THIS IS MY FIRST POST AS I JUST BOUGHT MY FIRSTDAGGER.I PROBABLY OVERPAID FOR IT ,BUT TOOK A GAMBLE ON IT ANYWAY.ITS A SA SPECIAL PRESENTATION DAGGER WITH THE NAME KURPFALZ ON THE LOWER CROSSGARD.THE UPPER AND LOWER CROSSGARDS ARE EDGED WITH OAKLEAVES.THE TOP SCREW HAS A NAZI EMBLEM ON TOP.THE MAKER ON THE BLADE IS PUMA WITH A PICTURE OF A PUMAHEAD WITH SOLINGEN ON THE BOTTOM.THE BLADE AND HANDLE ARE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION WITH EXPECTED WEAR.CAN ANYONE GIVE ME SOME INFO ON THIS AND TO ITS WORTH?I DONT HAVE ANY PICTURES RIGHT NOW.THANKS IN ADVANCE.
Hello,
please post some pic's .
Looking forward to seeing the pics when you get them.
DEUTSCHER AND SDP I WOULD IF I KNEW HOW.ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER FOR NOW.IM GETTING NERVOUS ABOUT IT.
Joe... do you have someone who can help you with the photos?
Pictures are the best way to go so other members have a better idea to form an opinion.
SDP I WILL TRY TO GET MY SON TO DO IT,GUESS IM TO OLD FOR THIS,HANG IN THERE WITH ME VIELE DANKE JOE
Click on my name on the left for my e-mail and post me the pictures, I will host them for you no problem
It's pretty - no doubt about that.
The dagger looks genuine too - so that it good.
My only concern is the engraving on the crossguards and the pommel nut. Although I have seen a couple SA's that were generally accepted to be period done - they are pretty rare. I don't believe I have ever seen this pattern and I think it is most likely post-war engraved.
I am not an expert - but I wouldn't have paid more for this dagger than I would a similar condition early SA (and I'd probably pay less)
Sorry if that isn't what you wanted to hear Joe.
Don't know where these come from, but the engraving is fake. Have seen 3 with this exact style of engraving. EXACT down to the swaz on the pommel nut. Same in every way. Nice looking, but fake.
Denny
Joe:
Would you be willing to tell us who this dagger was purchased from?
Jim
JIM M. I PURCHASED THIS DAGGER FROM DMZ MILITARY ANTIQUES IN ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA.I GUESS ILL TAKE IT BACK NOW.ITS A SHAME AS ITS A BEAUTY.DENNY THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT,HOPE I DONT HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING MY MONEY BACK.ANY OTHER OPINIONS WILL BE WELCOMED JOE
I would first e-mail photos to Tom Wittmann/ Tom Johnson before taking it back. They are VERY willing to help out. I like to gather lots of input before sending any odd dagger back. The outcome may be better than you think. I have a Ultra rare U-boat engraved divers knife that some dealers thought to be fake from the photos,,,,, HOWEVER! Tom Johnson wanted to buy it for big$$! SO be carefull here, I could be a real jewel.
Joe
By ALL means take it to Wittmann. My opinion is just that. MY Opinion. However, I wouldn't buy it unless circumstances and price added up to me...since I'm a tad suspicious. (Johnson has a very similiar piece pictured in one of his reference books, but that doesn't validate this or any other "oddity".)
I owned a piece (and have seen 2 others besides that one) like the one you picture that came from the Western US. I struggled with authenticity myself and came to the conclusion that I'd bought a cow......
Gave it away to a friend as an example of what NOT to trust/buy.....
One honest gentleman who happened to be a dealer, told me that there was no absolute method that could be used to say that engraving was fake even though it was most likely done Post-war.
You spend your money and you take your chances, BUT try to explain some of these things away as you attempt to sell......Nigh on Impossible task.
Attached is a pic of the top of the crossguard on the SA I owned. Pretty, but bad.....
Denny
Description: SAE
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE OPINIONS FROM MEMBERS ON THIS SUBJECT IF POSSIBLE,BEFORE MY TIME RUNS OUT.MANY THANKS JOE
Can you divulge the price? That would help us to help you make the right call.
Mark
If I was in this situation, I would take it to someone, (like Wittmann or Johnson), to get a "hands on" opinion as quickly as possible. Although photos give a very good idea to our excellent experienced members here, it's always good for peace of mind, in a case like this, to have it confirmed one way or the other, once and for all.
If it cost me a lot of money, (which I can't afford to throw around) and my inspection time was nearly up, I would take it back for a refund. I would want to be happy and know that my newly aquired piece was 100% original, without any doubts or having to make any allowances for it.
For your further interest, a piece with very similar engraving was sold in the Hermann Historica Auction, No. 49, 21 October, 2005, Lot 847 - alleged to be an SA presentation to the named recipient Otto Telschow (supposed Gauleiter of East Hanover). Although Gauleiters did not wear daggers - I suppose he could also have been a member of the SA.
What I find interesting is that the maker of the piece is Gustav Neff, of Solingen. The one that Joe Linge is showing us is trademarked by Puma.
The piece referred to Johnson is in Volume 1, page 238, presentation to Karl Ernst, althoughy Tommy doesn't state who the manufacturer is.
Another example has been featured on this site earlier this year by Deutscher - who piece bears the name of Kurt Knoblauch - and yet his piece is trademarked by Kober, of Suhl. It also has an SA Group mark on the reverse of the crossguard - suggesting that it started life as a standard pattern Model 1933, before it was enhanced with the engraving and naming.
So as you may now be suspecting, these pieces, with seemingly identical form engraving (there are some small differences other than the names) all appear to be engraved by the same craftsman, and yet the daggers are from different manufacturers. This starts to ring little alarm bells with me - but I will stop short of condemning them until I know more - certainly would like the chance to handle on in person.
By the way, Denny Roach, good of you to show us the top of the upper guard on the one that you once had. Do you have any other photos of it that you can share with us? I would be very interested to see them.
I will try and attach an immage of the Otto Telschow piece as portrayed in the catalogue.
FJS
PS Just checked my image, it is a cpt so will have to change it to a jpeg. I will send it right after this.
FJS
I do have some. Mine had a name on front as well. Will post pics ASAP. I just get very suspicious when I see an item like this start showing up in, what I consider to be, large numbers. Thanks for chiming in here and helping Joe with your valued opinion.....
Denny
Hi Denny,
Thanks for your fast feedback, we will all look forward to your photos in due course.
I had trouble uploading my photos, so I have e-mailed them to Dave Hohause in the hope that he can put them up for me (I'm not good with modern technology - even my computer is so old that it has stone tablets for keys!)
FJS
Series of pics om "formerly owned" SA "engraved. AS I stated earlier, I gave it awy with the admonition that is was FAKE. Pretty, but FAKE.
Denny
Description: SA3
2
Description: sa5
3
Description: sa6
4
Description: sa7
5
Description: sa8
Denny:
It appears that everything else is legit. except the crossguards and pommel nut. Is this correct?
Jim
Glad that an Expert weighed in on this topic! Thanks Mr Stephens.
Joe
Fred Stephens is the recognized expert in the field of repo'd daggers. He should prove to be quite enlightening around this subject. ANYONE needing to keep pics, feel free to do so and use for your library of fake stuff.........
Denny
PS I was skeptical about this dagger from the day I laid hands on it. It was "too" pretty to ignore and Hope sprang eternal w/me. I finally couldn't ignore the signals that caused me to toss and turn at night.... Fit was very nice on all parts and all appeared original. I did have doubts about the blade, but it also seemed real from all I saw internally. I was, however, NO expert......
Not being an expert by a long shot I would look at this dagger as a "Display Piece"only.As FJS said all different mfg.I don't think daggers were called back from there owners (reason for different mfg.)and engraved.This should have been a contract with a mfg.for the fittings which could have also happened.I guess this is one of the many mysteries of the hobby.I think Mark called it right how much is it and can you live with the piece and the price?
