In accordance with requests made to me by many members, I am starting a thread on the NSKK High Leader Dagger. For those of you not familiar with the dagger, it is a chained damascus piece that is very similar in construction to the SA Honor - with three notable differences:

1) NSKK Honor Daggers have a smooth-grain black leather colored scabbard.

2) NSKK Honor Daggers have two types of chains. Either an 800 silver chain that is unique to these pieces, or a standard-looking NSKK chain. Both chain configurations exhibit a very unique looking center scabbard fitting.

3) The reverse of the NSKK exhibits a stylized signature of Hunlein, the NSKK Korpsfuhrer.

Here are some photos.

In the above photo, note the presence of the textbook "brown" Eickhorn grip, found on almost all early SA Honor Daggers. The grip exhibits the solid 800 silver eagle found on all early Honor pieces (SA or SS). Below, here's another photo. Note crossguards are identical to standard SA Honor Daggers of the early variety.

This particular example is not in the best shape, which is the reason the crossguard-to-grip fit. Others are not so poorly fitted, and this should not be an indication of the normal quality found on these.

Another pic.

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).

Another shot, showing the unique center scabbard fitting. This fitting is found on examples with the silver chain (like this one) and the standard chain.

This is the faxcimile signature of Hunlein that appears on the reverse of every correct NSKK blade. All blades are maidenhair damascus and are exact matches to the early SA Honor.

Next photograph.

Last pic of this piece.

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.

I WANT ONE !!! ( or two )

WOW, I would think the hilt fittings would have been set to a much greater tolerance!Were these dags known for there bad fit? Why would anyone make a dagger with such craftmanship and just decide to belittle the most obvious and constantly shown area of the dagger , this to me is a great question, it looks as if an apprentice fit the hilt on that one. When it comes to top dollar and textbook, thats a flunkie! T

I agree with Tiep, I would think with the considerable expense & effort that went into making one of these daggers that more attention would have been paid to the grip fit. Other than that, a very interesting blade to behold. Thanks for sharing it Craig.

This particular example is indeed not indicative of the fit-and-finish of other examples. I will be posting additional photos tomorrow of other examples, for you all to enjoy. I also wish to invite an honest and frank discussion of these pieces. Consider this thread an invitation for input from anyone who has experience with these pieces (not a large group, since they are so rare). It's no secret that Fred Stephens does not believe these pieces to be real, and despite our recent differences, I wish to encourage and invite an honest, informed, and POLITE debate about these pieces. I may not be able, due to time constraints of a personal nature, to guide and participate with the same degree of intensity that many of you have come to expect from me, so I offer my apologies in advance. Also, if the debate degenerates into name calling, personal assaults, and generally ungentlemanly behavior, I encourage the administrators of this site to take corrective action.

Craig,
Great topic. Thanks for posting these pictures. I look forward to the debate and the opportunity to learn about these daggers. I wonder if any of the 'old hands' here on the forum (like Mr.Weinand) have ever seen or heard of one of these coming out of the woodwork.
All the best, Doug

Although I never had the luck to handle one of these in person I dare to make a general statement:
As "Germ.Daggers of WWII, Vol.II" by TMJ on pg 458/459 clearly shows an identical dagger in a PERIOD "in wear" pic (!) it is beyond each doubt that such daggers with such certain hanger configuration did exist. As in the same book credit is given to our member Jason Burmeister concerning an identical dagger, due to the well known superior knowledge of Jason Burmeister for me it is beyond each doubt that the dagger shown there (in the book) is an original period item.
The dagger shown here by the founder of GD.C, Craig seems to conform these daggers and looks to be period what we can see from the pics. Naturally, as mostly, an in hand inspection by an experienced collector (what I think already has happend) would be necessary for a final statement but I personally cannot find any obvious red flag (beside the mentioned and declared "fit-flaw") in the pics shown here.
Craig, thank you for showing and opening a discussion about these extravagant and extraordinairy daggers.
Such threads are a pleasure and a highlight for our forum!
Regards,

The base features of the Chained NSKK High Leader are identical to all Honor daggers produced by Eickhorn during the period with the exception that the reverse of the blade exhibits a stylized signature of Hunlein, the NSKK Korpsfuher. A unique feature of this pattern is the two styles of chains. The nickel chain is basically identical to that found on the model 36 and the 800 silver differs in that the upper connecting device is void of a clip. Instead the silver example is produced to accommodate the short leather hanger typically encountered on the 33 pattern political daggers. The center scabbard band on both is nickel. A few examples have had the upper device on silver chains period modified to incorporate an upper clip similar to the nickel example. Of the modified examples examined no two are alike.

#1

#2

#4

#5

#6

#7

#1 and #2 is a silver chain type with modified clip. Veteran Source.

#4 and #5 is a silver chain type. Veteran Source.

#6 and #7 is a nickel chain type. Veteran Source.

#3 is nickel chain type.

#8 and #9 is a silver chain type. Veteran Source.

Of interest is this collage of photos. It has been suggested by Fred Stephens that the Hunlein signature on the reverse of these daggers is a forgery because it is "radically different" from Hunlein's. While he is entitled to his opinion, I strongly disagree. The "disk" in the collage is an award plaque that I recently purchased directly out of the woodwork. The blade shot is from the first dagger I photographed. The photograph of the signature is from a document, hand signed by Hunlein, dedicated to Goebbels for his birthday (another document directly veteran acquired in Southern California by Bob Demel, along with many other photographs dedicated to Goebells.

#3

#8

#9

One last comment for the time being, as I am on the way out of town. About 2 years ago, myself and Jason Burmeister, and Brian Maederer purchased a very poorly-conditioned example of this dagger at one of the large German shows (I can't remember if it was Kassel or Stuttgart). The gentleman we purchased it from is a well-known picker in Germany that we have all done business with before. He told us that the family he bought it from discovered it in the attic of a barn in Bavaria. I know this is only 2nd hand knowledge from us, but it is important and relevant testimony.

