - it just keeps getting recycled over and over.
FP

This statement FP is right on the money
One would have to be there and see what was going on. Dick Deeter I knew from the shows-a quality person with integrity. Warren Odegard I was better acquainted with...another great guy.
What does all this have to do with the "subject-at-hand"? The prolification of good fakes. Dick Deeter was so concerned on how good the repro Gorgets were getting that he wouldn't show a single "reverse" of one in his book.
The very first dagger booklet in the late 1950's pre-Atwood, was sprinkled with high-end fakes! One of them was this rarity below...Oh My! It's a Gold Huhnlein! From the Dutch Heilman collection.
So someone was providing Dutch just what he needed to fill his needs. Recently this fake showed up appropriately with Charlie Snyder for $40,000.

-serge-

quote:

quote:
Why don't you answer ONE question: explain to us a logical scenario whereby a faker would have benefited by this bizarre scenario of ruining a box full of SA Honors, and then secretly inserting them into private hands, to be discovered over a period of 50 or so years. Neither you or the very few who share your view have EVER answered that question.

Whoever wrote the above will be well advised to go back and read/reread Collecting the Edged Weapons of the Third Reich Volume II by T Johnson. "Chapter II Major Jim Atwood goes to Solingen" is perhaps the best contempory account of what was generally available for dagger parts material even up into the 60s. Keep in mind that many makers just boxed up parts and put them into storage somewhere around 1942 when the sale of decorative daggers ended and essentially forgot about them. I suspect that this would have included high party leader parts along with parts for most common daggers. There are pictures in this chapter of boxes of dagger parts crates of brand new(unissued) scabbards etc. He also gives an account of P Mueller opening a box that contained over 100 damascus sword and dagger blades that had never been completed into swords and daggers.
My point here is no one had to alter completed daggers at that time. There were plenty of extra parts available to essentially have anything wanted made up. We all know now that many of the early dagger books including Atwoods contain numerous fakes and fantasy pieces so we would have to be pretty naive to believe this practice wasn't fairly widespread.
It is also entirely possible that the parts that were not available were original silver fittings for high party leader daggers and that the fake ones now seen were made up elsewhere to complete these daggers hence the faux hallmarking.
If anyone has a better explaination as to the origin of these bogus silver fittings I, and I'm sure others, would like to hear it.
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:

Whoever wrote the above will be well advised to go back and read/reread Collecting the Edged Weapons of the Third Reich Volume II by T Johnson. "Chapter II Major Jim Atwood goes to Solingen" is perhaps the best contempory account of what was generally available for dagger parts material even up into the 60s. Keep in mind that many makers just boxed up parts and put them into storage somewhere around 1942 when the sale of decorative daggers ended and essentially forgot about them. I suspect that this would have included high party leader parts along with parts for most common daggers. There are pictures in this chapter of boxes of dagger parts crates of brand new(unissued) scabbards etc. He also gives an account of P Mueller opening a box that contained over 100 damascus sword and dagger blades that had never been completed into swords and daggers.
My point here is no one had to alter completed daggers at that time. There were plenty of extra parts available to essentially have anything wanted made up. We all know now that many of the early dagger books including Atwoods contain numerous fakes and fantasy pieces so we would have to be pretty naive to believe this practice wasn't fairly widespread.
It is also entirely possible that the parts that were not available were original silver fittings for high party leader daggers and that the fake ones now seen were made up elsewhere to complete these daggers hence the faux hallmarking.
If anyone has a better explaination as to the origin of these bogus silver fittings I, and I'm sure others, would like to hear it.
Jim

Correct Jim. "They" made parts that they were short of. In many cases they had the original molds to do so. Many of which still turn up at places like "Manions" even today along with original "factory parts" as this SA Honor scabbard, chains and etc.
Note: Original factory brown leather.
Some of these put-togethers are "tested" on ocassion on this very forum.

-serge-




Parts like these together with a skilled assembler with knowledge of state-of-the-art fake patina technique...and Wha-LA!

Hi Everyone,just an observation,the centre mount on the dagger Jim posted,looks like the well made mounts on the SA honour daggers,nice finished edges.totaly different from the mounts on the Huhnlein daggers.nats

Ron,, I publicly apologize about the stockholders statement....BUT,, you make it seem like your helpless about fixing that description.. I mean come on,,you could have that changed any time if you asked.. I mean you go on hotel buys with one of the guys that runs the show!

Anyway,, I've received an email from member Mark 'KingTiger' Paul. Seems for what ever the reason he's been silenced here,,he's been temporarily [?] banned and just wanted everyone to know he didn't stop posting because he thinks the dagger is good,,far from it.......

So an interesting topic for you dagger guys. don't know about the dagger but with all the weird things that have show up over all these years why not,,BUT that link with the Gahr marks isn't one bit good and even a rank amateur could tell you that...'Debate is Over' ? far from it on that too!
Have a good time guys..

Geez, what's Mark done to be temporarily banned - offering an opinion???

Regards

Russ

quote:

Originally posted by Gaspare:
Ron,, I publicly apologize about the stockholders statement....BUT,, you make it seem like your helpless about fixing that description.. I mean come on,,you could have that changed any time if you asked.. I mean you go on hotel buys with one of the guys that runs the show!

Gaspare,

I do not think he knew of the article and he may very well have been helpless in changing it. All things considered, he does care about the hobby and this may have flown right over his head, as a matter of fact I think it did, it may very well have flown over his partners head as well.

After reading this whole thread regarding these types of daggers my own opinion is that they are post War humped up for sure! I would never purchase one of these daggers with all the red flags hanging over them, the truth is there for all to see now!!

Colin

Jim, As regards your question: ”If anyone has a better explanation as to the origin of these bogus silver fittings I, and I'm sure others, would like to hear it.” I’m not saying it is better. But here is one of several ideas I’ve contemplated to explain what appears to be in the images.

First, without the correct multiple sets of dies and stamping equipment you can’t make nickel silver chains that will match originals.  And a cast nickel silver chain set will give a fake away every time (just like some more recent fakes.)

When you are in short supply of period chain assembly parts, if you make the choice to switch to silver castings. And then to throw people off use fake “Gahr” marks (it seems that a lot of people even at this late date are not familiar with the markings).  The fraud succeeds.   AND if you go to the wide connector type. You also don’t need to try and make a conventional type spring loaded connector with moving parts which is much more complicated to make. A “win” “win” solution for the fakers. FP

Below: From another GDC thread, some ordinary nickel silver links. Please note that the parts are all more or less the same color.

The R. Grüner NSKK “Hühnlein” dagger I think could be one of the 'Poster Children' for the above scenario (a short supply of period parts). In the image below I think it can be clearly seen that there are nickel silver parts, nickel plated steel, and a silver/white unidentified metal (used for the small wire connector links) all put together to create a chain assembly. Also please note on the spring loaded connecter piece - a partially damaged/crushed small wire connector link. Which suggests to me they might have been really trying to stretch a small supply of assorted chain parts to the maximum.

Where some of the rubber is going to hit the road IMO is with: “I am giving Tom Wittmann an exclusive on the photos of this piece for his book”. If Tom Wittmann gives this dagger a “pass” in his book without mentioning the controversy. And especially some of the specific issues that have been brought up in the discussion. While any author might unintentionally on some occasions have a fake get put into one of his books - because it was not known at the time. If it was the subject matter of a serious controversial public discussion that he has knowledge of well in advance of publication. That is another matter. Something like that (at least in my opinion) could have a far reaching impact on his reputation, and the acceptance of his book. FP

i have a very good period photo of a nskk leader wearing a chained dagger i bought from Doug Gow, he had some of the best photographs at one time lets see if i can find it.

quote:

Originally posted by nats:
Hi Everyone,just an observation,the centre mount on the dagger Jim posted,looks like the well made mounts on the SA honour daggers,nice finished edges.totaly different from the mounts on the Huhnlein daggers.nats

I agree with Nats, there is a big difference between those centre mounts. So now we have "good fakes", and "bad fakes". I know which one I prefer!

Regards

Russ

Russ, That is an excellent observation on yours and Nats part with a picture to back it up!!! These guys (the fakers) were trying to make something that looked like a period mount, but did not have the right materials, the right equipment, or the expertise to make it.

That is what is so unreal about this discussion. This widespread acceptance of mixed and substandard parts and workmanship. Fake markings, and the whole nine yards.

How much evidence do you need to see that they are fake? Best Regards, FP

Fred put your thoughts in your new book and publish it! you are not a dealer or collector so your opinion is valued.

I would say in my opinion on the basis of this thread it is beyond "reasonable doubt" that these are humped up pieces.

I'll chime in and state my humble opinion as well.

In view of all the evidence presented by the opposition, the ball is now in the believers half.
How can such a poorly made centre band along with these anomalies in casting/cast silver proof marks and irregular inscribed signature on blade be "undoubtly original"??

If anything like a Huhnlein original honor-dagger is around, I would expect it to be made similar such as the example Jim M is presenting.

The technology and knowledge was there pre-45 to make such a blade with a raised gold signature!

In my humble opinion these engraved specimens are post-war humped-up SA Honor daggers.

In response to the why-theory, why destroy and ruin original blades, my answer is simple:
As collectors like variations of daggers, why would not the ones who already owned the SA-Honor dagger want to add another rare specimen (Huhnlein Honor...) for maybe a bit more cash than the "standard" SA-Honor???

The market is made by us collectors, and we want it all...

Thanks to all the posters on this very interesting thread, especially Frogprince, Frederick J Stephens and Jim M!


Trigger is now signing off this thread

Cheers,

quote:

Originally posted by Trigger:

The market is made by us collectors, and we want it all...

Cheers,

....because a true collector can't allow any of the "varients" slip by him.



Oh...the guy who was selling this Huhnlein "presentation" said it was "real" too.

-serge-

WOW!,,,with that last pic posted,,the plot only deepens and thickens,,,where oh where will this eventually lead to????....

Serge,

I think the topic is the ones with damascus steel blades.

Dave

Trigger, No thanks are necessary, but I and I'm sure Frederick J Stephens and Jim M appreciate them. While this at times has been a challenging discussion. It has also been an interesting and educational one as well.

But the real thanks I think should go to Craig Gottlieb for bringing this topic back to life after a two year hiatus. Without his announcement and what followed this thread would not have happened.