I have had to come back and look at this issue again, because something is really baffling me about Joe's dagger - its the name on the crossguard: KURPFALZ.
Now, as far as I can find out, Kurpfalz does not exist as a family name. Type in "Kurpfalz" on Yahoo, or Google - and you will find thousands of entries, the main ones being for the Hotel Kurpfalz in Munich.
What Kurpfalz also means is a Palatinate - that is to say a type of electoral region. Go to the Wikipedia free encyclopaedia, and key in "Kurpfalz", and it will give you a clearer explanation of the meaning of the name in this context.
So this is starting to look a little more questionable by the minute. It is OK to have a Hotel Kurpfalz, or a Kurpfalz University, but I would question it as a family name. To make an analogy, it would be like someone saying that their family name was "Grand Junction" or "Baton Rouge". It doesn't make sense.
I cannot see why a German (even one engraving up fakes) would use this word as a name for the recipient of his presentation piece. However, Denny might have hit onto something, when he said that he had heard that pieces such as these were thought to have come out of the Western States - because a non-German speaker probably wouldn't realise the significance of the name and its application.
It makes me think of a gentleman I knew many years ago, called Roger Steele - of Hollywood Military Hobbies fame (or should I say "infamy"!) Roger knew lots of gun engravers.
Sadly, Roger is no longer around to answer back, so I will not pursue this line - but I am rather beginning to think that the erroneous use of "Kurpfalz" is beginning to throw doubt onto all the other similar pieces.
Hopefully Dave H will be able to get my other comment and photos up; and I will be keen to see what other GD members have to say, or show.
FJS
From Fred:
Here are the images I mentioned in my previous reply. I have had problems uploading them so am asking Dave Hohaus to do this on my behalf. The first one is the page from Johnson with the Ernst Kraft Dagger, and the second one is the Hermann Historica Otto Telschow piece.
By the way, if anyone wants to look at Deutscher's piece, key in "Kurt Knoblauch" in the "Fined" button, and it will take you right there.
FJS
second
FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR HELP ON MY FIRST DAGGER,ESPECIALY DEGENS FOR POSTING PHOTOS.I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME NOVICE OBSERVATIONS HERE.FIRST ONE IS,ON TOTENKOPFRINGS THERE IS NEVER A FIRST INITAL ON THE PRESENTATION.AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ISNT ONE ON MINE,BUT IS ON DENNYS.SECOND,THE ENGRAVING ON MINE IS EXCELLENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GROSSGUARDS,BUT ON DENNYS ITS ONLY ON ONE SIDE.THE BACKSIDE IS OF A DIFFERENT PATTERN WITH NO ATTRACTIVE ENGRAVING AT ALL.THIRD,THE TOP NUT IS ENGRAVED ON DENNYS BUT NOT ON MINE.WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS WE SEE ITS OBVIOUS THEY WERENT TRYING TO COPY EACH OTHER.WITH HUNDREDS OF DAGGER MAKERS, WHY WOULD THERE BE ONLY ONE ENGRAVER?THE DEALER WHO I PURCHASED THIS DAGGER FROM TOLD ME TODAY THATHE HAS HAD IT IN HIS SAFE FOR 15 YEARS.HE PURCHASED IT FROM A VET.WHO BROUGH IT BACK FROM BELGIUM IN WW2.HE ALSO SAID I CAN BRING IT BACK FOR A FULL REFUND.THE PRICE I PAID, LETS SAY I COULD BUY A NICE SS FOR THE SAME MONEY,WICH IS NEXT ON MY LIST.
Only one advice, return it and get yourself a nice SS dagger.
Also if you can, stick with "textbook" examples, you will never have to argue with anyone and you won't have to always prove that it was a "rare variable".
Joe, that is good advice from Pat! Also, you won't always have that little "voice of doubt" whispering in you ear all the time! Regards, teufel
Joe
The "gentleman" I bought my SA from told me that that SA had been brought back by an American doctor in US Army at the end of the war. The story, I didn't buy from the start as it sounded all too familiar, but the engraving on the dagger had me bound up with hope.
As Fred Stephens mentioned, ALL the engraving has always struck me as having been done by a very good engraver and possibly one that has done extensive work on gun engraving. I have always been interested in guns and have seen quite a few engraved models. The names have always been unknown to me, but....
This reminds me a whole lot of that type engraving. I mentioned that mine came from the Western US. Sure think there's a connection there someplace.....
Looks like this engraving has fooled people before us and will continue to fool people after we're gone? Similiar to the problem we see when someone reproduces a ROHM or HIMMLER blade and sells it with the admonition that it is what it is.....
Somewhere down the road, that may be conveniently forgotten and someone sell the item for big bucks, as original. A real shame for the hobby and people trying to enjoy the real collectibles.
Denny
RUN, don't walk, and take it back.......
Joe Linge,
If the dealer who sold you the dagger has promised a full refund - then I am sure that he is honourable, and that he genuinely believes in the piece, and that you will get your money back.
As you say - he bought the piece from a Vet and has had it in his safe for the last 15 years. Well 15 years is not so long ago, that only takes us back to 1990. The image in the Johnson book (the Ernst Kraft named dagger) was published in 1975 so that's 30 years ago. There are some other tampered pieces that appear in the Raidl and Leslie booklet on German Daggers and Bayonets - and that came out in 1959, almost 50 years ago!
The saddening truth is that people (looking for a fast buck) have been screwing around with these pieces since the end of World War Two - and some of these tampered items have become secured in mainstream collecting culture.
The other pieces referred to in this correspondence, similar to yours, were only questionable because of their unusual and striking appearance. The observer of the item is left wondering......�Is this engraving from the period of the item, or from a later date?� It is one of those situations where either possibility can be true, and confidence in the piece (or lack of it) is left to the gut feeling of the new owner.
The �recipient names� on these items seem to be real names; and cleverly the creator of the engravings is picking obscure names - no �Sepp Dietrich�, or �Otto Meissner�, or �Julius Schaub� on these pieces (individuals whose existence can be quickly and easily established). In this case the creator chooses the names of lesser individuals, middle ranking personalities, whose name might be recorded as some bystander to another greater event or personality.
So it is the very obscurity of the actual name which makes the piece convincing - and then when that same name is independently found elsewhere (in some old book, or reference work etc.) then the illusion of realism becomes complete. So do not feel too bad that some of us are telling you that �you have been had" with a tampered item, because it is a very well executed piece of mischief. There is many a sound, honest, and knowledgeable collector who would have given that item the �benefit of the doubt�.
In fact I can tell you, truthfully, that although I have previously wondered about this design of engraving I was never able to make up my mind as to whether or not I believed it to be right or wrong. In fact it wasn�t until I saw the word �Kurpfalz� on your item that I finally made my decision. The improbability of that name has tilted my view against the piece - and other pieces with similar decoration. I hope that yourself, and the seller, can resolve the matter amicably.
FJS
Last word of advice Joe - it has been said over and over here on this forum .....
Buy the dagger - not the story.
It is great to have a dagger that you know the providance of, but if you have to use the story to help (in your mind) convince you that the dagger is good, well that is not good at all. Get your money back and buy something else.
JUST TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, I SHIPPED THE DAGGER TO TOM WITTMANN YESTERDAY.IF I GET A C.O.A. ON IT ILL KEEP IT. IF NOT ILL RETURN IT FOR MY MONEY BACK.ILL KEEP YOU POSTED AND MANY THANKS FOR ALL CONCERNED. JOE
I think that is an appropiate move Joe. Charlie
Hello ,
here is my dagger .I picked up this dagger directly from a man in an old house in Th�ringen , near the little town Meiningen .A little time afer the union of Westgermany and Eastgermany .The crossguards was very dark .This dagger is 1000% authentic .The price was
.Thomas Johnson has seen this dagger three years ago in Stuttgart and would buy them .