I hope that the invitation to discuss these daggers is extended to those who have some experience in the area of manufacturing (including precision casting). From that perspective is it possible that for the first example that the silver top and lower cross guards are replacements?

And was the Otto Gahr company the only one who was supposed to have made them? Even accepting that the dagger has had a hard life. For the first example they do not appear to be of the quality seen with most known Gahr items. And that might also help explain the fit of the wooden grip which has already been commented on. And what seems to be in image number two, gaps at the ends of the lower cross guard in relation to the mouthpiece. Which is metal to metal.

I also think that it would be of interest to see the other two signatures closeup so that they could all be compared.

These are only my own personal observations of an interesting topic. And I’m looking forward to seeing the other dagger that was mentioned. FP

Otto Gahr was only responsible for the silver chains. Nothing else.

Jason is correct. The entire dagger, with the exception of the chain assembly, was Eickhorn. All of the photos posted are identical in every respect to Eickhorn production items. Fred is correct that the fit is a bit rough on the example I posted (I admitted this much in my first post), but the crossguards are 100% original. Here are photos of identical crossguards from two other original political Honor Daggers.

Although I did not own the NSKK dagger that I originally posted, I examined it in person, and am comfortable with my opinion. Having had experience owning approximately 10 political honor pieces (SS, SA, and one NSKK), and having personally examined at least 5 more, you can take it to the bank that all crossguards shown in these photos are original. Of interest is that maidenhair damascus was not particularly expensive, and is far more valuable to us as collectors as it was to the artisans who made it. Sure, maidenhair cost more, but it was nothing compared to 4 band turkish (this to address Billy G's excellent earlier point).

Have the tangs of either of these examples been examined for markings?
Jim

Thank you both for clarifying that. I was trying to come up with a rational explanation for why the wood grip seemed to fit so badly. I was speculating that the handle metal parts might have came from another dagger because of the grip fit - and to me what seemed to me to be a noticeable gap in the metal to metal fit of the crossguard/mouthpiece.

Those look like some very nice examples that were just posted, and I’m looking forward to seeing more images of the NSKK High Leader daggers. FP

The tangs are identical to all honor daggers from this period and are marked correctly.

Thank you for your invitation to participate in this thread. I regret to advise you that I will not be involving myself with this. This is not because I have doubts about my perception of these Huhnlein pieces, I consider them to be tampered with and modified, and I believe I have the evidence to prove it.

I am aware of the existing, authentic, photo of NSKK Korpsfuhrer Offermann wearing such a dagger with the wide form cartouche - and I also have a photo showing Huhnlein wearing a dagger with similar wide cartouche - and I believe that I can explain the existence of these features at that time.

However, you will have to wait until I publish my revised edition of R?R! and then you can see it all for yourselves.

I can now complete the book without restriction, instead of having to argue with a co-author about what is right or wrong.

Of course, please do debate the item on this thread, and post up photos, I will adopt the role of observer.

FJS

.........................

Fred: It's not like you to shy away from proposing your theory, which can be proposed here without threat of name-calling or personal ridicule. It's no secret that those with experience dealing first-hand with these daggers disagree with your theory, but it's your choice not to post. I have all of your objections here, as we have emailed back and forth extensively about the subject. However, since the emails were part of private correspondence bewteen us, I won't violate your confidence and will keep your theories to myself.

Back in the 80's I was involved with prying one out of the woodwork. It's in Tom Johnson's Vol. V. I have no idea of where it is today. All the major dealers had it in their hands and even owned it at different times since then. The only major player to badmouth it was Julian Milestone. He told me personally that he believed all of the NSKK Honor Daggers to be post war. What he based it on in part was the signature an the back of the blade. According to him it bears no resemblance to the guys real signature. I have no opinion one way or the other.

FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, AN OLD FRIEND OF MINE, WHO WAS A MAJOR MOTEL BUYER IN THE 1980'S, BOUGHT TWO OF THESE DAGGERS DIRECTLY FROM VETERANS. HE ALSO SHOWED ME PHOTOS OF A THIRD DAGGER, WHICH WAS AMONG THE SOUVENIRS OF A NOTABLE AMERICAN GENERAL OFFICER. THE GENERAL'S SOUVENIRS WERE QUITE IMPRESSIVE AND WERE SHOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL AS A COURTESY WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT OF HAVING THEM OFFERED FOR SALE. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE ITEMS ARE STILL A PART OF THE COLLECTION OF THE FAMILY'S PROUD MILITARY TRADITION.

Brian: Very interesting. I'm sure that Julian got his idea from Fred, or vice versa - I believe they were quite close. Fred can comment if he chooses. The signatures are identical (or within tolerance of a facsimile). Bob and Brian - great information on the daggers.

Julian must have believed in them at one point since he owned the silver chained example pictured on pages 138 and 139 of Tom Johnson's Vol IV.

For clarification, one of the daggers Bob C. is referring to is the same as Notaguru referenced being pictured in Tom Johnson's Vol. V.

No Craig,

I am not shying away from this argument, and nor have I any "closed-mind" opinion regarding these pieces. It is simply that I have satisfied my own intellect as to what these pieces really are - and therefore I will keep it to myself until I am ready to publish. Of course I will be watching this thread, to see if anyone comes up with something to surprise me.

Notaguru - were you really in on getting one of these Huhnlein pieces right out of the woodwork? Can you give names and dates? Can it be verified?

Concerning the late Julian Milestone, yes he and I collaborated closely for a number of years. The subject of his chained Huhnlein NSKK Honor Dagger was the focal point of many a debate between us. In the main he disputed my analysis of the Huhnlein piece, so it is a bit of a surprise that he subsequently changed his view and seems to have concluded that there might be something in what I had to say.

I will say it all again, when I am ready. I just don't want to get dragged off into non-related issues.