And I’m sure that there will be many at the MAX who would like to meet up with Craig personally. And thank him. For this much closer look into the “Hühnlein" daggers than happened with the very first discussion.

Dave, I don’t know Serge’s mind, but I’m going to guess that he was drawing attention to a tendency that some collectors have worse than others.

While I do both depending on what it is, a very good friend of mine is what I would call a hard core “variant collector”. Somebody mentions the word “variant” - and his eyes sort of glaze over and his wallet comes out.

Usually it’s harmless, but sometimes it can lead to making bad choices. Like for example the Dutch Heilman NSKK dagger from the 1950's which recently surfaced, and a whole bunch of others. Regards to All, Fred

I've read the whole thread very carefully and I must admit that some of the conclusions brought here, are very disturbing to say the least.
I have never owned an NSKK High Leader and neither will I ever after reading this thread.
I'm not saying that it is 100% postwar made and neither do I say that it is original but it has certainly received a pretty "cold shower".
Why spend $ 50,000 on one of these and then try to convince the whole planet that it is original or not ?
No thanks, I'll just stick with a common SA Honor for now.

Frederick and Frogprince, nice forensic work.

Looking forward to see ya at the Max.

With you on that Pat.. my NSKK Honor has a lovely original fine black leather scabbard and varnished deep wooden handle. But unfortunately no Chains or signature

quote:

Originally posted by mongobongo:
With you on that Pat.. my NSKK Honor has a lovely original fine black leather scabbard and varnished deep wooden handle. But unfortunately no Chains or signature

I would rather have yours without the chain and signature, much rarer and no controversies with respect to the signature either.

And me

I,ll just stick with my Standard SA daggers at least i know where i stand with them

Dave,

I think you miss the point that Serge is trying to make.

He shows the fake steel blade Huhnlein just to compare against the........err.......umm - all the other fake Huhnleins that are in this thread!

FJS

I ahve removed a series of off-topics insults by Ryan Sellick and a couple of responses.

Back to the NSKK Dagger.

Ryan, you have email

Dave

I can only imagine the e-mail sent.
Anyway, back to the basics.

I know of a collector who owns a '33 type with no chain, DELUXE scabbard and with signature. VERY hard to believe someone would have altered this piece.
Sad to see things destroyed by OPINION, IMO.
Hard to understand the quality of the markings and some other things as well--but then, as we well know--many daggers have flaws and we don't understand that either.. AND WE JUDGE IF THEY ARE ORIGINAL BY THESE FLAWS. Strange hobby.

Then back to “basics” it is: Among some of the items that were removed was a comment, and question, to Frederick J. Stephens. More specifically the comment that the dagger Serge posted was a fake. And that fake copies of items that are at some point determined to be earlier fakes is not at all uncommon with TR items.

I also asked a question about the width of the gold characters in the “Hühnlein” signature in the third image he posted. To confirm my belief that signatures written with a pen can vary slightly in width as the tip of the pen is turned/rotated. But that to get the extra width seen in some of the Hühnlein dagger signatures the writer would have to go back and forth, up and down. To fill in the character which is not the normal way people sign things. And in the case of the daggers, is seen with some examples, to be the work of a machine engraver which does not seem to be disputed.

Also removed I think was an observation that the Offermann dagger (with the possible exception of the crossguards) bears no resemblance to any of the current “Hühnlein” daggers other than it is a political type dagger. And more specifically, neither any part of the chain assembly, nor the center mount match those currently in circulation. Although it does appear to have the more ornate type crossguards.

My point being if the markings (of current examples) are cast on the wide connector variety (no question about that). And they don’t exist on any known period object (other than the daggers). And are not in period documentation. And the wide connector in the photo is very noticeably physically different from all those in circulation now. Is all of that together: “one of the mysteries of life”. Or a reasonably clear indication that it’s just one more example of a fake made specifically to fool the TR collecting public? FP

Controversy has never been good for a particular item in the short run, but good for the collector and the hobby in the long run.
Debate is good, particularly in a "target rich" area such as these Huhnlein daggers.
Yes, it is Sad to see things destroyed by opinion. However it's a double edged sword, it's also sad to see things "made-good" by opinion.

I'm looking forward to seeing this dagger in person at the MAX and hearing Craig's story, along with our Frederick Stevens discussion of the item. Also Ron's 2nd Bahnschutz and the "Battle of the Crossguards".

The only thing I've learned in this hobby is you never stop learning.

-serge-

quote:

“Controversy has never been good for a particular item in the short run, but good for the collector and the hobby in the long run.” .....” Yes, it is Sad to see things destroyed by opinion. However it's a double edged sword, it's also sad to see things "made-good" by opinion.”

A case in point was here on the GDC on another forum about 6 or 7 (?) years ago. A widely accepted belief in the collecting community, the issue was “personalized” government acceptance/property marked Luftwaffe daggers. Which caused pain for current owners, but benefited future owners and the hobby as a whole, as the number of these defaced daggers seen for sale has dropped dramatically. Also (hopefully) preserving the historical integrity of those daggers the fakers would have ruined in the future.

quote:

“I'm looking forward to seeing this dagger in person at the MAX and hearing Craig's story, along with our Frederick Stephens discussion of the item.”....

It will be very interesting to see at first hand the dagger that started this topic. And how equitably the debate is handled.

quote:

And a clarification of an earlier posting: “I also asked a question about the width of the gold characters in the “Hühnlein” signature in the third image he posted.”

Specifically referring to the noticeably narrower in places writing in gold on the Damascus blade first posted by Jim M. (Which IMO in the appropriate time frame should also have the “falling “N” type of signature if the NSKK plaques and the book are considered reasonably reliable guides.) FP

my apologies to Houston if I was insultive...thanks for the email Dave...cheers, Ryan

The plot continues the great and the good trying to get Craig out of an expensive hole FJS get in there at the MAX and denounce all these daggers as ATtttttttttttWOOD Fakes GO FRED GO

I guess in summary (having been absent due to travel from many pages of this thread) it's best for me to say that "the whole world" doesn't need convincing that these daggers are real. Most of the world still believes they are good, after 12 pages Anyway, my original (in my view and most other peoples view, and in the Mooney's view) will be on display at MAX. Anyone who would like to physically inspect what 99% of the collecting community still views as an original for the first time, may feel free to stop by my table.

And by the way, Fred Prinz, your little snide comment about my intellect are funny, especially this one:

"I also know to a certainty that you are not really - shall we say: “technically oriented”, which sometimes can make detecting fakes difficult."

If you come to MAX, I certainly hope you'll introduce yourself to me. I'll gladly share some of my intellect with you. I know you aren't really experienced enough with anything other than photographic manipulation and amassing an impressive forum post count, but we won't hold that against you

Craig,

No offense, but you don’t know anything about my education or background in general manufacturing and Aerospace. Thanks for the offer, but I think you should save your “intellect” for the debate at the MAX. You might need it.

FP

quote:

Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb:
Anyone who would like to physically inspect what 99% of the collecting community still views as an original for the first time, may feel free to stop by my table.

Might want to work on your fractions a bit as the community is much larger than you think, and you do not have 99%.

I think Craig may mean 99% of the dealers and collectors who've sold/bought them, not 99% of the whole world or the collecting community. At least I think it would be more accurate. I don't remember seeing the poll for the whole world - has anyone else?

For an item with so many blatant in-accuracies, I'm amazed that some of these experts believe they're genuine...but perhaps they have to...

Regards

Russ

Evidence and analysis has been presented here to back up claims that these are not genuine. Nothing has been provided by the claimers that these are original period items apart from stories, and the old 'been collecting for 'x' years routine', which is rather tiresome. What happened to buying the item, not the story? Seems it doesn't apply in this case.

Regards

Russ

If no "stories" were believed there would be no history-only opinions. Of course there is no or little agreement on many aspects of history. So--you have to form yout own opinion. All those who know the truth are dead. But then--some would not believe their "story' anyway.

Craig, hello
Now that you are back reading the postings have you used the dental microscope thing to capture any images yet of the questionable hallmark areas I have ask about in the last few pages? I have ask a few times but maybe you missed my posts? I think that this may help with better images anyway. Aslo I will comment on Fred Priz's photo skills and say I think it has helped here and in other threads I know when a few of us were debating the luft machette thing this past winter Fred was not on any side of the fence but placed the burden of proof on the owners of those sidearms. granted thats another area that most collectors dont really care about due to the lack of flash and glory. Of which your item has. If we are taking a poll count on the item in question here in this thread, I think that Craig, you need to post many more images due to the questions raised.So I'll be in the minority of collectors who think this item is suspect. I sure hope you can find the time post post further images of the dagger as it may clear up a few things either way. I think that everyone has learned alot here in these posts!!
Bret Van Sant

Everyone,

After reading this thread I must say that i am very disturbed with the ridiculous remmarks that these pieces are post war made!!
For the record, the dagger which I have posted pictures of, resides in the "Bias Collection", as my father, David, is the true dagger collector with over 40 years of knowledge and expirence.
He too is very disturbed with the remmarks made, but does not wish to part take on any discussion forums.
Here are some of my thoughts about the matter at hand. No two signitures will ever be the same! They may have the same strokes and have the same characteristics, but will never be perfect! If my memory serves me correct, there are about thirteen of these pieces in existance, then why would anyone in their sane mind be willing to take the risk in messing up 13 original SA High Leader blades!!!
We also have another NSKK Huhnlein blade. This blade is heavily pitted and basically ruined. The pitting goes through the Huhnlein signiture, logo, and motto. The tang is stamped DAMASK with the number 79. Now, I don't about you, but with the amount of pitting that is on this blade, it would take an extremely long time to reproduce.
I have a very high powered microscope that can also take pictures, so I will take some deep shots of the signitures and post them. It may have to be after the MAX show, since I am running short of time. I will have both pieces at the MAX so if anyone would like to see them upclose. Regards, Grant Bias

I’m headed out for a good portion of the day, and only have time to comment on one of Grant Bias’s statements. Counterfeiters of antique guns when applying new markings will age/rust/pit the guns to camouflage their work. If they are skilled it can make it very difficult, and in some cases almost impossible to detect. And if they are successful it can dramatically increase the value of the firearm.