Next.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
FIRST OF ALL I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR LISTING MY FIRST POST AS(MY FIRST SA PUMA DAGGER)WHEN IT IS A NSKK WITH A BLACK SCABBARD AND HANGER.I SPOKE TO THE SELLER TODAY AS HE GAVE ME SOME INTERESTING INFO ON IT,WHICH ILL SHARE WITH YOU.HE SAID HE DIDNT THINK(KURPFALZ)WAS A PERSONS NAME BUT WAS A HEADQUARTERS OR DISTRICT AREA FOR THE NSKK.MAYBE ITS A DISTRICT AWARD.HE SAID ITS LISTED IN TOM JOHNSONS BOOK FIRST VOLUME.THEY WERE PRIVATE PURCHASE PIECES AND MAY VARY IN STYLE AND QUALITY ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT.THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING FOR FREDERICK J. STEPHENS BECAUSE HE SAID(KURPFALZ)WAS NOT A GERMAN NAME BUT A HOTEL OR UNIVERSITY.HIS OPINION WAS SOLEY BASED ON THIS,TILTING HIS VIEW AGAINST THE PIECE.(DENNY)IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS(DEUTSCHER)POSTED OF HIS REAL DAGGER,THEY LOOK SIMULAR TO YOURS FRONT AND BACK.I DONT HAVE TOM JOHNSONS BOOK BUT THE SELLER SAID ON PAGE 238 IT STATES(A)THEY WERE COMPLETELY CUSTOMIZED PIECES.(B)THEY WERE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS,MEANING ANY COMBINATION OF STYLES WAS POSSIBLE.I HOPE THIS SHEDS A DIFFERENT LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT.I KNOW THIS LOOKS LIKE IM DEFENDING MY DAGGER,JUST TRYING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. JOE
The subject of this dagger is getting increasingly more intriguing, and I look forward to seeing what my old chum, Tom Wittmann, has to say upon the subject.
I still stand by my statement that "Kurpfalz" is not a "family" name, and therefore the use of this noun seems to be inappropriate. It might as well feature the name "Saarbr�cken", or "Potsdam", or "Schwarzwald". They are all very Germanic, but not one of them is really believable as a family name. And, of course, there is another issue to this.........
When you look at the images of Joe's "Kurpfalz" dagger, there is nothing in those images that could not have been deduced from close study of the "Ernst Kraft" dagger shown in Johnson (vol 1), and therefore it is not something that a reasonably competent engraver could not have achieved.
However, when you study the images provided by Denny J. Roach, and Deutscher, of their respective daggers - then there ar some features in their respective pieces which are closely similar to each other, but not evident on the "Kurpfalz" piece.
Whereas, previously, I had questioned the fact that all these daggers had different trademarks, and in one case (at least) it featured an SA Gruppe mark - thus showing it had been officially issued through the SA clothing counters, I believe I now may have a bona-fide reason to explain that anomaly.
Before I do that, however, does any member have information as to where the "Ernst Kraft" dagger currently is, or indeed the recently sold "Otto Telschow" dagger? I would like to double-check my analysis before I announce my revised opinion - because I think that the "Ernst Kraft" dagger, and the "Telschow" piece might reveal something of fundamental interest.
This is no reflection on Joe's "Kurpfalz" piece, or the dealer who sold it to him - I am well prepared to accept that 30 years down the line current owners of items are honestly and truthfully accepting of the veracity of their items. The problem is, that if some of these pieces are found to be lacking in authenticity, then they cast a doubt against other pieces which may (or may not, as the case may be) completely authentic.
We have no choice but to examine all these pieces in complete detail. It is the only way to get to the truth.
FJS
UPDATE: I JUST RECEIVED MY DAGGER BACK FROM TOM WITTMANN. HE SAID THE ENGRAVING LOOKS TOO BE PERIOD DONE WITH THE GERMATIC STYLE,DEEP ENGRAVING THAT YOU SEE ON LUFT PIECES.HOWEVER THE SCABBARD SEEMS TOO BE REDONE POSTWAR GIVING SUSPECT AS TO WHEN THE ENGRAVING WAS DONE.I DECIDED TO RETURN THE DAGGER TO THE SELLER.TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT I TRADED EVEN FOR A EARLY SS BOKER WHICH ISNT AS CLEAN AS THE NSKK WAS BUT IM VERY HAPPY WITH IT.I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR COMMENTS PRO AND CON,FOR IT GAVE ME A LEARNING EXPERIENCE ON MY FIRST DAGGER.JOE
Well then... welcome to the dark side!
I love these stories with that ending
Welcome to the dark side !
Dave
Another "convert"....
I hate to say this, but Tom Wittmann will give just about any dagger a thumbs up.
Mr. Stephens
Why are you so hung up on the Kurplatz name? It's one of the post 34 SA Gruppen.
Tom Wittman said it "Looks" period done....which actually is a Terrible word to use as it leaves open the question of authenticity and leaves hin free of any Legal issues.Being an "expert" or a Big name I think he is too Vague in his opinions.I had a Piece that was Pictured in his SS Book...even had a Letter of authenticity but when I looked at it it showed very suspicious.
TOM
Riding down the middle of the road is the much safer route.
I fail to see how an engraving is period, but not good when the scabbard appears to be messed with. Strange evaluation to say the least.
It's either black or white (no shade of gray)and in this case it's definitely black (bad). (Pardon the pun you SS guys.....)
I think we sometimes play on words just in case we might be walking into some well known dealers backyard? Tell it like it is. An evaluation like that leads to mass confusion and opens the door for someone to buy that thing again..... Rather disconcerting.
Denny
Jon
Don't think we heard from you before this went to Wittmann. What is your opinion? Just wanted to hear your slant on things....
Denny
Denny,
I feel the style engraving on these daggers appears to be done more for the collecting community then for a SA mann during the period. Looking at deutscher example I just feel the engraved Imperial Japanese chrysanthemun and the Hj diamond/SS Honor ring symbol just seem a little out of place on a SA dagger, one of those WTF kind of things. Anyone of these daggers might appear to be fine if it was the only example, but since there is a group of these daggers, I highly doubt they are period. I just don't like the engraved faux honor crossguards. I have no knowledge of any oakleaf engraved crossguards that are period or have a solid traceable provedence, but there are plenty of documented fakes with this feature. The few engraved crossguards with a solid provedence that I have seen are all done in a very different style and do not have an "oakleaf" design.
I don't know if this has been mention about the Kraft dagger but it is SA gruppen marked He.
Jon
That's what I thought I heard you saying. ALL (even the pictured piece in TJs book), to me, are Post-war engraved by a pretty good engraver skilled in, normally, firearms engraving. I owned one with the exact style of engraving and have proof it's post-war done JUST for collectors such as myself that got snookered into the thing by greed (my excuse anyway) and thinking I'd cut a fat hog when I found it. In all reality, I didn't find it, it found me.
Thanks for your input.....
Denny
Hi - this answer is primarily to John Shawcross and to Denny J. (although - of course - everyone else is entitled to put in their two cents worth).
First issue - to John S. - My concern with the name "Kurpfalz" is simple - if you own a dagger you do not put your home town name on it, there could be a 100 guys from your town all obtaining daggers - so the town/district name is highly improbable. Therefore the name that you apply is most usualy your family name.
John, you also pointed out that the Ernst Kraft Dagger bore the He (Hesse) SA Gruppe mark, and that is also very interesting, because Deutscher's dagger also bears a group mark.........and I must confess that this issue concerned me for some time. However, I think I may have the answser. These pieces are not Honour Daggers, or "!Geschenck Dolche" as some of my German colleagues claim - they are quite simply early period daggers which have been engraved by a professional engraver who has been making his living by decorating daggers for those who could afford it.