FJS

Fred: Don't forget the one that Brian, Jason and I got out of the woodwork also. No, we didn't get it from the living NSKK Officer. Although even if we had, I don't think it would matter much in this debate.

If these daggers are not original than what keeps any and all 3rd reich dagger from being a fraud.A friend of mine bought one from a veteran in the early 90's it was tacked on a wall in the basement above a stove the leather and wood were dried up and shot.It sold on Manions auction in the early 90-91 for 17k.Could probably prove some of this if Manions wants to open their records or someone has a catalog from that era.

Fred:
With all respect, I fail to see where such information as who we got it from (unknown to me) and where are of any value to this topic. Anymore that what the original denominations of bills that the vets widow was paid with does.
I can tell you that it came from a vets widow for a paltry sum by todays standards. There were no lawyers present, no cameramen, nor any historians to record the vets travels. The dagger was the goal.
In hindsight, I wish we had been more diligent. It might have settled this issue. But then, it might not have.

Notaguru,

Thank you for your response. The issue that I have is that when I hear claims of artifacts being salvaged directly from the Vet (or the Vet's family) it is that when I try to follow this up it is all too often not quite directly from the Vet - that there is some intermediary, or middleman, whatever. And the chain of provenance is seen to be broken, or even non-existant.

Of course it is true to say that there are still viable links to veterans, their families, and their souvenirs. I am not disputing any of this, all I am trying to say is that at this period in time if someone claims a provenance link with the earliest individual associated with any item - then I am inclined to follow it through to the earliest point of source.

We are 60+ years from the end of WWII. It is just a matter of time - a few short years - before all those first hand contacts will be gone.

I might be a pain in the butt for insisting in having all these explanations, but future generations will not have that same opportunity - so we have to do it for them now, and for the future unseen (and possibly un-born) students of this subject.

That is what motivates me, I hope you understand.

FJS

It is indeed a noble effort, Fred. However, Brian is correct - in these cases, the dagger is the goal, and not history. There is usually too much money riding on the deal to get caught up with making a big promotion about the piece. We don't have the luxury of being academic. Surely, we try to get what we can, there is no harm in that. Often times however, such activities result in not getting a piece, even for a "fair" price. Any other experienced buyer will echo my sentiment. And in this particular case, where the authenticity of these daggers, as a class, is all but indisputable, I say why take the risk? And generally, the bigger dealers often rely on a network of intermediaries. At least 80% of my "out of the woodwork" purchases have been through an intermediary. Of the 4 SS Honor Daggers I have been the "first" to own, only one was purchased by me directly from the family. So in summary, the presence of an "intermediary" is really not a smoking gun. Rather, it's typical, and par for the course in the real world.

I would seriously like to enter into an honest debate with anyone who believes the NSKK High Leader is the product of a conspiracy to commit fraud. It will come as no surprise to anyone here that I find the argument for the falsehood of the NSKK High Leader lacking in several respects, but that's okay. I say let the chips fall where they may. There are enough of these pieces out there, and therefore too much is at stake to let the shadow you have cast over these pieces remain unanswered. Again, I encourage none of the name-calling and slander from earlier threads. This conversation can be above board, and among gentlemen. Still, the choice is yours and nobody will ridicule or second guess you, or call you afraid, if you choose not to argue your case.

Fred:
I understand your position completely, just I have no verifiable facts. This particular dagger was purchased nearly thirty years ago. None of us saw the expolsion of interest or value that was to develop. I have the same problem with the 'Wire Wrapped Army Dagger I picked up in '82. I researched it as best as I could at the time but even my letter from the dagger manufacturer isn't enough to some of today's skeptics. I'm sure that any research I did on the NSKK Honor Dagger would meet with the same fate.

Rather than use a single item to try and build a case for this or that. I’m a hugh fan of side by side comparisons. Both as a learning tool, and to see if there are any diffenrces. What are the chances for some closeup images of the other two daggers - either mentioned, or already posted? FP

BE IT A RZM SA OR THE NSKK HIGH LEADER DAGGER, FEW COLLECTORS OR PICKERS UNTIL RECENTLY CARED TO RECORD ANY OF THE HISTORY OF THE PIECE. CRAIG IS CORRECT IN THAT THE OBJECT OF COLLECTING WAS ALWAYS THE ARTIFACT. ENOUGH OF THESE DAGGERS HAVE A HISTORY OF BEING VET AQUIRED TO SATISFY ANY DOUBTS I MIGHT HAVE. I HOPE THE PRESENT OWNERS OF THESE DAGGERS ALL BELIUEVE THEM TO BE A FRAUD AS THEY WIL FLOOD THE MARKET AND POSSIBLY I CAN GET A BUY ON ONE.
BOB

I was not into photography at the time of having that dagger. Had it come my way 6 years later I would have had it on the cover of one of my calendars. I'm looking for my 8"x10" B&W that Tom Johnson used. It may take a while as I just moved and everything is still in boxes.

I'm not sure but I think there's one in the Dowd Collection at Ft. Bragg, NC. If it is, it's been there since the 50's.

Brian, the Dowd collection has a SS Honor but I'm not sure they have a NSKK.

The Dowd Collection at Fort Bragg is no longer on display. I got a behind the scenes look at it and it contains a great SS Honor Dagger and also a presented SA dagger that is in one of Tom Johnson's books. No NSKK Honor dagger.


Dave

The High Leader NSKK Dagger with damascus blade has been known to be in collections as long as I have been in this hobby (50 years). What has probably given rise to doubters was the introduction of a standard NSKK Dagger with the "supposed signature" of Huhnlein on the reverse of the standard blade as it was seen on the damascus pieces. As I remember, these appears in the early 1970s, usually on an RZM marked blade.
Another feature of the originals that led to some questioning was the crappy middle scabbard band-unique to the Huhnlein NSKK Honor, but that was the way they came.
JMO,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Ron: That is exactly what spawned the "doubt" in Fred's mind - the appearance of both the original and the fake, published for the first time, in the book. Fred had been unaware of extant examples that predated the book, and so it captured his attention and he developed his theory.