Also, sometimes you can get too close to the object being photographed. The surrounding area has to be examined as well, as can be seen I think in a picture I will post when I return. FP

First I'm an unexperienced collector on this type of dagger.Second it's way over my head in price range.Reading this thread i have a couple of questions.
1. How many of this type dagger were produced at a time 1-3-7-12 ? Does anyone know ?
2.Did the same German craft's man make all the daggers or were they shop assigned at the request for purchase ?
3. Was there a standard for fittings or did the recipient change them as he liked ? Please don't tell me there were strict standards as High Officials did at times what they wanted.Stepp D. was a perfect example.
I'm not saying the dagger and fitting signature are right but none of us were there there all dead to include the makers of the daggers.There are no records by the company .we look at signatures and say there different.Thats way I'm asking how many were made at one time? .It may all sound dumb to the experts in the field but I'm sure there may be others asking as we went from a dagger to fittings, hallmarks in England and a very deep thread which at times I didn't even know what was being discussed . Again I'll say it so no one else has to "Eddie your dumb"

I love GDC and I've really enjoyed this topic so far and thanks to everyone for a great discussion. But when it comes to someone stating things like "I know you aren't really experienced enough with anything" etc.etc. This statement reeks of arrogants and is a blatant insinuation without proof, an allegation that is left hanging in the air for us all to think about! As if to state, maybe you all really shouldn’t trust what this person has told you, but you can trust me because I know a deep dark secret about this person. Personally I think it stinks, it’s unprofessional and tacky without proof and I believe those of us that are members of this dagger site are not idiots and shouldn’t be played as such. How extremely convenient and unintelligible it is to attack another’s background and credentials to further one’s argument without proof! Doesn’t sound philosophical to me and it just makes me suspicious of anyone acting in this manner and spoils the whole thread. I’m very disappointed.

Mikee, You bring up a very valid point. This is why many people whom once to posted on here do not anymore (like me). People trash each other and their items, take cheap shots etc etc. This is sad; as most of the knowlege has been ran off never to return. Why bother wasting time?

In some of the related threads two years ago “argumentum ad hominem” was a standard practice/tactic. If I remember it correctly, a relatively lengthy public apology was issued by one of the participants during the discussion at one point. So far by comparison this thread is much milder.

It’s very much a guessing game just what is being reported with the badly pitted “Hühnlein" dagger blade mentioned. Unfortunately I didn’t find a digitized version of artificially aged counterfeit fake gun markings that I could post. Although we do already have at least one example (with the cast in place “Gahr” marked silver fittings) where something went wrong somewhere in the signature application process.

To compensate a little, here is an interesting study IMO of another TR “Collector’s Treasure”. And why you sometimes have to step back a little to get a better perspective of something. I know that this is not a political dagger, but here is an unpainted “Reichs Party Day” etched knife blade.

And when you step back a little you see that it is a counterfeiters “proof of concept” test piece using an old worn used pitted HJ blade. With my point being that you have to look at the whole item in question and not be blinded by what at first glance seems to be something of value. FP

PS to Ed: In your questions you seem to be intermixing standard production with the "Hühnlein" daggers. I think the unfavorable side has described production from its perspective multiple times. Conversely, I don't think I've ever heard or seen a production rationale/perspective from those who say they believe in the daggers.

I don’t remember the exact wording but the “nut” Sigmund Freud basically said, roughly quoted, “Sometimes a chair is simply a chair”. This discussion runs parrelel to his sentiment.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Fred Prinz ,

Will you also join Frederick Stephens in the debate ?
There are many collectors that would like to meet you personally .

Regards ,
Rob.

FP--Perhaps you would like to explain why most of us who lack your vast education why the color on this really off topic HJ could not have been cleaned off or otherwise destoyed by the elements.
--and will you be coming to the MAX show to meet your followers and "the other camp" ?
It's Showtime.
Also--Just talked to Joe Pankowski--who just about everyone in the hobby should know-- he has just VAST experience in the hobby. He stated it is absurd to think these daggers are not period.

do all of these daggers have the same top mount with the fake cast in hall marks?
if anyone is in any doubt that cast marks are fake just ring any assay office

Bob,
Sigmund Freud also said: “Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.”

Hello Rob!
I hold Mr. Stephens in very high esteem and we will see.

Houston,
It’s a postwar counterfeiter’s test piece, to show how easy it is to get fooled. When I get back I will show you why. (It’s really very easy when you know what to look for.)

As for Mr. Pankowski, I am not at all demeaning him, when I say a name and reputation are just that, not facts. Just offhand - do you know if he currently owns, or has been involved in the buying and selling of the “Hühnlein" daggers in the past?

A very busy weekend, I’ll post the images upon my return later today. FP

This thread seems to be reverting to insults rather than comments about these daggers. Please try to avoid this.

Thanks
Dave

Houston, I respect your long tenure in this hobby. And the many contributions you have made to GDC and its members. Also acknowledging that we sometimes have differences in the way we look at things. And that while not everyone appreciates enhanced digital imaging or image manipulation. Sometimes you just have to use the tools that you have available.

I’m hopeful that by sharing these images, you will understand my point of view about this knife being a postwar fake versus: “HJ could not have been cleaned off or otherwise destroyed by the elements.” With my original intent being to illustrate that what at first glance might seem to be a legitimate period item could be, or with this example is in fact a postwar "enhancement". And if something does not seem quite right - don’t be afraid to question it.

By looking at both sides of the blade. We see in the first image a worn, pitted, tired blade on the left. And a more polished surface in the area of the etch on the opposite side, surrounded by more pitting (the word “polished” on the far left is not that legible).

The white spots are preexisting pits in the blade, which have been partially filled in with the acid etchant, leaving a fairly reflective whitish residue. Also noteworthy is the difference in surface finishes, which is seen with at least one example of the Hühnlein daggers.

In the second image by inverting the image it makes the pits really stand out.

The third image, a close up.

The forth is the close up inverted. With my apologies to all for this hopefully minor diversion from the main topic. FP

Hi FP!
Yes, Joe does have experience with these daggers.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Bob, Thanks for the input!

A question for Grant Bias: You stated - “ We also have another NSKK Huhnlein blade. This blade is heavily pitted and basically ruined. The pitting goes through the Huhnlein signature, logo, and motto. The tang is stamped DAMASK with the number 79.”

On September 4th, Craig stated: “Regarding the "ugliest NSKK" competition: myself and two other dealers purchased one from a guy who rode into the Kassel show on a bicycle, about 3 years ago. It was void of any scabbard, and the blade was slightly less "holey" than swiss-cheeze. It was truly awful, and I'm glad I don't have a picture of it!”

By any chance is this the same dagger blade that Craig mentioned? FP

but do they all have the cast hall marks??

nickn2,

You have asked what I think is a very straight forward question: “but do they all have the cast hall marks??” It would seem that the answer is yes.

On August 1st 2007 Craig stated: “Here is the upper chain clip - very unique configuration. Note the lack of a functional snout-nose clip, and the presence of Gahr Munich silver stamps (which are always poorly stamped on these pieces).”

As the presumed leader of the 99.99 % majority that believes in the "Hühnlein" daggers, I have to assume that his statement is correct as to his belief at that time.

With on September 28, 2009 Craig offering this explanation: “ Maybe Gahr only made the sample chain, and then Huhnlein got angry at them and gave the chains to another factory to reproduce for him. Maybe HIS NSKK High Leader (the one he is wearing, which appears to have a similar cartouche style suspension clip) was the original made by Gahr, and he sent his off to be reproduced so he could award "attaboy" awards to his friends for some last-minute road race. We will probably never know why the chains ended up being produced the way they were produced. ................”

Which is why I think there is a certain amount of confusion expressed by some of those reading the thread. An angry Hühnlein sending the chains off to a substandard subcontractor - who continued to use the cast in place “Gahr” logo?

Does that make sense?

FP

If Tom Johnson accepts that all of these are good than that is good enough for me..I know Mr.Pankowski..I have purchased from him but I consider Tom J to be the father of this hobby since the passing of Mr.Atwood

Ryan, At the end of the day what is going to happen is that those who believe in them will vote with their dollars, or whatever medium of exchange they use. Buying and selling them among themselves their fellow believers, and with those who profess to be believers.

Those that think they are postwar “humped up”. Altered. Or whatever is used to describe something that left the factory looking differently than as seen now, will avoid them like the plague. Also voting with their dollars. But spending them on something that they are more comfortable with.

And somewhere in the middle are those who have to make a decision. If something is as controversial as these “Hühnlein” daggers clearly are, as has been amply demonstrated here. How much financial risk are they willing to take? FP

Hear, Hear.

The way of all collectibles. £$£$£$£ KACHING !!

At least within this hobby of ours we can still have discussions about items and the use of technology has become part of the investigative process.

In the art world many scientific tests are simply not allowed......and as my old business guru was fond of saying "CASH IS KING"

I have enjoyed the journey so much so that the endgame will not bother me in the least.

Caveat Emptor

I am a humble collector and will never be able to aspire to the lofty heights of ever being able to afford one of these daggers, whether authentic or otherwise...cheers

how can anyone accept a dagger as genuine when it has a top mount with fake cast hall marks?
if this was a lowly sa dagger we would all be laughing

It is obvious for all to see, The people who are trying to get these accepted as original war time pieces are the ones with a vested interest in them. It's all about the money.

Brian

HERE HERE!!

Sorry-but not true at all. Many who believe in these daggers have never owned one.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
Sorry-but not true at all. Many who believe in these daggers have never owned one.

Name them as this is an issue and so are their friends. No disrespect but money is money and all the players have interest whether they have handled one or have had a friend handle one. These are in the catalogs of all of the big boys as sold. Where is your argument?. We have heard some really good arguments and you guys have nothing to argue. Why?. I really do not think that disclosure is an issue if it is actually disclosed. You have answered nothing at all. Pony up or take a pass, so far you have passed, and you are backing a dead horse. It has a nice patina, but? we know how that go's.

As a professional I would certainly use care as this entire debate could fall on all parties with interest. In short you have interest. Your position is weak here.

quote:

As a professional I would certainly use care as this entire debate could fall on all parties with interest. In short you have interest. Your position is weak here.
Posts: 34 | Location: Misc | Registered: 19 May 2008

Ignored post by johnwraith posted 01 October 2009 2:45 Show Post

Powered by Eve Community Page 1 ... 10 11 12 13
Please Wait. Your request is being processed...
Logout: German Daggers Dot Com
Update LiveCloud Account Reply



German Daggers Dot Com German Daggers Dot Com German Daggers Dot Com Edged Weapons SA & NSKK Dagger Forum NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over

Contact Us | German Daggers Dot Com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Service
Site images not be used without our written permission.