This brings us back to the circumstance of the "Kurpfalz" dagger. I regret to say that I do not think that the "Kurpfalz" engraving is authentic - it is quite distinctive from the other pieces and therefore I submit that it is from a different source and quite probably a falsification. However, the main issue here is the pointlessness of using the word "Kurpfalz" - it is not a family name - it is a district.
Regarding the dagger displayed by Denny J. Roach (and Denny and I have had a couple of private e-mails on this between ourselves), Denny - I think your dagger was real. Of course this is no real consolation to anyone (not least yourself) but all the information and the way I perceive it suggests that the piece was genuine. Of course - I must state - that because you thought it was wrong you disposed of it as wrong and you you publicised that fact and circumstance. I applaud you for your candour and honest expression. (I can only state that I think that you made an error)
Frederick J. Stephens
Denny--You now say you have "proof" your dagger was altered. I think we would all like to know what that proof is.
The work on these daggers is very good and it also should be mentioned that there are quite a few around that have no name at all. When all is said and done I think it will be a matter of opinion as to whether they are period or not or whether some are and some are not----but-if there is real proof-then that is another matter.
Houston
Use that tone with someone besides me, Please. I have irrefutable "proof", but will keep it to myself, Thank you. I repeat, bad.........and that's my opinion. Mine was, without a doubt, BAD......AND as similiar as they are, they all bother me after what I've seen.....
Denny
Fred,
Kurplatz is a documented SA gruppe, not a town or district, but a SA Gruppe. Can you honestly say that a SA mann would not have his SA gruppe engraved on his dagger?
Fred, what proof do you have that Denny's dagger was real? What proof can you offer that
any of these daggers could actually be period? These daggers are against SA regulation, it was prohibted to modify the outer appearence of the SA dagger.
quote:
Kurplatz is a documented SA gruppe, not a town or district, but a SA Gruppe. Can you honestly say that a SA mann would not have his SA gruppe engraved on his dagger?
Fred, what proof do you have that Denny's dagger was real? What proof can you offer that
any of these daggers could actually be period? These daggers are against SA regulation, it was prohibted to modify the outer appearence of the SA dagger.
To reply to Jon, firstly;
Yes, SA Gruppe Kurpfalz existed (it occupied part of what we know as the Saarland on the French border) - but what is the point of such an engraving?
Although I believe that it was forbidden to alter the exterior appearance of the SA Dagger, I have never seen any official order stating that this was so.......so have you seen such an order?
By the same rule of thumb, it would therefore appear forbidden to mark up a dagger with the owner's personal name and number - but there have been enough of these coming out of the woodwork to convince me that they are genuine.
My feeling is that Deutcher's Knoblauch piece, the Ernst Kraft piece in Johnson, and the recently seen Otto Telschow piece are all authentic, and probably pre-date any order forbidding the exterior decoration of the daggers. (Supposing such an Order is found, and is seen to be dated say, 1938, well that gives a good four years for "unofficially" decorated daggers to come into existence).
So, going back to Kurpfalz, my distrust of this is simply that it does not identify the dagger to the original owner. No family name, no Standarte identification, no number - just the word Kurpfalz. It is, in my opinion, improbable. It might as well state "Donau", or "Sudetenland" or "Berlin-Brandenberg" - it doesn't make any sense, whereas an owner's name would make sense.
Referring to Denny's dagger, the style of the engraving on that piece, and also on Deutscher's piece as well as the Ernst Kraft piece and the Telschow piece all seem to have a lot in common with each other - and one of those factors is the engraving on the upper side of the top guard. They are engraved with a very precise diamond pattern - a diamond that is equalateral in form with a distinct "ring" in the middle. So my gut feeling is that Denny's piece was probably fully authentic - assuming that the other pieces are fully authentic.
The Kurpfalz piece has a similar engraving, except that it is much co****r, the diamonds are rhomboid in shape and not all the same size, and with a simple dimple in the middle. I think that the style has has been copied (probably based on the photo in Johnson, but the skill of the engraver is much less professionally executed than on the other pieces. So it is the combination of poor engraving skills, plus improbable name, that makes me doubt the Kurpfalz piece.
FJS
Denny-you said you had proof-I asked what the proof was-there was no "tone" and no offense intended. Now you say you don't want to share the information. I don't understand that and you certainly don't have to explain. But--information is what the forum is about--or so I thought.
The "engraved", and I use the term loosely, SA I gave away as it is bad, can be retrieved from a friend, BUT I stand on my statement that it was/is Bad. (The engraving was and is absolutely beautiful.) I won't be getting it back even though it was not cheap when I bought it. I couldn't sell it, feeling as I do, so I'll just eat it, like I have (and rightly so), and go on with my life.
Sometimes the "tone" can be heard plainly by a reader of posts on this medium. Guess I'm as guilty as the next man..
SOMEONE has gone to great expense to engrave and put together some of these things in an all-out quest to make a wad of money. Beware. Seems to me that TOO many "odd and rare" items are bobbing up. There are undoubtedly originals, but they are so rare that the majority of people will never see one in their lives. To see 5-6 with the same overall characteristics, doesn't make sense, not to me anyway especially in light of what I've seen by a thorough examination of mine. I tried to believe in it for years, but Alas, I could not. I don't care who owns them. The ones I've seen bear the same characteristics although I'm sure the stories behind each are different and I don't trust'em.
Sometimes it seems better to "stimulate" the curiosity than to spill the beans. Some people will never believe facts (or read their own twists into them) while others will take a hint and dig into the nitty gritty and find the info by themselves.
My SA was bad and still is. This reminds me of my a bunch of things I encountered during my work career. There are Administrative changes and Engineering changes that can be applied to a known problem.
MY former SA had been through the engineering process when someone dumbied it up and now I see that administrative changes could make it Okee dokee. (Reminds me of what happens when many fake items are sold and one day take their place amoung real items and everyone accepts them at face value.) JUST not so.
Don't mean to interject a tone in this either.
Denny
AAAWWWWWWWWWWWW--Ca'mon Denny -Give it up-show us the proof--As you can see we're too igor'ant to find it by ourselves.
quote:
Although I believe that it was forbidden to alter the exterior appearance of the SA Dagger, I have never seen any official order stating that this was so.......so have you seen such an order?
The earliest and easy order to trace pertaining to the exterior of an SA dagger is "OSAF I Nr. 3707" date in early March 34. The spirit of this order is also repeated numerous times by the Soligen Chamber of Commerce & OSAF, they went so far as to complain about the lack of a standard for the grip wood and scabbard colors.
quote:
By the same rule of thumb, it would therefore appear forbidden to mark up a dagger with the owner's personal name and number - but there have been enough of these coming out of the woodwork to convince me that they are genuine.
The pratice of marking the reverse crossguard with the owners unit, name or serial number does not alter the exterior appearence of the dagger while in wear. There is an SS order that required that SS R�hm dagger be marked with the owners SS number. I haven't been able to find an SA order relating to the marking of SA daggers but I believe that was more of an issue at the brigade level then an issue for the OSAF. There is a vague OSAF order pertaining to the use of Sturm funds for loans to purchase daggers for some SA men that implies the marking of these daggers, but the order is a unclear as to how the daggers where to be marked.
quote:
So, going back to Kurpfalz, my distrust of this is simply that it does not identify the dagger to the original owner. No family name, no Standarte identification, no number - just the word Kurpfalz. It is, in my opinion, improbable. It might as well state "Donau", or "Sudetenland" or "Berlin-Brandenberg" - it doesn't make any sense, whereas an owner's name would make sense.
This is really a non issue for me because I don't believe the dagger is real. There are several period daggers that are unit marked with no direct tie to who the owner was. I can't accept a piece that I know is period with only a unit marking, then discount a piece that has SA gruppe name because I don't feel it's personal enough.