Fred Prinz: I doubt very much that "comparisons" will be made on the forum. I assume that those who own these pieces really don't have the time or inclination to post "comparisons" for our study. After the treatment that a small vocal minority gave to the Wolf Sword, I can understand their position.

Given all the collector interest which started this topic. Now that things had quieted down a little, perhaps some other examples can be posted? I had hoped for the additional examples to compare (and possibly explain) something that seems quite apparent with the first example. Can anyone provide an explanation for the diffused appearance of the Hühnlein signature as illustrated below? FP

The business of the Huhnlein dagger appears to be gathering momentum, but I am electing not to get dragged too far into this - after all, I do not want to give away some of the surprises that will be revealed when I publish.

Craig, you are correct! The money and the item are the most important factors. The provenance and history is a mere incidental, and often inconvenient to accommodate. I wonder why anyone bothers to mention that any item is original? Why don't we just accept it at face value? It makes it so much easier, and nobody has to worry about the burden of "proof".

Unfortunately, I am one of those people who likes to go that little bit further just to ensure that something really is what it is claimed to be. Now the NSKK Huhnlein Honour Dagger presents a number of problems - because I would like to see clear and unmistakable "evidence" to support "authenticity". Not least because of the people who claim that they got them "straight out of the woodwork". Normally I would accept such claims as truthful - but here we have an item which doesn't seem to be quite right. It is not as straightforward as it seems. Claims that these items have "come straight from the Vet" are meaningless, unless of course verifiable provenance linking that "veteran" physically exists. Hearsay and rumour do not count as "provenance".

I do not like to challenge claimants tales of how they got something, because that is directly challenging their truthfulness. All too often I find that they didn't actually get it "direct" by themselves, there is invariably some other middleman who wasn't mentioned at first. Or the seller is someone who has come to a motel-buyer - there is no real evidence that the seller is who he says he is, or his account of how he obtained the item. So the chain of provenance is stretched a little further - perhaps to breaking point. I am not stating that some great purchases and highly rare daggers did not turn up at "motel-buys" - for that most certainly did happen. And they would no doubt be obtained for an extremely good price.

What I am stating is that the NSKK Huhnlein is a highly contentious dagger, and I will make my revelations clear when I publish. I will reveal my explanation why there are two types of chain, and the "Gahr-manufactured" pieces etc., and I will take the flak when outrage tries to shout me down. However, when dealing with something as debatable as the Huhnlein Honour Dagger, then claims that it was bought for $75, or $150 etc., are not sufficient evidence. They have to be proven to be - i) true, and ii) linked positively to the knife concerned (because these pieces haven't been "changing hands for $75 or $150" in the past 30 tears to my knowledge - oh no! The price was always much higher.)

Now here is a little curious coincident for viewers of this thread to consider, because questions concerning the Huhnlein piece were in circulation some years before its appearance in the TJ book. In fact the real mystery started in 1974.

In 1973 I received for examination an SA dagger by Pack, and which had a signature etched on the reverse of the blade - the signature appeared to read as the name "Huhnlein". The etching also included a rendition of the SA rune emblem - set completely within a circle. It was quite obvious that this etching was far more recent than the etching which formed the E. Pack trademark, or the obverse "Alles fur Deutschland" legend. It was clear that this was a tampered blade - the Huhnlein etching was fresh and new.

At that time Jack Angolia was completing his second volume of daggers for Bender - to be titled "Edged Weaponry of the Third Reich". Jack wanted to include a small section on reproductions in this new work, and asked if I could send him some photos. I submitted a small selection, included in which was the SA with the "Huhnlein" signature.

Jack's new work appeared in 1974, and I duly received my copy. Sure enough, there on page 209, appears my photo of the piece - but there is another surprise in the book. Elsewhere, on page 146 of the book there is an illustration of a close-up section of the reverse of a damascus bladed "NSKK Honour Dagger" - and it shows the same, identical "Huhnlein signature" as on the piece that I had submitted!

Now this is a remarkable situation, in fact it is a unique situation. Knowledge of these so-called "Huhnlein Daggers" was unknown until the 1974 publication of Jack's book. They do not appear in any other reference work prior to that time, and there seems to be no known pre-war reference to them - yet in an instant Jack Angolia publishes a work in which an "original example" and a "fake example" appear together, simultaneously, for the first time! This needs to be explained before it can be understood.

How was the faker of the obviously fraudulent piece able to produce an etching of the signature pattern that appears on the claimed original piece? Examination of the signatures appears to show that they are absolutely identical. Did the faker of the Pack piece have access to this "Huhnlein Honour Dagger" - and from which he could finely copy the signature for his etching template? Or is it the cold, hard fact that the etcher of the Pack dagger, was also the etcher who added the Huhnlein signature to the damascus blade dagger?

Angolia does not show any other photos of this dagger, because the person who supplied him with the photo of the signature supplied no images other than that of the signature. Obviously it was important to have that signature seen, and recognised, and confirmed as authentic. But is it authentic? I know what I think, and I think that I have the evidence that will prove my opinion concerning the Huhnlein Honour Daggers.