The list of supporters would be much too long to post and I don't know them all. The other list is also long after all this negative speculation. My only interest in the piece is that IMO it is a period piece of history being destroyed by opinion.
In the end you must deceide for yourself. --- and thats they way it is with MANY things in this hobby--opinion. MANY things are NOT clear cut and probably never will be--thats the way it is.

Hi Everyone,why was the Huhnlein dagger posted by Donnie/Vetter a couple of years ago,called a fake straight away,and all the others are REAL,
nats

houston
i know i am flogging a dead horse but what about the cast hall marks ?
the fact that they are wrong is not just some peoples oppinion but fact
you just cannot get cast hall marks on german silver the maunfacturers did ,and do, not hall mark their own products they are sent to a government run assay office for purity testing and stamping
just google silver hall marks and you will not find any cast ones or ring a german or british assay offices and ask them
nick

I too have to come back to the Hall marking. If these are fake, and fake they be. Then the chains and clasp have to be fake. Let us pause here for reflection, fake chains. These are then attached to a dagger, the mount has to be constructed to accomplish this. PLEASE AGAIN LET US PAUSE.What dose this show? You do not have to be Einsteine, at best the piece has been up graded with fake pieces. OK, what doe this say to us? How many serriouse collectors or studier of History are going to say -- this is a totally genuine piece?

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
The list of supporters would be much too long to post and I don't know them all. The other list is also long after all this negative speculation. My only interest in the piece is that IMO it is a period piece of history being destroyed by opinion.
In the end you must deceide for yourself. --- and thats they way it is with MANY things in this hobby--opinion. MANY things are NOT clear cut and probably never will be--thats the way it is.

You made a statement, I just called it and asked who the believers are. I understand that some items are what they are, but this was not put on the forum by a collector. If you have issue with a legitimate piece being destroyed than I suggest taking that up with the original poster who declared the debate over as obviously it's not. Negative speculation is not the issue, but money is more than enough in this hobby to question motive. I do not mean any disrespect to you at all, I want to know why there is no argument on the daggers merits, and who has interest. That is a very fair question all things considered.

I asked this during the last debate. Would someone please test these silver fittings for content and inspect (hands on) these marks to ensure the marks are or are not cast hallmarks and then post the results. Thank you.

Well since no one posted anything following the MAX Show talk on this dagger I though I would make a few comments.
Really I think that sometimes personalities get in the way of discussing these daggers.
My comments are not about Craig or Fred rather just what I took away from the discussion.
The family that gave testimony were great to have there in person. Their talk about the providence of the dagger was VERY convincing. At the end of their testimony the room was silent for a few seconds then broke out in applause. In my opinion 99% of the room was convinced these are real. It was really brave of them to enter into our world and speak.
I’ve read this thread in depth and I think that despite a few points here that are difficult to explain... Some are seeing the trees rather than the forest. In many aspects of our hobby there are questions that are not yet answered.
There are many points here that have not been addressed:
1- How is it that these daggers have been surfacing all over the world over the past 50+ years and they have all been found by different people? Do people really think that someone bought up a bunch of real SA daggers, made up unique chains and special fittings and then travelled all around the world releasing them over the next 50 years?
2- How is it that these were Vet purchased and some for pennies on the dollar. Where is the profit in that?
3- How is it that these daggers have surfaced for many years before a period photograph appeared and the daggers look exactly like the picture? Admittedly I’ve not seen this picture yet but I hope it’s posted soon….
4- Look at the many believers, Tom Johnson, Tom Wittmann, Houston Coates, Ron Weinand, Jason Burmeister, Helmut Weitze and Brian Maederer to name a few. I don’t even mention the many collectors who are believers. There are a lot of years of experience here…

I wonder how many will now tip toe to the other side of the line I asked a couple of simple questions on pg.12 and I think there was no answer just your confusing production daggers.If you read it I think I made it plain and was blown off.
P.S. I've never bought anything off Craig and spoke to him twice at Max shows (even missed his party's)

Although I coudn't make the seminar, I did inspect the NSKK that started this topic. There is no doubt in my mind that the piece was made during the 3rd Reich era. While the chain hanger may have not initially been constructed at the same time as the dagger, I feel that it too is very much a piece that was made during the 3rd Reich period. Quite possibly it was added during the years that we see chain suspension worn with NSKK chain daggers, M36 SS daggers and even some of the SA High Leader pieces. It was the in and cool thing in uniform wear after 1936, and no doubt this NSKK Brigadefuhrer who owned this piece did not want to be left out. We see chain suspensions on both SA Honors and SS Honors that were converted during the period, and are known in the collecting community as High Leaders daggers to reinforce this theory.

As soon as someone explains to me and many others how a dagger with obvious bogus hangers got into a vets posession even at the end of the war I'll drop what I consider to be healthy skepticism.
No one,to the best of my knowledge in all the discussions of these daggers has even tried to explain the presence of bogus as well as illegal hangers.
Furthermore, There were tons of left over dagger parts at wars end including unfinished damascus dagger blades and this is well documented in Johnsons book as well as elsewhere. I'm reasonably sure that if someone had wanted a Huhnlein honor dagger or any other inscribed dagger for that matter Jim Atwood or Roger Steele or some other faker would have been glad to oblige them. It would not have been necessary IMO to deface an existing honor dagger to make up one of these "Huhnleins" as has been maintained elsewhere.
Of course the Gahrs who made special chains were gone by this time so other arrangements would have to be made to create these parts.
I could go on and on inre. to convoluted veteran and veterans relatives testimony but those who know this don't need a discourse and those who discount it wouldn't believe me anyway.
The bottom line at least to me is we'll probably never know for sure if some of these are in fact pre 1945 legit. creations with bogus examples sprinkled in or they are all post war fantasy pieces.
Jim

Jim, You're reasoning is flawed and to show that, show us any one dagger in your collection. Now prove to us that it was manufactured and constructed during the 3rd Reich. How do you conclusively prove that even a basic Army dagger in your collection was not parts put together by Jim Atwood after the war ?

JR,, no your thinking is flawed,,Jim doesn't have to do anything,,the burden of proof is to the presenter. To have a bunch of dealers want the dagger to be authentic isn't proof..

Don't know about blades,,maybe the blade, fittings etc are real..IF, if the silver forums let 3rd Reich items on that chain link would be condemned in a sec. I've tried already...
.. My understanding it that is a high end piece, some sort of presentation dagger.. With the quality of those marks?! There is no one that will seriously say those are Gahr or even German markings on the chain...

As far as vets families memories,,how about this story.. In my ring research I've met the man who was the 2nd owner of 2 sets of ring dies and we traced the maker.. The SS rings with the SS motto on them. They are postwar, 100%.
Well in 6 years of working on my project I've 2 German families that have sworn that their husband, father, brother [pick one] got the ring during the war..
- who knows how the daggers got around. Because there is no explanation doesn't mean they are authentic in total...

sorry i still dont get the fake hall marks on a mount that appears larger then those on daggers shown in photos. how did the marks look in hand?
the times i have been offered vet aquired f-s knives only to find when i see them that they are post war the vets relatives never believe me and assure me that the knife was their fathers or grand father issued knife .my own grandfather gave me his issued f-s which turned out to be a 60`s nowill made one .he still insists at 93 that i am wrong!

Like you said Gaspare, you don't know daggers, blades, crossguards, and other 3rd Reich edge weapon conponents, but are taking issue with only the hanger. The dagger is assembled exactly the way that any collector with a elementary basic background,knows them to be.

Paul Hogle has outlined several points, that clearly when a person answers themself, leads them to a logical conclusion.

quote:

The dagger is assembled exactly the way that any collector with a elementary basic background,knows them to be.

And your point is? All 3rd Reich daggers are assembled,within type and this includes even most of the obvious fakes, exactly the same way.
Anyone with a basic understanding of elementary logic knows it's impossible to prove someone didn't make something. The only "proof" is the absence of an example by that maker. The burden of proof here is on those that maintain these are legitimate period pieces not the other way around.
The absence of any legitimate SA daggers by Alcoso doen't prove they never made any and it's possible a legitimate example will surface some day.
I'm sure as recently as 5 years ago everyone familiar with SS/Police swords including T Wittmann would have maintained that Klitterman And Moog never made any examples. That was until a very nice Police example surfaced on Ebay out-of-the woodwork. It now resides in a fellow forum members collection.
I have always tried to maintain and open mind in this hobby but some of the recent claims really stretch the bounds of credibility.
Also: And I keep coming back to this. I await an explaination from anyone in this hobby regarding the presence of bogus hallmarked chains on these purportedly period "Huhnlein" daggers.
Jim

Gaspare and yourself have said the burded of proof is on owner of an item. Can you prove any of your daggers are of the 3rd Reich period ? How do we know that the K&M police sword that you talk of, was made during the period ??? Got any proof of it ?

I don't have to prove anything regarding my collection. All I have to do is satisfy myself and other collectors whose opinions I respect that my items are legit.
That's the best anyone in this hobby can hope for at this time. Furthermore it's really impossible to compare a $500 common Army dagger to a perhaps $50,000 Honor dagger. The incentive for fakery just isn't there with common items.
I fully expect that the daggers that Atwood and others, which they primarily assembled from period parts, are essentially undetectible today from pre 1945 examples.
Furthermore some of the biggest names in this hobby,both dealer and collector, are known to have ruthlessly switched dagger parts around over the years so it's quite possible that many of us have examples in this category.
I have tried to minimize the risk of obtaining daggers in this category by being very selective about where and from whom I've made my acquisitions.
Jim

You need to inspect some of the Atwood daggers starting with the normal NSKK Chain Daggers. Fred's book is loaded with many others as well.

How do you know the K&M Police sword that you bought off of ebay is legit ? Or say the 941 Eickhorn M33 SS that you have, is of the 3rd Reich period ? Afterall, it doesn't have the famous Eickhorn words "Original" on the maker.

I will add one comment to this, and I'll keep it brief as I am travelling, and won't be back home (UK) until the end of the week.

The presence of Mr. and Mrs. Mooney, and their account of having possession of the dagger before selling it to Craig, was fully open and honest - in my opinion. I liked them, I felt that they they told the truth, and I can find no fault with their account of the dagger - however, I can question the aspect which was unsaid.