I'll post more later tonight.
Houston
I've had a change of heart, so to speak. I'd retrieve it from the present owner and sell it you (w/no returns of course) if you want a "genuine, real dilly" of an engraved SA. I'd give the money to the present owner and keep nothing for myself since I'm intent upon eating the original cost. NOW that sounds like a deal you can't pass up. What would you estimate one of these rarities to be worth and we can start from there. I'll give you a hefty discount, too if you'll come across with a nice estimate of value for this beauty.
Let's make a deal.........
I'll throw in shipping.....and insurance.
Denny
I'll give you $20 more than Houston will.
Dave
Let's wait and see what his offer is.....but $20 on a big ticket item like this? Guaranteed original (Not my guarantee) and Zero returns...
Denny,
This is the first thread I have ever seen where someone is arguing that his dagger was not any good. Actually, it is refreshing to see someone not so emotionally invested in a piece and willing to take a hit on a dagger.
I am curious as to what the dagger will go for. Maybe we can auction it off here on GDC to the highest bidder, or better yet - how about a raffle to help Craig out.
Denny--Just because I was interested in knowing what the proof is that these daggers are post war altered does not mean that I was interested in paying big big bucks for one.
The fact is that I (and I'm sure others have too) have admired some of these pieces I have seen over the years and would have bought one--but the prices were too high for any sort of investment. Why?--not because they were ever proven to be fake -but because there are so many who think they are or that they might be.The sad fact is that there are a lot of things like this.
I have always wondered if these daggers were real or fake-along with most other collectors---and its interesting and curious that you won't clear up this old question with your proof.
So--now you are offering to sell-but are you serious?
A couple of years ago I saw one at a show a guy was walking around with-I had doubts and no certainty that it was original-but it was nice so I offered him $800.00. Some may think that's high-some may think its low. If fake or at least very questionable and rejected by many-that's a fair offer I think. He considered it but would'nt sell. I make you the same serious offer--but-if you accept do I get the proof that it is fake along with it? If so I will publish that proof right here on this forum.
--and there is no "tone"-no offense of any kind intended. I would like to have the dagger-I like it-even if it is post war altered--and if I ever sell it I promise I won't claim it is period engraved---and the offer still stands even if you won't give up the proof
I await your answer.
But shucks--I know whats gonna happen-some schwinniehunt is gonna offer $825.
Houston
It will not be sold. I was just funning. I wouldn't knowingly sell a chunk of dung like that for any amount.
All jokes aside, I take it you don't wish to make an offer on it? Why not make an offer, then I'll take Dave's offer of $20 more and sell it to him?
He wants it more than you by $20....I'll send you the $20......rest goes to the present owner.....
Denny
Denny,
First you have to tell us about the "proof"
Dave
Dave
That represents a change from your offer to beat Houston by $20......
Denny
Denny-I did make an offer in the above post--$800.00--and I do mean it. I want it-you hate it-so---???????
Houston
Do we proceed then? Do you want it or do you want Dave to have it with his $20 bump? If you REALLY want it, I'll get it and start the process.......
I know I said it wasn't for sale, but Just to accomodate you....or Dave.....
Denny
Yes Denny--I do want it. I am not kidding. As soon as you get it let me know and I will send the money. No joke. I mean it. Consider it sold. Thanks
[email protected]
SOLD American. This could not really become addictive, to me anyway. Hope you enjoy it more than I.
Denny
Gentlemen,
This issue of Joe Linge�s Dagger, and other similar examples, is becoming something of a cause c�l�bre - because it really has opened up a whole can of worms. However, that is what this forum is about, and all of us in the GDC community give our opinion in the hope of advancing other peoples� understanding, or improving our own knowledge.
To reply to Jon Shallcross; Yes, you are right about the Office of the SA Leadership and the Order 1 Nr. 3707. I had forgotten about that one, but it does appear in translated form in Atwood (page 36). The Order is dated 21 February, 1934 (not March) and primarily relates to the SA Honour Dagger (R�hm dedication) and the Standard Service Dagger. I acknowledge that the translation does state that SA Officers are permitted to present their comrade(s) with SA Daggers on special occasions; and furthermore it stipulates that such daggers must conform in exterior appearance to that of the Standard Service Dagger.
OK, I was playing Devil�s Advocate when I suggested that an owner marking up his own dagger with his name and/or SA Service Number was altering the exterior appearance (I was a just being a little provocative). It would seem to me to make perfect sense to have your personal dagger so marked in order to identify it as your own personal property.
So would it be out of order to have your own dagger engraved with your name by a professional engraver? I am going to make a contentious statement here - but I think it is worth making. It is my considered opinion that a professional engraver might well have advertised for, or solicited, engraving commissions from SA members, who would like their daggers to be personalized with their own name - and to do so in a highly artistic manner. As this exterior decoration on the dagger does not imply any presentation from one official to another, it is not in essence contravening any of the conditions stipulated in Order 1 Nr. 3707.
So it is my best guess that such an engraving could be authentic - and it also explains why there are different makers with this engraving, and different SA Gruppe marks (on some of them, but not necessarily all of them). The engraver solicits business, offers options of design versions, advertises his business, and receives some quantity of business as a result. The business comes in from all over the Reich (and believe me, local businesses were not always chosen for their services - there was a well established system of mail-order business for goods and services - a bit like your American Sears-Roebuck mail-order business). So it is highly possible that a competent engraver working in some German town - let�s say Duisburg (I have no evidence for this, it is hypothetical) could advertise for business, and get responses from as far away as Saarlouis, Munich, Nurnberg, Kiel, etc. etc.
It seems that we have five or six surviving examples of an engraver�s work which appears to be distinctively identifiable (at least) to the same hand, or school of workmanship. Supposing our engraver�s campaign for work produced commissions for 500 examples (varied designs). (Not a vast amount in a large nation with a population of some 40 million - 1936 estimate. There is a reasonable chance that some of those pieces survive - they were, after all, spread across the complete Reich.
I think that this scenario cannot be off-handedly written-off as improbable. By the same logic you would have to say that complete R�hm dedications were forbidden (and most clearly they were forbidden - after June, 1934). So how is it that so many survive? Could it be that the regulations concerning such pieces were flouted - or has somebody got a better idea?
So this brings me back to Joe Linge and his �Kurpfalz� dagger. We have about three schools of thought concerning this item........and similar pieces. To wit, as follows:
1) There are those who believe in the piece, and other similar items, implicitly. No problem there - if it makes you happy then that is the end of the matter (until you try to sell it - but that is another issue).
2) There are those of us who think Joe Linge�s dagger was tampered with, but we still believe that some of the other similar items are genuine. I place myself in this category, and whatever flak comes my way I will take it accordingly.
3) There are others who (genuinely and with integrity) believe that �tampered-with� daggers having exterior decoration were completely forbidden - and therefore this is a sign of sure fakery. I would not challenge this, but submit the proviso that there becames a point at which such unofficial modifications were finally forbidden - but that doesn�t prove they were eliminated from the scene.
So, OK, which piece(s) is/are wrong? Regarding Joe Linge�s �Kurpfalz� piece, I think it is wrong. This is not a wild guess. I think the use of the word �Kurpfalz� is improper. It is not as if this item is a gift, or some recogniution from the SA Gruppe Kurpfalz - if it was that, then surely that if it was honouring a person or achievement it would have been stated: �The best marksman in SA Gruppe Kurpfalz�; or �Gruppe Kurpfalz Hiking Prize, 1936� - or whatever. But it doesn�t do that, and therefore the name �Kurpfalz� is somewhat too bald and inexplicable. So, yes, these are my reasons for questioning the �Kurpfalz� dagger - that and the distinctions in the engraving.