Frederick J. Stephens

It would seem that Frederick ( although he has not said so exactly in so many words) is saying that the signature is the thing he has a problem with-not the dagger. The dagger is shown in at least one period photo-So???? Is ANYONE saying that photo is a fake? I don't think so but I could be wrong. Anyway, if not altered, The dagger IS period, PERIOD. No more need for any more Bla Bla about that.
So--It seems to me that it was said long ago that the signature came into doubt in the old days MOSTLY because of the SA runics on the blade with it.In fact I recall that it was clearly stated that this "fraud" would NOT have been noticed except for this. Go ahead and correct me here if I am wrong--but I don't think so. The point of the arrow head did not pierce the circle--this was the big red flag. Again, I think I am correct here. So--If that is the basis for the doubt about the signature?????
I gotta tell you--There ARE period SA items that ALSO have this different rendition of those runes. Oh YES!
So--Does that blow up the idea that the signature is bad?? Hmmm!
So--Even IF the signature is bad -has someone been going around altering original SA honor daggers to make them NSKK ?--Oh horror of horrors--I hope not!! Naaa! I can't buy that one.
OK--Lets talk about the chain top box fitting Vrs. the clip.--The box fitting is shown in wear in the period? unaltered? photo. This we know.
So--why do some have the clip? Well-- the photos I have seen seem to indicate the clip is made of different material or plated differently and presents a different looking color than the rest of the chain.I am not a metal expert -but I know a bit about metals-- This makes me think that at least some of the clips are replacements--I don't know when but it seems they were changed during the period or improved to sort of match the SA versions. Why? Who knows? But fake? I don't think so. Many revisions of edged weapon patterns were made during the period for whatever reason.
So--There are my thoughts--tear them up if you can!

Houston,

The point that I was making is that: In the beginning, it seemed that we had no Huhnlein Honour Daggers. And then in 1974 we have the the Big Bang! and lo! Two Huhnlein Daggers appear simultaneously, one apparently "real", and the other apparently "faked".

I think it fascinating that the common thread found between these two daggers is that the signatures are absolutely identical.

It is not like the Huhnlein signatures found on other artifacts, such as letters, documents, presented photographs, plaques, etc., and that they are all in respects of the signature absolutely similar. NO they are not exactly similar, but it is true to say that they have "generally similar" characteristics.

However, this is not the case with the daggers - in this case they have IDENTICAL similarities, it is as if they were etched from the same original template.

Are you suggesting, Houston, that the identical nature of the Huhnlein signature on the steel blades - when compared to the identical signature on the damascus Honour blade - means that both daggers and etchings are entirely original? Is this what you state?

Because if this is not what you are suggesting, then please explain, because I really would like to know.

FJS

No Fred --I am not saying that--but you seem to be saying that the honor blade signatures seem to be copied from the fakes or are the same as the fakes. Well-it could very well be that the fake was copied from an original honor dagger. That would seem more likely to me than the other way. Destroying original honor SA daggers to make more money seems unlikely. After all, how much more would they have been worth then. In fact I think many collectors would prefer the SA--even today. NSKK? Big deal-Let's go with the nasty SA guys. Right? Also--perhaps those daggers were around in collections before 74 or the vets still had them-- but they had not been seen by many. After all -there are very few known, even today. I remember that we did not see MANY patterns of rare original daggers in the early days. If you look at the very early Radel and Leslie reference book there are many patterns not known or included ,and in fact, that book is good testimony about the volumes of information that we did not have then.
Perhaps--You know what?--if we looked at that particular SA dagger with the SA runics today--we might think something different about it. Maybe not. Was that the only one just like that? or were there others? I know they made some other fakes later that had those runes too. It is hard to say a lot when you don't have those examples in your hand.I know that the arrow point thing means next to nothing. Correct?

It seems to me that there is not one, but two issues under discussion. One issue is about the legitimate existence of the Hühnlein daggers as a group.

The other is about the Hühnlein dagger that was posted to start this thread.

1) Why does the signature area have that washed out appearance?

2) It was admitted right up front that the grip did not fit. But we are not talking about some slight amount of shrinkage which can sometimes happen. Beside the fact that it doesn't fit properly in multiple areas. There is also an offset.

3) And that does not explain in three of the images (especially the second one) why the crosssguard to mouthpiece fit is also off.

Quite frankly, from what I see in the images posted it looks more like an altered parts dagger than a period original. FP

Interesting topic..
Is there just the one period photo of the dagger in wear? ,, could a member please post this photo? Thanks, G.

Funny this topic is brought up as I was discussing this with a Friend who is a Major Damascus expert (at least I consider him one)We were talking about these very daggers and he stated all Blades were basicially identical and true WW2 production damascus BUT The Name is etched in instead of being raised..My theory is actual real blades,Eickhorn make and were Added to in the mid 50'or 60's with the hunlein inscriptions probably by Atwood as he would have had them finished with proper mounts and chains.As for Julien Milestone just because he had one does not make it true,who knows he may have paid $100 for it just as a "filler" or maybe he liked the way it looked.

Interesting -but -there is NO proof of that. Just because the signature is etched-that makes it fake? That is pure garbage IMO. There is no basis for that idea. Talk about grasping for straws. What is this? There IS a period photo of this type dagger in wear. WHY is this being ignored? WHY do so many of you want these daggers to be fake?
If these were Atwood fakes--WHY bother with the extra signature at additional cost, when, at that time, IMO most collectors cared much less about NSKK stuff and would have much rather had the SA version anyway.
This, IMO, is getting quite absurd.

Just looking at the way Germans did things...........They may have etched for a 1 off piece but if these were made in numbers than the name would have been raised up and gilded.Not saying the daggers are Bad but just the Hunlein inscription.Unless you have a pic of an NSKK guy with Dagger out and pointing at the incription then I would tend to lean towards Not good,not that I am buying any in the near future.

Again these Topics are raised and now with backing from a Name Rarely seen these Days on the site,Mr Burmeister (whom I have nothing but Great admiration for,Not attacking),It seems as if Craig is posting these to Bait Fred Stephens into a Useless debate and for what?There are people who believe what they want to and thats it,their pocket books do their talking.Isn't this type of posting against the Rules of this site?.Baiting an argument...ANYONE

And by the way who are all of these members who asked for these to be posted,I sure as hell didnt.

Soapbox, Book or Dagger? Which one? I prefer the dagger.

Houston,

I will try and stick specifically to the points you made regarding my previous replies.

Yes, it is true that I was initially swayed by the SA rune formation on the back of the blade (why not an NSKK eagle?) and it immediately caused doubts. Perhaps there are some other authentic variants of the SA rune emblem that would make this version seem correct - but I didn't have the same range of research material available to me at that time, it was after all 35 years ago.