That is to say, Mr. Mooney acknowledged that the dagger came into his possession in 1980 - after the death of his father. Prior to that time, he stated that he recalled seeing the dagger in his father possession perhaps as early as 1963. But this is only a recall - it could be a couple of years either way. More importantly it does not provide a lead to the dagger being "captured" in 1945. He only saw it in about 1963 - and that is well within the period of faking up pieces. Mr. Mooney's father never actually said he obtained it in WWII, because he never spoke about that period of his life to his son.

So we do not know how Mr. Mooney Snr came to possess the piece. Was it a genuine war souvenir, or did he start to collect German daggers at that time? Did he buy it in an auction, or take it as security for a loan or a debt? We don't know. There is no traceable link to show the dagger in its present form existing during the war.

I did not expect Mr. Mooney to be able to add any substantial knowledge to our understanding of these daggers, because his experience of the piece only relates to his modern time ownership of it - and also the fact that he has no understanding of the subject; so it would be unfair to expect him to be able to fill in the "blank spaces".

Mr. Mooney and his wife were seen to be very nice, genuine people, innocently caught up in an issue which has deeper ramifications. And I thought it was rather shameful of Craig to exploit these decent people, in his desperate efforts to perpetuate the myth of the Huhnlein dagger.

I will comment further when I have returned to the UK.

FJS

quote:

How do you know the K&M Police sword that you bought off of ebay is legit ? Or say the 941 Eickhorn M33 SS that you have, is of the 3rd Reich period ? Afterall, it doesn't have the famous Eickhorn words "Original" on the maker.

You really need to try and read more carefully. I said a fellow collector bought it off Ebay NOT me. I backed off on the bidding and he got it.
Pictures were provided to T. Wittmann of the K&M sword after the sale who verified it's authencity. His only comment to me was he "Wished it had surfaced before the publication of his SS book".
Ron Weinand,Houston Coates,Tom Wittmann and many others have stated that the 941 Eickhorn dagger I have is perfectly legit. That's good enough for me.
Now your "Frank" TK ring is certainly another matter. Do you want another embarrassment like the one on WAF of getting into this on GDC?
Jim

You trusted Tom on authentication on the degen and your M33 Eickhorn......... didn't you ? And rightfully so, I admit.

I would defer to T Wittmann on SS and police edged weapons and I expect most of the collecting community would do so. Again what is your point?
Jim

I am a total novice with respect to this high end dagger, but I would definitely defer to the knowledge, the expertise and the experiences of Messrs. Wittman, Johnson, Burmeister, Maederer.

I would think that none of us would hesitate to accept their word if one, not just all, of them said that a certain piece was not right.

Why do we not take the same stand when they all say that it is? I think that that is the point of JR's notes here.

Chain aside, is this dagger real or not? Is it period or not? Frankly, I collect for the blades and have never cared much for the ports and hangers that accompany the blades.

John

To J. Modena,so you agree that Witty can identify a period police degen just from some photos that you sent him, but yet you doubt his ability to make a judgement on the Huhnlein dagger that started this topic, and that he has examined in his hands ?

I attended the seminar and was convinced these daggers were indeed period MFG. IMO the dagger chain has been added as an upgraded example. I do not like the castings hallmarks but I know for a fact that some TR casters were not real good at making detailed, crisp castings, for example Alcoso. JR is indeed correct as he points out that there are many variation of MFG we do not understand. IE Eickhorn Rail Way police dagger defect.

Even today we have manufacturing variations or errors on the same products lines. Eric

Of all the questions asked at the seminar on Friday evening, the one with the most votes on the side of those who believe in the edged weapon in question was the NSKK piece.
There were three of these on the table for examination and only one who did not vote them up.
Ron Weinand
Seminar Coordinator

quote:

Posted 05 October 2009 20:59 Hide Post
To J. Modena,so you agree that Witty can identify a period police degen just from some photos that you sent him, but yet you doubt his ability to make a judgement on the Huhnlein dagger that started this topic, and that he has examined in his hands

I accept that T Wittmann is an expert in the SS police edged weapons area as well as other areas. I do not agree that he or anyone else is an expert in all 3rd Reich edged weapons. I seriously doubt if Tom would make this claim either. I started out as neutral in this Huhnlein discussion and if bogus hallmarked chains hadn't been introduced I would have probably ignored the discussion entirely.
Again If you or anyone else want's to present some sort of argument as to how a supposedly period 3rd Reich dagger could emerge with fake hallmarks I'm,and I expect others, are all ears.
Jim

IMO There is a strong possibility the chain link with the hallmarks is post war, or even the chain assembly. I still think the dagger is pre 1945.

quote:

IMO There is a strong possibility the chain link with the hallmarks is post war, or even the chain assembly. I still think the dagger is pre 1945.

An astute observation Eric. Now if you or someone else would care to explain how and under what circumstances these purportedly pre 45 daggers in the hands of veterans since wars end were united with post war chains we can put this discussion to rest.
Jim

I too was at the Huhnlein discussion round table. I totally agree with everything that Paul Hogle commented on. They are very valid points!! Like I mentioned on the WAF fourm, I know that there are several of you out there who dislike Craig Gottlieb for one reason or another, but at the meeting he was very articulate and was well prepared for presenting his side of the facts. I appreciate Craig's efforts to bring the Mooneys to the meeting on behalf of telling the history of the newly surfaced Huhnlein Honor Dagger. Their account of how the piece came into their posession definately solidified (at least for me and everyone in the room except for Mr. Stevens) that these pieces were wartime manufactured. Now, from what I gather, the questions are in regards to the chains with silver stampings into the reverse of the chain, correct? What about the ones with chains that have a heavier silver nickel content, thicker links, and are unmarked. I believe that there are five out of thirteen in existence with this configuration? I took to the meeting both of my Huhnleins and two SA High Leaders for examination. I find it very interesting that Mr. Stevens did not make one single comment or arguement about the pieces laid before him. He had ample time to do this, but he chose to argue with Craig about the letter of provenance on the Huhnlein that surfaced in Denmark. When the meeting was over, four out of the five members on the panel believed that the NSKK "Huhnlein" Honor dagger was period constructed and issued. The issues as to why certain chains are marked and some are not, or why some have heavier(thicker) links and others do not, will continue to be a mystery. I feel confident that someday photgraphic or paper evidence will surface showing that these pieces were constructed and issued prior to 1945. Until then, those who believe will continue to believe and those who do not, will not. Regards, Grant

Gentlemen, these daggers may be made pre 1945, or made from original pieces and constructed post 1945. If this be the case, then those who produced the daggers pre 1945, would make a dagger that would be identical to those produced earlier. However, if chains are added that have sperious marks, and the marks shown are without doubt that, the piece is at best questionable. A parts construction. As an illistration, a 7 place medal bar has a blue ribbon, but no medal. This has added to it an 8 year SS medal which is a copy. Dose this then make the bar a legittermate bar? I hope the analagy is not lost on those who think that these chains do not have an influence on the validitty of these daggers.

Interesting debate, food for thought being offered on both sides.
I won't weigh in with an opinion, since I don't have the technical knowledge to convincingly back it up.
I'll say this - The list of knowledgeable folks who are backing it up is undeniably impressive.

I would also say:

* The burden of proof is on he who wishes to sell, and presumably, reap a profit from it - And on those who are already convinced, and wish to add their reasoning to the debate.

* The old adage of this hobby "buy the item, not the story" has no doubt been repeated multiple times by everyone in this thread, and is one of the simplest, earliest and best lessons we have ever learned - Yet it seems to have been haphazardly thrown by the wayside by some, in this case.
Provenance can at times make or break an item but, from what I have seen, and although extraordinary efforts were apparently made to make the vets heirs a centerpiece of validity for this controversial dagger, I see no reason to disregard words that we all live by on a day to day basis, if only for this one special case.

This is like a salesman in never never land trying to sell a chocolate tea pot, yes yes it holds hot water I assure you!! Only a fool would pay big $$$$$$ for this dagger and the ones just like it!! No wonder so many people leave this hobby each year with all the frauds going on!! Anyone with a brain knows the Germans where making pieces up from parts etc before the ink was dry on the surrender document!!

We did not have a silver chain example to examine but I can tell you the piece presented by Craig had the most beautiful pattern of Damast I have ever seen on one of these honor pieces.
Certainly not some left over but a prime select piece. Also the chains were of superb thick construction with superb detail.

Totally unlike the junk fake chains on the pieces of the 60's. All the links were perfect also. Original leather without question.

I would also like to add some other names who believe in these daggers--Jack Angolia, the Pankowski brothers, Chuck Scaglione, Wolf & Hardin, Bill Shea, Bob McCarthy, Helmut Weitze,and many others. In fact, other than Fred, I have yet to meet ANY experienced dagger collector( 25 years or more) who does not believe.

To have a bunch of dealers want the dagger to be authentic isn't proof..Gaspare and Jim M have said it all,,,I have no technical knowledge either but will add my 2 cents here,,

The very fact that all these "exspurts" sat down and nodded their heads in agreement to this dagger is enough to make me question it.

T Wittman has admitted to swapping scabbards on daggers for a better resale claiming it "standard practice",,,,why would I believe anything he said? These major dealers have an unwritten code of honor among themselves,,to help each other out when it comes to sales,,

These guys are leading/have led the hobby down a treacherous path and I for one am going the other way,, as far as a family member speaking for the piece,,,your joking right?

I work with a guy who brought me a sword his grandpa "had personally picked up from a *** he shot in the Philippines,,,only problem was it was in a shirasaya,,,or whatever,,the *** sword guys told me it was more or less a storage tube for the blade itself and certainly not meant to be carried around in the jungle,,so his story was made up,,,,even though thats the story that has been passed down with gramp's sword..

so in conclusion,,there is no way in this world
I'm buying what the big names are selling,,,there refrence books are geared to steer the hobby a certain way, (theres for profits,) and are full of basic rudimentary info,,with lots of fancy pictures but so many sheep take them at thier word and blindly follow them,,,,like a pied piper

I know nothing about the daggers in question, but I also put almost no weight in stories from the vets' families. I can't count the number of nickled lugers or P38's I've been shown that "daddy took off a dead German general" I was also once offered an 80's import marked M1 carbien that the guy's dad "brought back from the Korean war". Even when they don't intend to lie, their memories often become a bit "confused" from time.