My argument, as presented above, does not prove or disprove the authenticity of any of these daggers. However there are some pointers which I think are worth arguing about. I have made up a photo-montage of the top crossguard of several of these daggers, and I wish to present in order to highlight an observation. And everbody is invited to comment upon it as you see fit. Hopefully this image will transfer to the GDC site (but as I have had trouble with my images in the past - I might have to submit it through Dave Hohaus, or one of the other helpers who can assist me through my dotage. Here goes...........
Denny J. Roach, after careful consideration I think that your engraved SA dagger was genuine all along, and I suspect that some of our other associates also lean towards that conviction - have you noticed how they are not chasing Joe Linge to gain possession of his former dagger?
However, Denny, it must be said - that if you claim to have proof positive that your dagger was tampered with and that the engraving is false, then you ought to share it so that the rest of know how to spot this particular type of fraud. Isn't that what being a member of this community is all about. (You were brilliantly open about your doubts about the piece - and did share that bit with us. So why not draw back the curtain and show us the rest of the secret?)
I put some part of my reputation on the line - I state that I think that your Dagger, and Deutscher's piece, and seemingly the Ernst Kraft piece, are likely to be authentic.
How about a word from my two erstwhile colleagues Dave Hohaus and Houston Coates - who have declared their interest in Denny's dagger.
Joking repartee apart fellows - are you seeking to buy a quality original dagger with faked up engraving? Or do you suspect that the piece might be completely real?
C'mon now - you can tell Uncle Frederick.
FINAL NOTE - Upload of my photo failed. I will re-submit the image through another medium.
Fred,
E-mail me your photo montage, and I will post it for you.
Fred, try looking past the engraving on these dagger, just pretend it's not there if you must. Look at Deutcher's dagger, the grip is not a Kober grip, it's another makers. There are little clues on these dagger that would make an experienced SA type collector shy away from all of these dagger if they weren't engraved.
Hi Uncle Fred. Denny and I have completed the sale and he has promised I will be getting the dagger soon. I have to thank him for letting me have it. When I do receive it I will furnish multiple photos for study. I really don't have any idea if these daggers are good or not but they are not like the fakes owned by old Dutch in the 50's.
I do like the quality of the work on it and IMO it is worth the price I paid if for nothing more than a conversation piece. It will always be good for that-no matter where you take it. As I said in an earlier post-I think it will always be a matter of opinion if it has been post war altered unless someone finds an old ad from the engraver with a photo of what he could furnish or a photo of one in wear. At least I know what I am getting-and we sure don't always know that. I don't really think Dave was interested as the dagger is the wrong color for him.
On another note-how is your new Repro-Reco book coming along? Got an approx release date? Anything special you need for it?
Jon,
Please prove to me that the grip on Deutscher's dagger is not a Kober grip - because I do believe Deutscher's account of his dagger and how he acquired it, and therefore I have some challenge to your claim that it is not correct.
As for my photo montage, yes I will also send it to you. I believe and trust you to openly present it. I can't get it presently through the GDC e-mail site, so expect it through your outside e-mail communications.
FJS
Posting for Frederick
Gentlemen,
Firstly my thanks to Jon for getting my photo montage up on view. The imagery itself doesn't really prove anything, but it does make for some interesting observations:
The top item is the "Kurpfalz" dagger that Joe Linge presented. It is beautifully engraved, but it has a styling that appears to set it apart from the other pieces. Note the large size rhomboid diamond shapes engraved on the guard - they are not as neat, or precise as the equalateral diamond shapes shown on the other pieces - now they do all look as if they are from the same hand in terms of quality of workmanship.
Another interesting feature, if you look closely: The side facing of the tang nut on the TMJ Ernst Kraft dagger; and also on Denny Roach's dagger, are both decorated with a repeating ring design. So I really do think that these two pieces are from the same stable.
This feature does not appear on Deutscher's piece, or the Telschouw piece mentioned previously. However, my argument for these pieces is based on the presumption that the original engraver offered a range of design combinations and options - and that what we are looking at is different designs by the same hand.
The "Kurpfalz" piece I believe is a modern engraving. That the engraving is not up to the standard of these other pieces is a side issue. I am sure that there are other, authentic period engraved pieces which are not as fine as these other pieces. However, it was the use of the word "Kurpfalz" which makes me personally feel that it is inappropriate - and therefore (in my view) questionable.
It is now New Year's Eve. So I wish all GDC members, and readers of this correspondence (it has raised over 2000 hits!) very Best Wishes for the coming year of 2006 - and many more exciting daggers to contemplate.
FJS
Jon , you can believe , the Knoblauch-grip is a kober , may be a typical "Suhler" , grip.
Fred--one correction--the Kraft dagger has the same reverse as Joe's dagger. This is clearly shown in TJ's volume 1--page 206. IMO this just tends to make everthing clearly unclear--just as it was before.
Hi Houston,
Thanks for your response. But one small question here - are we singing from the same hymnbook?
I attach a photo montage (and this time it has worked - so it is on line - I don't normally have good luck in presenting these images) and this shows the reverse of the Kraft Dagger (from Johnson page 206); and aalsss0 the reverse of the Joe Linge dagger(as featured on this site.........
.....And guess what........they are different ! I do not think that the Joe Linge piece looks anything like the Kraft piece in the reverse feature details. (IMO)
OK Houston, what is your case now?
FJS
PS: Jon Shallcross - I request that you post an image for me. Thank you.
Houston, when the deal was already done on a forum thread and not privat via email or over the sale section then I realy hope you tell your obversations about this new bought dagger over this forum thread.
Fred,
Feel free to e-mail me any pictures you need posted.
Robert--I'll be glad to share anything I observe--but I really don't expect to see anything that would be conclusive about the authenticity of the engraving. The photos show it is good quality--I really think that is all we will ever know for sure. Even if the quality was not that great I don't think that would be conclusive either. Its just opinion--and most will always have doubts. I know that-and I bought it just for what it is-whatever that is
Posting for Fred
I agree Fred-not the same-no two are exactly alike. Not good photos but Joe's does seem to be of a lesser quality.
Here is one I had almost purchased from a major dealer but i was a minute late,
I don't know who owns this piece but it does differ from the others shown, such beautiful workmanship
My thanks to Jon Shallcross for posting the images I was unable to upload.
OK, fast observation here. The "Kurpfalz" dagger is, in my opinion, clearly messed about with - but I am basing this assumption primarily on the inappropriate use of (IMO) the name "Kurpfalz" - plus the other features I have previously highlighted.
The style of the engraving on the reverse of the Ernst Pack dagger is interesting, insofar that it is quite different to the reverse side engraving on both Denny Roach's piece and the piece revealed by Deutscher. Denny's dagger, and Deutscher's piece, seem to have very similar engraving on the reverse.
Deutscher's dagger, and the Ernst Pack piece - although differing in the engraving - also share an unexpected feature, they both have SA Gruppe stamps.
It is this feature of the SA Gruppe stamp that makes me think that these pieces were privately enhanced, and probably done by a professional gunsmith/engraver (he might well have been a member of the SA, and swanking around with his own refined SA dagger!). Or it might have been a commercial enterprise - an engraver advertising his services, to enhance daggers by the personalisation of the dagger with the artistic addition of the owner's name.
Can you tell the difference if something has been engraved 70 years ago, or just 40 years ago? No, not really. Engraving is engraving, and there are classically trained engravers still around who can do the job. And our extra problem is that some of these "tarted-up" pieces have been around for years. They themselves are now also "old".
It is my personal opinion that the "Kurpfalz" piece gave itself away by the use of the name; whereas the other pieces we have been looking at do not seem to show any flaw.
As my personal reputation has been built up by my enthusiasm and expose of suspected fakes and reproductions, I am obliged to "place my cards on the table", so to speak, and state that I cannot find any fault with Denny's Dagger, or Deutscher's, or the Ernst Pack piece. I admit it - I think those daggers and their engraved features are completely real.