It was the clean crispness of the etch, compared to the aged and ingrained appearance of the trademark that also suggested that the etching was a more recent addition.

I am fully aware of the existence of the authentic photo showing an alleged pattern of the broad catch NSKK in wear. I also have another genuine photo showing the same configuration in wear by Huhnlein himself. Are the existing examples of these broad catch daggers presumed to be these same exact daggers in wear? I have my theories and evidence which I will ultimately promote.

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the Huhnlein signature is etched into the blade (intaglio etching), and not raised from the surface like the rest of the etching on the blade (trade mark and obverse motto). I have no real explanation for this, other than that the application of the signature to the blade may have been an after thought - although just how long after is a debatable matter!

I do confirm, however, that the presentation SA Honour Dagger Model 33 style - without chains - given by Schwartz to Lutze, does have an intaglio form inscription, and as far as I can see it is perfectly authentic.

FP has pointed out the blemish in the inscription, an appearance of "diffusion" in the middle of the signature. This has occurred because of a breakdown in the "acid resist". When the blade is being etched (and it sometimes takes 2 or 3 immersions in the acid bath) the portions NOT to be etched are covered with an acid resist - to ensure that only the exposed areas of the design receive the acid. The blade should be checked periodically, to ensure that the acid hasn't broken through the resist and spread outwards, instead of biting straight down.

It would seem that such precise, professional care has not been taken in this case - not quite what you would expect for such a prestigeous award? I also recall that I may have seen this exact item in the possession of an English dealer in the 1990s, because I pointed that failed etching out to him. (If it is not the same item, then there must be two examples with the identical failure).

Finally, it has been suggested that Craig started this thread with the deliberate intention of baiting me, as he certainly mentions me by name at the beginning. Well, I am not going to play ball, I am happy with all my information and I will share it all when I publish.

Thanks to all for your e-mails of support and encouragement. I will reply.

FJS

I will just say this for now then Fred--The NSKK never changed the grip insert either. I would agree-why not the NSKK eagle? But then why the continued use of the SA insert? It would seem that you are saying the couple of daggers seen in wear are not around today.

According to some, the “NSKK High Leaders” are original SA Honor daggers that have been conceived and converted post war to increase profit. An interesting choice when one compares the sales of the two and finds them to be of the same value.

The theory suggested is that the culprit behind the “NSKK High Leader” discovered a group of original SA Honor daggers sometime prior to 1974. So, instead of simply selling them and taking an immediate profit, a decision was made to invest more money and create a dagger unheard of. Of course they couldn’t be sold all at once for fear of flooding the market. Instead they would have to be sold over the next thirty plus years. As of this date, approximately 12 or so of these “allegedly fake daggers” have been released to the unsuspecting market on at least two different continents.

According to the theory, this individual would have been responsible for designing and manufacturing a unique chain and center scabbard band. However, these daggers are also encountered with a standard chain but with the unique scabbard band. Why? If designing and ordering based on a set number of daggers to convert, wouldn’t it make sense to order the same quantity? Instead it appears for an unknown reason, investments in original 36 model daggers were made to salvage the chains. Remember, as of this date we are discussing less then a dozen daggers. Then there is the question of the unique chains that have been crudely converted to incorporate an upper clip. It can be assumed the purpose for this change was to reduce the effort this unique design would necessitate when attaching and removing the dagger. Logic would dictate that this would have been discovered during the period by the individual wearer and not a faker. Since no two conversions are the same, it appears they were accomplished on an individual basis. This lends more credibility to the pieces being of the period.

It also might be interesting to note that at least 2 of the approximate 12 daggers released into the market were originally sold for less then $500.00. Another three were purchased for slightly more, but still substantially less then the value of a standard SA Honor. Of course the doubters insist that you can’t believe any of this because you don’t personally know the individuals that originally purchased these daggers. The suggestion that, though unknown to each other and in completely different parts of the world, all have unknowingly been pawns in this plot to defraud is difficult to imagine. If we are to believe this conspiracy, you must ask what the motivation was.

Now, imagine the surprise when a period photo surfaces decades later clearly showing the dagger in wear, complete with unique center scabbard band and chain that is identical to the one that the faker would have allegedly designed and produced.

Do you see the absurdity in all of this? In my professional view, this theory is so far-fetched that it barely deserves the attention it is getting. The entire concept was to make a profit. In the end this conspiracy is void of profit and therefore motive.

In conclusion, though some would have you believe the NSKK High Leader is pure fantasy, to the overwhelming majority of respected collectors it is an unquestionable original dagger documented in a period photograph.

There seem to be two separate subjects being discussed here:

- Whether the dagger itself existed. This would appear to be verified by the photo mentioned above.

- What the blade looked like. Does anyone have info on that .... that can be traced back?

Dave

I know of a collector who bought one of these daggers for $50.00 from the veterans son back in the 1970s. i personally saw the dagger. He sold in back then to a Bill Rasmussen, who at that time was one of the bigger dealers here in the Detroit area.There is no doubt in my mind that these daggers are 100% period pieces
thanks
Bob

Dave,

The theory I addressed in my above post should have included the assertion that the signature was added as well, but I was concentrating on other points. For the record, I’m convinced that these daggers with signature are period. One of the daggers I’m aware of was first seen with signature and 800 silver chains in the state of Wisconsin in roughly 1965. The collector attempted to purchase it then but was unsuccessful. It wasn’t until the late 90s that this dagger was finally obtained.

Houston,

I agree with you about "Why did the NSKK use the SA runic inset and not their own emblem?" There has to be an answer to this, and I do have some provisional information about it, but I prefer to wait until I have it more thoroughly confirmed.

Regarding the NSKK Eagle as a grip inset, yes, I have seen a couple of these, and I whereas I once gave them the benefit of the doubt, I am no longer convinced that they were authentic. They did not fit well in the grip and that I find questionable. Of course other people will say that poor workmanship and sloppy fitting is normal for the subject. Sorry, I am one of those guys who believes otherwise.