It is obvious that some commenting on this thread haven't purchased too many veteran acquired pieces. So, testimony is something that is not a ploy in this case. It is hard to argue with those involved who brought the item home from the war, although some will never believe the story, regardless of the proof.
That being said, there is little more to make the non-believers change their opinion.
Next, as I have never bought or sold one, nor do I have a stake in any being sold or offered. I have, however, handled a few over the years and have seen several bought and sold and can say, without reservation, that I believe there is no doubt that these were period manufactured and assembled and WORN.
Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

My comments are simple and to the point:

1) We know that Mr. Mooney brought the dagger back because he told his son that. For those of you not familiar with buying rare pieces out of the woodwork, this is important testimony, whether you like it or not.

2) My dagger did not have a silver chain, but I still believe in them. We don't know why the silver chains are marked so poorly, but as I said in my comments, "not knowing" does not equal "a problem" especially when so much evidence to the contrary is present.

3) With the exception of Mr. Stephens, who had prior to this seminar only seen ONE example in the flesh, but who is a very good researcher nonetheless, none of the very few supporters of the "they are fake" position have much experience worth noting, to draw from, about daggers.

I think Paul Hogle said it best. Those who doubt this piece ought to re-read his post. Not only does he capture the fanciful position that the non-believers are forced to adopt, but he hits the nail on the head. This crusade to discredit this dagger is supported for the most part, by a very few who, as any tour of any forum will show, have a problem with ME, not the dagger.

My Dear Craig,

I have to come back to the point, the hall marks are fake. Please tell me how you square this circle. I have shown them to experts, and I think you know these people, the answer is unaquivacble. FAKE. I go bak to my anallogy, 7 piece original bar, blue ribbon, replaced fake 8 year medal. This then makes the bar original.

none of the very few supporters of the "they are fake" position have much experience worth noting, to draw from, about daggers.

Well Craig:
I guess you can add me to this list along with Christopher even though I've been collecting as long as you and even though my issue isn't with the daggers perse it with bogus hallmarked fittings. This sticky little issue just won't go away even though you and the rest of the proponents of this dagger have basically ignored it.
As I stated much earlier I don't really have an opinion of these daggers one way or the other and would have ignored this thread completely if such a glaring error (Hallmarking) wasn't present. And while my tenure with daggers as well as yours has been relatively short I do have 50 years experience dealing with Hallmarked silver.
IMO: Until a satisfactoy explanation is developed as to why a manufacturer in Germany would have ignored Guild requirements and legal requirements these daggers will be in doubt.
Jim

My fellow Collectors: This is such a stupid subject that I didn't even go to the seminar. Most everybody that really knows daggers knows they are 100% real. These guys that think they are not just don't want to lose face. I'll be glad when I'm taking a dirt shower and don't have to listen to this bunch of crap! The only way these guys would admit these daggers are original is if we dug up a casket in front of them and found one laying on the dead mans chest. Even them they would say it was planted there last year.

Gailen David

Sometimes Logic can obscure the facts! cheers, Ryan

I have no idea what that means but it sound very deep.

Gailen David

And Amen to that, Gailen!

I guess with my little pea size brain it's understandable. But at least I know a real dagger when I see one.

Gailen David

Gailen it is best pondered over late at night with a drink (or drinks) in hand...now I know that you did mean that elbow to my midsection Friday at the Max cheers

And what would you guys( you non-believers) know without the reference books and the old guys? Nothing.-- and what would the gun, knife coin, antique,you name it collector know? Nothing.--and there would be no hobbies. Nothing.

It was great hitting you, I mean seeing you at the show.

Gailen

Craig,
No offense to you. If Houston says it's good that's all I need, but then again I'd rather have a Hirschfanger. My interest is in porcelain, silver and gold marks and for my information only would you please clarify.

You stated this: "We don't know why the silver chains are marked so poorly," Your key words being silver and marked.

I guess you’re the only one that can answer me this if you would please?

1. Have you tested for silver content? Results?
2. How is it marked? Stampted, punched, impressed or is it cast?
Thank you

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Weinand:
It is obvious that some commenting on this thread haven't purchased too many veteran acquired pieces. So, testimony is something that is not a ploy in this case. It is hard to argue with those involved who brought the item home from the war, although some will never believe the story, regardless of the proof.

Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

Thats a bit disingenuous.
This is a 2nd hand story, the vets voice was apparently silenced nearly 30 years ago, and the son saw it previously in the early 1960's once or twice as a child.
I'm not proposing that the attempt at provenance here is a ploy, I just don't see it as rock solid provenance, or even close.
Would you, in ordinary circumstances, place much credence in an item if someone told you "Well, the son of the vet told me that his father told him he brought it back from Europe after WW2"

Of course you wouldn't, neither would anyone else.
The focus is on the item, not the story.
Words to live by, not to disregard on an as needed basis.

Whoever ends up purchasing this may resell some day, and that person may resell.
Are they all to say "I got it from a guy who got it from a guy whos said the son of the vet he got it from says its real" ?
No, stories like this quickly fade to irrelevance to prospective buyers.

The dagger that Craig had at the show was 100% real and period pre 1945.
No doubt's about it in my mind, a beautiful example of a honor dagger, the blade was the best piece of 3rd Reich damascus I have personally seen.

Gary

Sure it was real. I not going through my experiences with this dagger and wasting my time typing a bunch of stuff so they can say they are not real. Let them think what they want. Who cares! I love FJS but this whole thing is his fault and I'm sorry to have seen it happen.

Gailen David

It was good seeing you, Gary.

With regard to your silver content marking issue (the ONLY legitimate issue you can raise on the SILVER version of the chain), I don't have a problem with them, because I acknowledge that not all of the unanswerable questions indicate problematic authenticity. The leader of the NSKK was certainly not worried about silver content markings.

If you believe the silver chains are fake, fine. Believe that. But my dagger doesn't have a silver chain, and neither did the one we got in Denmark.

The basic (core) daggers are period - no problem there. With the “Hühnlein” signatures added separately one at a time by machine engraving (both poorly done and better) which has not been refuted. Both factors being only a part of the picture.

What I found more interesting recently are Craig’s comments on the silver “Gahr” marked daggers:

quote:

“With regard to your silver content marking issue (the ONLY legitimate issue you can raise on the SILVER version of the chain), I don't have a problem with them, because I acknowledge that not all of the unanswerable questions indicate problematic authenticity. The leader of the NSKK was certainly not worried about silver content markings. If you believe the silver chains are fake, fine. Believe that. But my dagger doesn't have a silver chain, and neither did the one we got in Denmark.”

Is he tossing all of the silver mounted ones into the discard pile, to save the one he is (presumably) trying sell now?

As compared to his earlier comment:

quote:

“Maybe Gahr only made the sample chain, and then Huhnlein got angry* at them and gave the chains to another factory to reproduce for him. Maybe HIS NSKK High Leader (the one he is wearing, which appears to have a similar cartouche style suspension clip) was the original made by Gahr, and he sent his off to be reproduced so he could award "attaboy" awards to his friends for some last-minute road race. We will probably never know why the chains ended up being produced the way they were produced. ................”(*Soon to be documented no doubt in the as yet unpublished manuscript: “The Temper Tantrums Of Third Reich Leaders”.)

My point being the silver mounted daggers are not going to go away. And both the silver and miscellaneous parts type chain assemblies are a part of the physical record. As well as the cast nickel silver center mount. For what is supposed to be a high quality “Leader's” dagger.

And I would love to see some kind of rationale on why somebody would put their lives in jeopardy to make “Gahr” branded knockoffs - with the Gahr firm being as well connected to the NSDAP as it was. FP

"Lives in jeopardy"--now that is really a stretch of the imagination. These guys will say anything to support their VERY minority opinion.

Not sure I've got this right. What your saying is that someone found a pile of original black leather wrapped honor daggers with Damascus blades after the wars end. They then added the chain and clip. Is that what your saying? Also I'm not sure I understand but are you saying that the reverse inscriptions are post war added? If you are saying any of the above then please seek professional help right away before you harm yourself or others.

Gailen David

just a little question here , wouldn`t silver be a very poor metal for making these suspension chains from ?? , even 800 grade would surely wear away rapidly if dagger was in wear , especially the bottom link to scabbard ring fitting where its just a small single bit. we know daggers took some stick and normal chained daggers are found with bent and buckled connecting links , i would have thought that any grade of silver would wear away rapidly on suspension chains due to the swinging friction between parts, ok on other fittings but chains ?? , maybe on a big chunky chain but on one of these ? or were they not intended to be worn .

What happened to buy the item not the story ? ?

Brian

Houston, one of the first of a series of decrees:

quote:

Gesetz gegen heimtückische Angriffe auf Staat und Partei und zum Schutz der Parteiuniformen. Vom 20. Dezember 1934 ......................
§ 5 (1) Wer parteiamtliche Uniformen, Uniformteile, Gewebe, Fahnen oder Abzeichen der NSDAP., ihrer Gliederungen oder der ihr angeschlossenen Verbände ohne Erlaubnis des Reichsschatzmeisters der NSDAP. gewerbsmäßig herstellt, vorrätig hält, feilhält, oder sonst in Verkehr bringt, wird mit Gefängnis bis zu zwei Jahren bestraft. Für welche Uniformteile und Gewebe es der Erlaubnis bedarf, bestimmt der Reichsschatzmeister der NSDAP. im Einvernehmen mit dem Reichswirtschaftsminister durch eine im Reichsgesetzblatt zu veröffentlichende Bekanntmachung. (2) Wer parteiamtliche Uniformen und Abzeichen im Besitz hat, ohne dazu als Mitglieder der NSDAP., ihrer Gliederungen oder der ihr angeschlossenen Verbände oder aus einem anderen Grunde befugt zu sein, wird mit Gefängnis bis zu einem Jahr, und, wenn er diese Gegenstände trägt, mit Gefängnis nicht unter einem Monat bestraft. (3) Den parteiamtlichen Uniformen, Uniformteilen und Abzeichen stehen solche Uniformen, Uniformteile und Abzeichen gleich, die ihnen zum Verwechseln ähnlich sind. (4) Neben der Strafe ist auf Einziehung der Uniformen, Uniformteile, Gewebe, Fahnen oder Abzeichen, auf die sich die strafbare Handlung bezieht, zu erkennen. Kann keine bestimmte Person verfolgt oder verurteilt werden, so ist auf Einziehung selbständig zu erkennen, wenn im übrigen die Voraussetzungen hierfür vorliegen. .....................