FJS
Roy--Neat! Great TM-Anyone else got one? Whose questionable piece is the best questionable piece? So far I like the "Kraft" one the best.
Other than some etching similarities, there is one most common denominator in all of these daggers................. they are all Mint ++++ condition. Where are the dogs ?
I realy would take for for this dagger style. I know original ones are out but I also wonder why some (what is a lot for me) of this dagger style & named showed up in germany 2005. A friend of mine told me he could buy 3 of this SA daggers last year, with names like from the Gauleiter from Franken etc. I know also gun engravers in germany who easy could do such an engraving job. Last year I saw one EM SS dagger there was a skull engraved (nicely done) on the pommel screw.
I have a big time question marks behind such things, when there is no real proof behind such an engraved dagger.
I have a difficult time believing that all have been post war embelished. There are a couple that I really like with all of the age intact and complete.
Houston: When you get your dagger from Denny, I am sure that you are going to like it much more than the Ernst Kraft piece.
JR (in Fort Collins): Not all of these pieces are mint. In fact the one that Deutscher acquired shows the evidence of having had a rough life. I will ask Deutscher to submit a photograph that he has sent to me, in order that you may see this aspect.
Roy Caroll: Can you give us other photos of the dagger you illustrate, details of the name on it etc; which dealer was offering it, and any other salient information in order that we may observe and comment upon it - the cream of the intellect of the German Dagger Community is focussing on this right now.
Are there gun engravers in the States, and Europe, who can perform work to these levels of quality and exactitude. Yes most certainly there are (but they would also have to understand the cultural nuances and artistic styles of the period, in order to produce a convincing item).
Not only that, there is the matter of cost. If you wanted someone to design and execute engraving such as this well, I don't think you are going to get much change out of a $1000. (Tony - the engraver, we had some correspondence. Do you want to come in with your comment on this?)
FJS
F.J.S. DOESNT TOM WITTMANNS OPINION COUNT FOR ANYTHING? HE HAND INSPECTED THE (KURPFALZ)DAGGER AND SAID THE ENGRAVING WAS OF THE OLD GERMATIC STYLE SIMILAR TO THE LUFT PIECES AND BELIEVES IT TO BE PERIOD.
Joe,
Yes, of course Tom Wittmann's opinion counts. I have known Tom for many years, and have always considered him fair-minded, honest, and with his own distinct knowledge.
That I might not agree with something Tom has stated, does not mean to say that I think Tom's opinion should be disregarded. On the contrary, I think that the more learned opinion you can find, then the better your chances of finding the truth.
The problem that we have with this subject, is that it is not necessarily "black and white"; or "open and shut". The waters that flow through the collecting of Third Reich Blades can be very murky indeed. Tom expressed his opinion that the engraving on your dagger was in the "Old Germanic Style", and that he believes in it. I believe that he does believe in it.
I agree with him - it is rather in the Old Germanic Style, but I don't believe that the engraving was made at that time. And the reason I dispute it is because of what is, in my opinion, the improbable use of the word "Kurpfalz". It is my belief that the engraver (or the individual commissioning the engraving) has made a mistake - and that mistake suggests to me that the piece has been tampered with.
Tom Wittmann and I will certainly not fall out over this difference of opinion. And I am sure that the other contributors who don't agree with my account for the dagger will still say that here is an argument that "makes you think about it".
Having the GDC forum to examine issues such as this - even where we disagree - is one of the healthiest aspects of this hobby. In fact I would think that a lot of collectors would say that it is stimulating to engage in the "thrust and parry" of debate. You need more than one source of information of opinion, so you can weigh the "facts" to and fro and form your own judgement.
I hope the above response answers your question.
Best regards
FJS
NSKK Motorsportsschule Kurpfalz-Saar
Ulf.
quote:
Reply
quote:
Reply
quote:
Reply
quote:
Reply
FJS. IF KURPFALZ WAS A NSKK MOTORSPORT SCHOOL AND IF ALL THE STUDENTS WHO WERE GRADUATEING CHIPPED IN TO PRESENT THEIR SCHOOL MASTER A DAGGER,WOULDNT IT MAKE SENSE TO ENGRAVE THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL ON IT? JOE
FJS,
If you let me know of a "Show" you will visit in UK,I will bring "one"
I have with leather covered scabbard iin the "correct" manner.
Engraved crossguards in the style Witty likes,silvered fittings
personalised reverse upper fitting from Gau Essen!!!
We have met before in front of Harveys tables!!!
No its not one of his.Came out of a Bier Stube in Chicago!!
contact me by e-mail
Seiler (yank in UK)
How come this thread is dead. Where is the dagger that sold to Houston ?
Yes,lets see/hear some more pls!
Seiler (yank in Uk)
The dagger only arrived two days ago.The engraving is really beautiful and top notch.IMO is is hard to believe that a faker would spend so such time, trouble or expense. I really don't see how it could be any better.It is far superior and much more intricate than other pattern engraved examples I have seen in photos or in person over the years.
From the photos we have I agree with Fred that the crossguards were engraved by the same hand as the Kraft dagger shown in TJ's book,the Knoblauch dagger owned by Deutscher and probably the one sold by HH as mentioned earlier. While all are a bit different all have distinctive similiar patterns. Of special note are the circles on the surface of the swastikas-VERY exact and tiny work here-all the above pieces have this aspect. It would be wonderful to compare these pieces in hand but I doubt that will ever happen. If you can accept that these were all engraved by the same hand and can accept Deutscher's account of how he obtained his example than the logical preliminary conclusion would be that the engraving is period on all of the above mentioned pieces.
I believe Deutscher!-and that is the real basis of my personal opinion-- so my conclusion-without being able to actually see the other daggers and based on the photos and Deutscher's account-is that the engraving is period. Many won't agree-so-what else is new?
I have a bit of difficulty getting great detailed closeup photos and am not sure if I can get any better ones than those already shown-but will try if someone has some aspect they want to see. The dagger will be available for all to see at the SOS and MAX. I'm sure you will find that it is both beautiful and interesting if nothing else. I hope someone will just walk up and produce one of the other daggers for comparison
Hello Joe Linge, Seiler, Houston, Jon, etc.
I am sorry for not having responded directly to the recent questions, but I had a serious domestic problem just after Christmas, which means that I am now living elsewhere in the country, without my archive, no computer or Internet connection, and trying to find a place to settle. I have access to a computer on which I can prepare e-mail messages on floppy disks, and then I can take it to the local library where there is a free Internet service (when you can get on to it), which is where I am now. So please bear with me and I will respond.
To reply immediately to Joe and the question of the NSKK "Kurpfalz-Saar" School - YES, it is quite possible that a group of students, or teachers, could subscribe to having a dagger acquired, decorated, and presented to the Head of the School (or indeed to any other distinguished individual). The only flaw I find with this in respect to the dagger you originally presented, is that the word "Kurpfalz" is a meaningless application of the name. If it had stated "NSKK Motorsportschule Kurpfalz-Saar" it would have been more impressive - but still questionable in my opinion. The reason? Well, the engraving would normally have a purpose - to denote ownership; acknowledge an event; achievement; commemoration; retirement; or whatever?
The use of the place name doesn't really explain anything at all, and that is why I find it questionable.
I appreciate that you might find me pedantic in this, but it is my genuine opinion.
I have to vacate my use of this facility right now, but will try and get a further reply to the rest of you later.
Best regards
FJS
Fred-So sorry about the problems you are having. I think all of our GDC members as well as all the members of the German edged weapon collecting community value your opinions very highly and look forward to your continued participation on our forums. We also look forward with anticipation to the new edition of your book on reproductions.
In your own time Fred.Take care.