On the issue of the known photographs showing the "NSKK Honour Dagger" with the wide cartouche, I have yet to see any evidence that suggests either of the existing daggers is positively one of those shown in the photographs. What happens when we find another dagger with the same unique (well, semi-unique) features? Maybe there will be some future clues that allow us to advance a little bit further.

Jason, you have made some comment about the relative values of the Huhnlein Honour Dagger and the regular SA Honour Dagger, and I am pleased to benefit from your considerable experience.

Am I correct in believing that you state that an NSKK High Leader Honour Dagger, with chains (and maybe, perhaps, a wide cartouche at the conflusion of the chains), complete with damascus blade, raised and gilded inscription, but a recessed intalglio etch of the "Huhnlein signature" - and that such a piece is worth no more than a regular SA Honour Dagger without chains? Is this what you are stating? Please confirm.

FJS

Good to see you back and posting Jason. We need experienced and advanced collectors like yourself here on GDC to keep things in perspective.

Jason,

A further point to your submission which came in just before placed my own (above). You relate to: "For the record, I’m convinced that these daggers with signature are period. One of the daggers I’m aware of was first seen with signature and 800 silver chains in the state of Wisconsin in roughly 1965. The collector attempted to purchase it then but was unsuccessful. It wasn’t until the late 90s that this dagger was finally obtained."

I have two precise questions - a) can you present evidence of this claimed dagger being seen in Wisconsin in "roughly 1965" - and if so, what is the evidence?
b) Is this the same dagger, obtained in "the late 90's" that had the "SA dagger clip" so crudely soldered to the back of the cartouche?
Because if it wasn't, then which dagger is this Huhnlein piece?

Does this mean that we now have the third example of the wide cartouche.

I look forward to your reply.

FJS

Another small point I wish to make in this discussion:

Just because you had not seen it until the 1970's is not a determinator in itself.

I got a K&M early SS dagger about 5 years ago that challenged the (!) theory about Jacobsb being the only producer of these daggers. Same with a Puma. Others have surfaced since then

Dave

I would have to agree with the idea that timing by itself is not necessarily a factor. After the Berlin Wall came down - legitimate period German militaria showed up which was virtually unknown in the west.

That said, there still seems to be a fair amount of “Sturm und Drang” swirling around regarding this topic. As was also already commented on, it really seems to be two discussions in one. And other than Mr. Stephens. I don’t think anyone has addressed the appearance of the dagger blade with the signature that this discussion was started with.

Period photographs with clearly discernible details cannot be disregarded, and have to be accepted as facts versus opinions. But what is inside the scabbard is going to take more effort to try and ascertain the truth. Especially if the workmanship does not look like that which would be expected from that era.

It was stated that a silver chained example turned up in 1965 with the signature. And before he exited, Craig said he was going to post an example with a non-silver version of the chain. Is the signature on those versions of the dagger any different? Do they look like the example posted below? FP

Frederick,

It is my opinion that the value of the standard 1933 SA Honor with scalloped fittings and the double oval proofmark without chain and the Chained NSKK High Leader with either chain is approximately the same. However, these daggers are offered so infrequently that it is difficult to set a firm price. Supply and demand affect the market. Having been involved in this hobby as long as you have, this is surely something you’re aware of.

Reference your two precise questions.

a) can you present evidence of this claimed dagger being seen in Wisconsin in "roughly 1965" - and if so, what is the evidence?

1. No, I only have the word of the collector who purchased it.

b) Is this the same dagger, obtained in "the late 90's" that had the "SA dagger clip" so crudly soldered to the back of the cartouche Because if it wasn't, then which dagger is this Huhnlein piece?

2. No, it is not one of the daggers acquired with the altered clip. However it is the type with unique chain by Gahr.

Without checking old notes, I believe the breakdown of known NSKK High Leaders is, three examples with Gahr chains featurinig the wide cartouche with altered clips, five with the Gahr chains unaltered wide cartouche, and four with the “standard” chain.

And if I may Frederick, your thoughts on the “standard” chain itself?

Dave, you make a wonderful point.

“Just because you had not seen it until the 1970's is not a determinate in itself.”

Houston,

thank you for the kind words. I only hope it is not an exercise in futility.

I find it hard to believe that these NSKK Damascus piece all remained hidden until the 70's,Jeez most daggers and Types were pretty much known as of the mid 60's and Not talking maker variations on standard daggers.Most of the feldernhalle pieces were known as of 1975 with a very few coming to the surface recently.

NO-the fact is that in the 60's the vast majority of collectors knew next to nothing. Collectors today can not even imagine. We had next to nothing in references. Black gripped Army daggers were thought to be Engineer's pieces. The Postschutz dagger was thought to be for the Signal Corps.
Atwood had blown our minds with his mountains of fakes. If you look at his book you can see the fakes-and little if any good information. An example-- One of the special SA presentation daggers by Eickhorn with the double eagle head cross guard and ivory grip was out on a table at the Ohio Gun Collectors Assn. show in Columbus Ohio. The price ? $800.00 The same show--The Arthur Eickhorn special eagle head presentation dagger on another table. About the same price or a bit more. I remember some others. Did we buy them? Did anyone buy them? Hell NO! We SNEERED at them!! We were convinced they were fakes. If you want to know what we thought we knew then you must look at those old books-Pre Johnson and Pre Angolia. Worse than nothing-bad information and lots of it.

If you were not there you don't know-you might think you do but you don't.

Tom wrote ,

quote:

We were talking about these very daggers and he stated all Blades were basicially identical and true WW2 production damascus BUT The Name is etched in instead of being raised..My theory is actual real blades,Eickhorn make and were Added to in the mid 50'or 60's with the hunlein inscriptions probably by Atwood as he would have had them finished with proper mounts and chains.