Der Führer und Reichskanzler
Adolf Hitler
Der Reichsminister der Justiz
Dr. Gürtner
Der Stellvertreter des Führers Reichsminister ohne Geschäftsbereich
R. Heß
Der Reichsminister des Innern
Frick
zugleich für den Reichsminister der Luftfahrt

While varying periods of jail time could be expected. Where the potential peril to one’s existence comes in is with the phony Gahr marked items - which also incorporate national symbols. And while in theory German citizens had certain rights. The very fatal purges of the SA, the concentration camps etc. etc. would mean I think to any sane rational being. That they might not want to get mixed up caught in the act of counterfeiting the work of a leading producer of NSDAP approved items. Postwar - who cares??? Nobody.

Gailen, I'm assuming that “If you are saying any of the above then please seek professional help right away before you harm yourself or others.” was meant to be a personal insult it is duly noted.

In the 1950’s regular SA daggers retailed for $20.00 or less? When did Honor daggers (especially the marginal ones) start to get into the ‘upper stratosphere’? Are you telling me the “Gahr” silver fittings are absolutely pre-1945?

And are the “Hühnlein” signatures added post manufacture or not? Do you think the craftsman at Eickhorn were that sloppy? I think you can still buy conventional chain parts, and in years past were very easily obtainable. Used chain sets are and were available etc. etc. All you really needed were the basic daggers, as the workmanship level of the modifications is and was amateurish.

Mustang, You can alloy silver to improve its durability, although daily wear in stressed areas is going to be a problem. Now the question is are the silver fittings 800 grade or something else? When I get a chance I will look at the pictures I have of some of the silver examples to see if the wear is consistent with what it should be. FP

Ron
If i am not mistaken that Panzer trumpet banner I bought from you ( and returned because it light up like a Christmas tree under a blacklight ) fall into this category ?

quote:

It is obvious that some commenting on this thread haven't purchased too many veteran acquired pieces. So, testimony is something that is not a ploy in this case. It is hard to argue with those involved who brought the item home from the war, although some will never believe the story, regardless of the proof

Brian

Houston

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
And what would you guys( you non-believers) know without the reference books and the old guys?

No offense I assume your referring to yourself as one of the old guys ? Since all
the old guys know everything how about telling us how the Schnaufer dagger came to be? http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/...73/m/3260070874/p/11
It it my understanding most of the old guy know this ?
Thank you
Brian

Paul's 4 points are interesting.. BUT,,,

#4,,forget about that one,,,vested interest, ,they are all either dealers or owners.

#3 - How is it any piece can come about without photos and look the same? *please correct me if I'm mistaken here but thought the photo was showed a few posts back,,and it was close but not exact?

#2 Profit? Where was the profit for the very early pieces? or the 1000's of postwar EK's made for the souvenir hungry soldiers? These were produced for pennies just to satisfy the war booty hungry allied soldiers. Much war booty was even traded for food!, no profit but a full belly [even better].

#1 how different people got them? again, same as different people got bogus EK's,and honor rings etc. long ago, they get spread around..The high end repros were made in the 1950s, yet they travelled the world by the time I started collecting in the mid 70s.

Why couldn't it be the daggers were good but unfinished. The chains added directly postwar by the manufacturer.. Some went to Allied vets,,some gotten after when the 'pioneers'/ Dagger Gurus went to Germany and bought up stock/pieces etc..

- and as far and the Mooney testimony,,re read nickn2 post again!
I'd say the Mooney testimony is more damaging than anything ,,again, please read Mr. Stephens post and let it brew in the head a little.
That testimony is NOT a provenance!

Mr.Ailsby has been around for a while and has seen many a rare high end piece. He and his experts say no chance. So would any 'silver' specialist.

Hey I'm all for the daggers being good. but the chain link,,not happening.......

For Paul who I think may have missed the original postings, and to help refresh some memories from roughly page 11 (posted Sept. 20th - 21st) of the thread. A very slightly enlarged/enhanced version of the Offermann photo, which was posted by Craig. In this image there does not seem to be a darkened border area present on the upper locket.

Another showing the center mount, which is not the same. Pointing out the shadows, and different configuration of the mount which is much more pronounced in its height (thickness) at the center. And has more of a "wasp" (narrowed) waist. Also including the image inverted to try and better illustrate the visible characteristics through the use of the fairly noticeable reflected light in the image.

And the chain links and wide center connector of the Offermann dagger which are also quite different from the “Hühnlein" daggers now in circulation. Including the wide connector itself. The chain links. And noticeably wider (gauge) small wire connector links. FP

quote:

Originally posted by BDE:
What happened to buy the item not the story ? ?

Brian

I think people find the stories make the items resale a little higher

Quote:
"Early SS High Leader Honor Dagger Scabbard.
All parts on this post-war assembled scabbard are original, to include the oak leaf embellished nickel-silver fittings, scabbard body, and fine grained black leather. Superb workmanship by Solingen craftsman and longtime employee in the German edged weapons industry. One available. MINT (19503)"

Is the above an ad from the 1950s? Nope! I just copied this from Tom Johnsons current parts list inventory.
Now step back to the 1950s when Atwood and others were buying up surplus dagger stock by the carload. Just about anything imaginable could be assembled and I expect this included honor daggers. One minor problem. If you wanted Gahr silver chain hangers you were on your own and had to have them fabricated.
Is this how some of these honor daggers came about? I certainly don't know and doubt if anyone can say for sure either way. However any relic has to stand on it's own merits and that's the primary issue here.
Jim

Fred: I apoligize if I offended you. Sometimes I have a big mouth. You are a fine writer.

Gailen David

I think the add says all. I must add to this we purchase some of these parts and constructed an Honour Dagger from them. This was not rocket sience. The only problem we had was finding a 1936 blade. Bought one, original but this turned out to be a copy. This was from a known expert Dealer. Enough said.

Amen to Jim M.

Craig,
You stated," The leader of the NSKK was certainly not worried about silver content markings".
Geez! No disrespect but what kind of statement is that! How in the heck do you know and why would you pretend to know what was running through his mind at any given time?

Can you imagine, I wonder what would’ve happened to a person or company if they had fore-gone Himmler’s sacred and precious silver to make his honor rings with and instead used something else? Would Himmler worry about something like that? I’ll just leave that to everyone’s own imagination. Why would a company risk losing a contract or business knowing full well what the out come could be? Who knows! Anyway, it’s insane for anyone to believe they know what these guys were or were not worried about. We do have indisputable evidence that these guys took some things pretty serious don’t we and we also know they collected some very nice stuff which included “silver items”. Anyway, not trying to harm the positions taken, just attempting to bring up points from both perspectives so that we can move forward.

Let me start by stating, I’ve truly enjoyed this thread and thanks to all. I’m not trying to prove or disprove this cartouche. I’m simply fascinated by these marks and any mark period be it real or fake. I certainly haven't inspected it hands on and pictures are difficult for me to read.

But one thing is for certain; we cannot ignore the fact that the cartouche has a silver fineness mark of 800! It’s screaming, “I’m made of fine silver!” So for the sake of this argument let’s determine if it is in fact made of fine silver and does in fact have a standard of fineness of 800 parts per thousand.
If it’s tested and it is made of .800 fine silver than we should continue with our arguments in whatever direction that may take us… If it's not made of fine silver then there's clearly deception involved, end of story and no more discussion necessary. I’ve seen silver items that have incorporated all sorts of marks onto the items they produced or helped to produce. My point is, if its nickel silver, German silver or anything other than precious medal it should not have a fineness mark period.

It’s frustrating when someone has the answer but refuses to share that information for whatever reason, but I fully understand. I will ask one last time in hopes my question will be answered.
Is it made of .800 fine silver or not? Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by BDE:
Houston

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
And what would you guys( you non-believers) know without the reference books and the old guys?

No offense I assume your referring to yourself as one of the old guys ? Since all
the old guys know everything how about telling us how the Schnaufer dagger came to be?
It it my understanding most of the old guy know this ?
] Thank you
Brian

Brian , why mention the Schnauffer dagger ?
I traced the dagger back to 1968 , when it was owned by a man that now lives in Texas , and I am in contact with this man .
I am still researching the owners before that .

Trust me , the Schnauffer dagger is reall .
Well for me it is , so please dont try to break it down here .
As this forum also did with the Wolf sword .

Obviously you dont know how the Schnauffer dagger came to be .

If you know Stephen Wolf you should call him , since he used to own it also , he can tell you excactly what happened why and how that dagger got his bad reputation .

If everything is researched , I will put a thread up on it .
Together with a big surprise concerning this dagger .

Thank you ,

Rob.

I don't have an opinion on this dagger one way or another but again..if S Wolfe likes it that is enough for me...not that me being happy has anything to do with it..only Rob needs to be satisfied...none of us..and maybe the next purchaser..if he ever sells it...same with the NSKK high leaders..I will most likely never be able to afford one...so I have the right to my opinion and the right to express it but the only people that need to be happy are those that own them and those that purchase them... .cheers, Ryan

Mikee, To get the answer to your question is going to require the assistance of someone who owns a silver fitted “Hühnlein" dagger. Owners of same seemingly to be in short supply insofar as this thread is concerned. So I think it probably is never going to be answered.

Ed, To try and answer your questions as best I can: First we have to define whether or not it is period TR production that we are talking about or not, and I am going to mostly confine my remarks to normal period production.

"How many of this type dagger were produced at a time 1-3-7-12 ? Does anyone know ?" Probably not. But typically manufacturers do not like to set up and tear down for repetitive operations, so special orders were most likely made in batches. With the numbers of the “Huhnlein” marked daggers under discussion put at somewhere in the range of 20 plus (?) daggers. With (from memory) one report of about half of them being the “silver” types. I will have to go back and look, but think that I may have pictures of 10 or 11 (?) of all types.

"Did the same German craft's man make all the daggers or were they shop assigned at the request for purchase?" From period photos (and normal industrial practices) different work stations/workers did different operations.