Seiler.(Yank inUK)
NSKK Motorsportschule Kurpfalz-Saar
Dear Joe (and the other guys locking in with me on this),
Further to my previous answer to Joe�s question about the possibility of Students/Teachers et al contributing to procure an ornate dagger as a gift to a Master Teacher; I am sure that we all agree that this could have possibly happened. The question is: Is the dagger that Joe was in possession of such an example? If it isn�t such a piece, then what is it, and how do we prove it?
I have done some further research on the dagger (based solely on the information as presented in this thread, and not with any first-hand examination of the dagger). However, I do think that there are some salient observations which can be made:
1) Let�s work from the position that it is an NSKK Dagger: I looked NSKK Kurpfalz up in a copy of "Anschriften der Dienstellen der NSDAP" - I have the 1937 edition - and what it shows is this:
There was NO NSKK Motor-Obergruppen of this name;
There was NO NSKK Motor-Gruppen of this name.
2) What there was, however, was an NSKK Brigade "Kurpfalz-Saar" . This Brigade was headed by NSKK Brigadef�hrer R. Rees, and was headquartered at Kaiserslautern i. Pf., Dr Martin Lutherstrasse 18.
3) So already we have established that the correct name of the NSKK Brigade is "Kurpfalz-Saar" - and coincidently it is this same name which appears on the Postcard image which was published previously in this thread.
4) First option. As the piece which Joe featured does not feature this correct version of the NSKK Brigade name, it leaves open the possibility that the piece may be a basic NSKK dagger that has been tampered with by the addition of engraving - and an incorrect engraving at that.
5) The second option, of course, is that it may not be an NSKK dagger at all - perhaps it is an SA Dagger to which has been added an NSKK scabbard? One point for certain, the dagger has been tampered with in one area or another. So let�s consider the second option - that it is an SA Dagger, and that the black NSKK scabbard is just an unfortunate addition. The piece had no scabbard, so someone added one - it just happened to be black, well that does happen, quite innocently, from time to time. So what about an SA "Kurpfalz" dagger?
6) Yes, this too existed - I looked it up in the NSDAP book which I quoted above - and it shows that there existed an SA Gruppe "Kurpfalz", and it was headed by SA Gruppenfuhrer Max Luyken. Office address: Mannheim, Otto Beckstrasse 27.
7) OK, this brings us back to the circumstance of the dagger - let us assume that it is an SA Dagger, and the claim is that it is from the SA Gruppe "Kurpfalz". Well it doesn�t seem to show any SA Gruppe marking associated with Kurpfalz (but then that didn�t always occur). So we have to base our opinion on whether the actual inscription is logical.
8) The only flaw I find with this, in respect to the dagger presented, is that the word "Kurpfalz" (as I have previously stated) is a meaningless application of the name. That was always my argument - the name by itself does not make sense. If the name did not appear and only the decoration existed, then that is another conundrum - we would be debating whether or not the engraving/etching was truly correct for the period, or of sufficient expert quality. As it stands, however, the name becomes a problem - because as we now know, it can�t be an NSKK unit - so it has to be an SA Gruppe name.
The bottom line is this, if this is an SA Group name, what is the purpose of putting it on the dagger? It doesn�t tell us who the owner is, or his membership number, or why this dagger existed (award?, gift?, prize?) or any other quantifiable explanation for its existence with this decoration.
It is in my view highly suspicious. I think it has been tampered with in post-war years for the purpose of attracting a higher price from collectors, by featuring an appealing (albeit flawed, in my view) decoration to the crossguards.
This is my honest opinion.
Yours truly
FJS
How can a dagger posted as an SA dagger become an NSKK one ,or have I missed something in the thread.For some reason I cannot see the photos of the original dagger that was posted.Regards nats
http://www.stan-the-man.tk
FJS. YOU ARE AMAZING,YOU HAVE FINALLY CONVINCED ME OF YOUR CONCLUSION,WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT SELLER OF THE DAGGER STATES THAT IT WAS VET. AQUIRED IN 1945. JOE
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your kind compliments - it is gratifying to receive such a gentlemanly response to what has been such a vigorously debated subject. It also appears that the tussle, back and forth with this thread, caught the attention of the GDC community - we certainly seem to have received a better than average number of "hits".
At the end of the day, I have to state, I found the whole exercise exhilarating. It was a challenge of minds, and an exercise in knowledge and understanding in which everyone (bar none) was able to make a valid point and a comment worthy of debating.
You made one final point about the dagger - and that is that it was "Vet acquired in 1945". Can there be any truth in this? Well, I suppose that the piece could have been Vet acquired then - after all, it is basically a genuine dagger. However, does that mean it had that engraving on the crossguards at that time? That was one of the issues I questioned, I didn�t think that the engraving was from the period, and the erroneous use of the "Kurpfalz" name seemed to confirm that suspicion. And of course there is the other issue of the subsequent owners since WWII.
The trader you obtained the piece from was probably stating his honest belief that the dagger was "Vet acquired" - because the man he obtained it from told him so. Was this man the actual Vet? Or was he a subsequent owner?
I am not about to accuse any of the former owners of dishonesty in their description of the piece and its provenance. It is clear, however, that somewhere - back up the line - someone has uttered an untruth about the item, and that this untruth has stayed with the dagger as some form of alleged reputation. At the end of the day, it is the merits of the dagger that determine authenticity, and that the story surrounding it - well, it is just a story. You buy the dagger, not the story.
Good luck with your collecting, Joe. Your willingness in sharing the "Kurpfalz" dagger with the GDC community means that many people will have gained additional knowledge from your having - so to speak - put all your cards upon the table. This community thrives by sharing - and you have shared with generosity. Thank you.
Frederick J. Stephens
I,m resurrecting this one again if I may.
I have been following this intruiging subject since the start.
Although unable to post pics.
I have an unusual one I came across and bought about 10 yrs ago.
Maker marked Kuhrt, Gau No.
Crossguards,Oakleaf /acorn hand engraved with thin line background engraving which highlights the oakleaves.Fine line outline to the upper and lower surface of the crossguards.
Upper/lower scabbard fittings lined like an Honor Dagger but very fine line and not so deep.Reverse of upper fitting engraved in the Typical double lined German fashion
" SA Sturmfuhrer
R.Mann
SA Gau Essen"
Scabbard covered in fine Morocco brown leather in the proper fashion,cut around the fittings (not under)
two pieces butted down the edge of the scabbard.
All metal heavily silver plated.
Standard blade deep black motto.No graining an never had.
Standard hanger long snout.The whole has lovely always been together look and undamaged just age.
In any event as I am living in UK at this time,I arranged a meet with Fred yesterday at a UK Show.He gave it the "Business",
I was stunned when he said,ITS GOOD. I always had a good feel for it and he made my day.Thanks Fred.I hope he has the chance to see the Others.
Sorry to go on But.....
Cheers
Seiler (Yank in UK)
Denny, my freind. Since the deal with Houston is done, why don't you explain why your dagger is fake, it might be helpful.
Seiler,
If your dagger has SA Gau Essen but is Gau marked No, it is incorrect. There is no such thing as an SA Gau, it would be NSDAP Gau Essen. The SA gruppe that shared the territory with NSDAP Gau Essen is Niederrhein, not Nordsee.
Jon
Tks for that.Went and had another look(had,nt) seen it for a long time,in storage,
Reverse lower crossguard is marked buried in the three acorns.
No
The upper reverse crossguard is engraved...
Sturmfuhrer
R,Mann
SA Gruppe Essen
in double lined letters in an old German script.
Seiler....Still like it!!!!
Goring with the R?R! Book. Yes, JR, when the second edition of my R?R! book came out I had those cards made up as a bit of a joke, and signed them. That is my signature on the one that you have illustrated.
I used to give them away with copies of the book, or put them in letters I was mailing to other collectors.
FJS