"Was there a standard for fittings or did the recipient change them as he liked? Please don't tell me there were strict standards as High Officials did at times what they wanted. Stepp D. was a perfect example." RHIP, like General George S. Patton with his famous Colt Single Action Army .45 revolvers. The further down the food chain you are, the fewer choices you have. With the fact being that only two primary chain types are seen with the “Hühnlein” daggers indicating limited choices (unless you think that mixed parts/components construction was a part of the package as a different "grade"). FP

Gailen, Apology accepted, and I have no ill will towards you. I can see that you are frustrated, but IMO the focus should not be on Frederick J. Stephens:

Posted 06 October 2009 ........... “Who cares! I love FJS but this whole thing is his fault and I'm sorry to have seen it happen.”

Rob NL: Posted 30 July 2007 “I know that the big names do like this dagger , and the expert that you are reffering to doesnt like
1; the Wolf sword ,
2; the Schnaufer dagger
3; the Hunlein daggers” .......................

Presentation Sword to RK Winner

Craig Gottlieb: Posted 01 August 2007...... “I will post photos later of an example that I owned. Mine was in much better shape, and exhibited the regular, NON silver chain. Anyway, it has been suggested by Fred Stephens that all of the NSKK High Leader daggers such as the one posted above are post-war fantasy pieces. I will let Fred explain his theory. Fred is an excellent researcher and will definitely put a good foot forward, and I look forward to his pronouncements about this dagger class. Fred is in the minority for thinking that these are fantasy pieces, but his bravery as an intellectual is noteworthy and admirable. Fred . . . the floor is yours.”

NSKK High Leader

And Posted 14 August 2009: This thread: " NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over" by Craig Gottlieb.

My question being: Why is this Frederick J. Stephen’s fault? Or is it because he did not agree with Craig? Which as far as I can tell was being handled privately until Rob NL for reasons best known to himself, and Craig made it a very public discussion topic. If guys are looking for someone to blame for the potential destruction of the hobby, IMO they don't have to look very far. FP

Fred you forgot that the 2nd model railway daggers were also doubted .
I am not getting into a debate with you on this subject , I was looking forward to see you , with your motivations at the MAX seminar , but you didnt come .

Just waith for the thread and let the piece stand by its own .
And dont try to break items of due to the person that is selling them .


I am on a good base with FJS , so no need to stir up things as you try to .
But , if you are in New York , let me know , we can discuss it here .
I will let you in on some info .

I didnt want the Huhnlein dagger to be discussed , dont own one yet , I think there overpriced .

So Fred , let me know if we can meet here ,
I am here till Saturday .

But for you also , when you will come to a show , talk to Stephen Wolf .

For that time , let me be with my Wolf sword , and the Schnauffer dagger , I am really happy with them , and thats all that counts Fred.

Greetings from NY ,

Rob.

quote:

Originally posted by sellick8302@rogers.com:
I don't have an opinion on this dagger one way or another but again..if S Wolfe likes it that is enough for me...not that me being happy has anything to do with it..only Rob needs to be satisfied...none of us..and maybe the next purchaser..if he ever sells it...same with the NSKK high leaders..I will most likely never be able to afford one...so I have the right to my opinion and the right to express it but the only people that need to be happy are those that own them and those that purchase them... .cheers, Ryan

Amen to that Ryan , but I will probably never sell it .

But I respect your opinion .

Greetings from NY ,

Rob.

Rob, You were not the primary focus of my remarks, which were really intended for Craig, and I intentionally left out the 2nd model Railway Daggers as they were not discussed in any detail in the threads I posted.

As for the MAX show, I’m very sorry that I missed you, but I now have a new daughter in law who besides being very intelligent, and very well educated, is a delight to the eyes. And I could not easily be in two places at once, so I had to make a choice.

Enjoy what you have - from the West Coast.

Best Regards, Fred

All parts on this post-war assembled scabbard are original, to include the oak leaf embellished nickel-silver fittings, scabbard body, and fine grained black leather. Superb workmanship by Solingen craftsman and longtime employee in the German edged weapons industry.

Thanks for that much Jim. Some of us aren't dagger guys and would have missed this..

I have a old friend that has told me many times one of the dagger gurus have many ,many drawers full of dagger parts in various degrees of condition.. I know I'm a weird one but thats enough for me to not buy a dagger from them. I think Kris has posted on another forum that one of the gurus openly mentioned that switching scabbards and parts are no big deal,,,really? ,is that how it is with the dagger collectors. I'm serious, it really doesn't matter , well O.K .. As long as you guys enjoy them I guess thats all that matters...
I guess the debate is over. ,none of this really matters at all.... Happy hunting.... ,G.

Gaspare, The swapping of scabbards and handle fittings/componets for the “political” daggers has been going on for almost as long as I can remember. But I think you may have missed the "great handle swapping era" for the military daggers. Which was going on sometime near the time when I first joined as a member. With the different colored handles made of cast phenolic resin being switched out so guys could "dress up" their favorite dagger. It destroyed the historical originality of a lot of daggers. And more than a few dealers used the naturally occurring color changes to charge an extra premium for the daggers they were selling. With some even claiming they were "special factory orders".

Mikee, I have some more photos. But here is a “GAHR" (cast in place marking) - "800” stamped wide connector of a “Hühnlein” blade marked dagger that I think will work as a representative example. With those really weird rectangular or squarish shaped small wire link connectors. The irregular/distorted poorly made small links suggest that the alloy is too soft for its intended application. And the noticeable split where the green arrow is could be from the manufacturing process used, but I think I need to see the inside of the whole link before making a more definitive statement.

I have no explanation as to why these so badly cast silver suspension chain sets escaped a more critical focus of attention to detail. For so many dealers and collectors alike, for as many years as they obviously did. FP

For comparison: here is a German hallmark from the WURTTEMBERGISCHE METALLWARENFABRIK Company Circa 1900.
Jim

Jim, This stuff is not rocket science, and with your background in silver collectibles I know that you already know this. But there are I'm certain some, who might not fully grasp all of the significance of what you've posted.

The stamps you posted can be used on a teapot, candelabra, or any other item made from silver. That's what silver makers did. They reused the stamps on what they made until they wore out.

The cast in place fake "GAHR/Crown/Circle-Double Crescent(?)" marks cannot be used for anything else. They can only be used to make more fake "Gahr" wide connectors. This was a one time effort to make a batch of fake parts - with the pattern to be discarded when they ran out of daggers to modify. FP

an i seeing casting seams inside the holes?

it does appear to be that,,,

Parting seams from a rubber mold. There is no doubt that is flash. Lazy clean up.

for what my oppinions worth i can accept the dagger is genuine but i think the chain and hanger has been added post war perhaps the original was missing ?? hence the poor quality and cast/fake hall marks

quote:

“for what my oppinions worth i can accept the dagger is genuine but i think the chain and hanger has been added post war perhaps the original was missing ?? hence the poor quality and cast/fake hall marks”

?nickn2, The basic “core” daggers are original, and that has not been an issue, but let’s look at the idea for a moment. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly or not, but under that scenario if I got it right, someone would have to find a “treasure trove” of roughly 1/2 (?) of all the “Hühnlein" daggers that we know about. Fully intact with their nickel silver center mounts. But no chain sets. What do you think the odds are that someone could find all those daggers together in that specific condition? Ready to have just the new manufacture silver chain sets with the fake “Gahr” marks installed?

On October 6th Gailen David said:

quote:

“Not sure I've got this right. What your saying is that someone found a pile of original black leather wrapped honor daggers with Damascus blades after the wars end. They then added the chain and clip. Is that what your saying? Also I'm not sure I understand but are you saying that the reverse inscriptions are post war added? If you are saying any of the above then please seek professional help right away before you harm yourself or others.”

If I’m interpreting it correctly, apparently he does not think it’s possible to assemble such a group of daggers. And suggested that I seek “professional help” (presumably) for even considering the idea.

Any way you look at it IMO a significant counterfeiting/faking operation took place. Which (IMO) has fooled a lot of people for a long time.

PS: They did a little better job of cleanup inside the holes with this one, but look at the square corners of the small connector links. They were not just “lazy” with one aspect of these conversions to “Hühnlein” daggers, it's just one of a number of workmanship issues. FP

Fred: As hard as you have worked on this I really do hope that you have convinced every collector in the world you are right. Don't agree with you but I do have to respect your diligence on this subject. Your the hardest working in Dagger Land.

Gailen

gailen
please explain the fake cast hall marks
nick

Nick: I want too be very scientific with my answer. It is, "the heck if I know,." I wasn't there when they were made.

Gailen

I will say from every account I heard regarding the Max Debate on this dagger, that the FS group was soundly defeated.

Gailen

the top mount with cast hall marks cannot be genuine google hall marks or call any european assay office and ask them about cast in hall marks
they are not genuine so the top mount cannot be genuine

Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The whole things a big fantasy piece. Lets move on.

Gailen

Dear Gailen, please how can a fake hallmark be original on a piece? If this be on any other thing the condemnation would be ear shatering. These daggers most probably are original, but with fake chains. The inscription, I am not qualified to assesses this.

Thus your statement, "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The whole things a big fantasy piece. Lets move on" is a little ingenuouse. These marks have to be addressed.

Gailen, this debate has been pretty mature on both sides, up to now.
Request that you reconsider contaminating what is an informative, interesting thread with rapid fire irrelevant, juvenile comments.

I’m not a silver markings specialist myself, although I can say that those on the daggers look nothing like those on the silver hilted SS “Birthday” swords. That said, unless someone is claiming expertise, I don’t know how fruitful it is to pursue the matter. Unless of course they are stating the Hühnlein dagger markings are genuine based on some as yet undisclosed factor.

Mr. Stephens checked in briefly to the thread, but did not go into any real detail from his perspective at least as far as I know. From what I have heard a significant portion of the time seems to have been allocated for other business than a direct discussion.

And I don’t know if it would have made a difference with the panel or not. But I think that a 20 minute or so Powerpoint presentation, using a lot of the material from both threads, would have at least given the audience some food for thought. Which is the approach I think I would have taken, with a substantial focus on the silver chain versions of the daggers.

quote:

Fred: As hard as you have worked on this I really do hope that you have convinced every collector in the world you are right. Don't agree with you but I do have to respect your diligence on this subject. Your the hardest working in Dagger Land. Gailen

Gailen, What can I say? It’s been a long and for me very interesting 2 year journey with a very large break in the middle. I thought the topic was long dead, gone, and buried back in 2007.

Not so, and here we are. Regards, Fred