Tom , the SS honor from Heinrich Himmler also has an etching , from Nazi Party Treasurer Franz Schwarz.

The “timelines” part of the discussion I will leave to those who have more institutional background. My attention is still more focused on the first dagger and where it fits into the scheme of things. As they were already posted on the forum as examples for discussion, I took the liberty of enlarging and reposting three of Jason Burmeister’s images of the Hühnlein daggers as a group for comparison purposes. I know that computer enhancements generate artifacts. And that better quality images can clarify misperceptions that arise from the enhancement process - so I’m not trying to represent the computer enhancements as completely accurate. But they were the best I could do with what I had available. The first image shows the three with full length blades.

For the second image, I took the signature from the Hühnlein dagger that Craig Gottleib posted and merged it with the three others. When all of them are looked at together - it seems to me that the four signatures are all different from each other. However there are also some things that are roughly similar. For example the bottom loop of first “H” in Hühnlein is flattened at the bottom for both the top and bottom daggers in the second image. Slightly flattened for the dagger next to the bottom example. But not noticeably flattened for the dagger just below the top one.

And the third image shows a couple of things I did not pick up on as regards the signature of the first (original) Hühnlein dagger that was posted. The different letter “l” and the way the “e” wraps around itself which does not seem to be the same as in the other images. I also saw some other things that seemed to be apparent but they are beyond the scope of the discussion of the Hühnlein signatures themselves. FP

Image two.

Image three.

Interesting, but what does that mean? If they were all fakes they probably would be all the same. If they were all original one would also think the same thing.
IMO that leads me to believe they are more likely period and for some reason a different template was used each time. They probably were not presented at the same time. This IMO seems more likely than different templates being used each time a fake signature was added. But, I'm sure that others , who seem to want these to be fake, will go with a different opinion. But, will we ever know for sure? Probably not--unless we believe the old accounts of these pieces being found many years ago in the hands of vets and bought for next to nothing. I choose to believe the latter as, IMO, it seems more likely to be correct.

Houston, “but what does that mean? If they were all fakes they probably would be all the same. If they were all original one would also think the same thing.“

In my humble opinion I don’t think that there is enough information yet to form conclusions - other than some fairly obvious ones. Better conclusions will require a better look.

1) Fakes might be the same, but they all could be different as well. It would depend on who was doing the faking, and there could be more than one faker.

2) And when. If daggers were faked piecemeal as the daggers to be altered were purchased. That could be another reason for them to be different.

3) I might have a problem with “different templates”. Assuming that Eickhorn was the source of these daggers - I would think that the etching master templates would all be the same. They didn’t change the master templates for the motto. Why change a signature master template?

As for the “vet” issue IMO it’s a mixed bag. I’ve seen too many third party purchases where the seller swore it was straight from the hands of the “vet”. And I knew that the item (or items) were completely bogus.

And I would offer another possibility. Once upon a time there were one or two (or more?) signature blades that were legitimate pre 1945 items. And over time these items were copied by counterfeiters - which was not uncommon “in the day” when prices were cheap especially with blades that were of lesser quality. Have we ever seen that happen before?? Absolutely!! Regards, FP

In the Wolf sword thread we could see that an etching was put on the blade by hand ( there was a foto of a guy that was making an etch), could this also have happened here? Would that explain the differences in the etching?

Greetings ,Rob.

quote:

Atwood had blown our minds with his mountains of fakes

Just to chime in this Atwood chap really like to mess with the collectors! He must have had a lot of time on his hands to fabricate so many fake TR daggers!

quote:

Originally posted by Rob NL:
In the Wolf sword thread we could see that an etching was put on the blade by hand ( there was a foto of a guy that was making an etch), could this also have happened here? Would that explain the differences in the etching?

Greetings ,Rob.

If this signature etching was done as per the Rohm etc I wouldnt expect it to be hand done. Although it would depend on the numbers of the daggers produced with the etch to determine if this was a viable option as opposed to hand preparation. Most often hand preparation is seen in one offs.

A Very interesting discussion indeed. Excellent points brought up.
However with F.P. makining avaiable the side-by-side comparison "signiture etch" photos, ( thanks, I love those) it should be clear to see that there ARE different style signitures on the samples presented.
So if we accept accept etched signiture as original "variations" on this Rare presentation piece by the same company (Eickhorn), than should we not also accept it by other presentations say a Rohm's by various makers?
Or, if the rule that All Rohms and Himmlers have to be alike but a NSKK Huhnlein can vary... well please show me how? I'm no expert here. Just need for it to make sense to me.
That being said I do well realize that there are some things that don't make sense in our hobby. But there still has to be a reason.
Thanks,

-wagner-

Just saw John Pepera post about Bob Waitts and his collection,Did he have a Hunlein dagger in his collection?

Craig also provided an image from an NSKK award plaque. I’m assuming that it is the “official” Hühnlein signature - versus the purported handwritten one. Looking at the ends of both. The end of the ink version is upturned. But the end of the award plaque version is down and the signature also has a downward sweep. And there are some other dissimilarities between it and some of the etches.

Also, creating an original signature, and then recreating the entire signature time after time after time, is not only not cost effective. It can lead to errors. For mass production the wax master patterns used a silk screen type of process. And one or a hundred (or more) virtually identical acid resist masks could be made. With only a cleanup process needed after they were applied to the blades. And the screens were not particularly high tech or high cost - but did require some experience in making them. Which Eickhorn had in abundance.

And survival rate. Jason Burmeister reported 12 of these daggers. Logic would dictate that is only a portion of those that survived the war. While we may never know how many were supposed to have been made. 12 known daggers indicates that there should have been considerably more manufactured. That just by itself argues against a one at a time manufacturing process - strongly suggesting that they should have been produced in reasonably large numbers by mass production methods. FP

Bob did have a chained example in his collection. It featured the 800 silver Gahr style chain.

In regards to the signatures, I suggest finding every document, plaque etc. from the period that may bear a signature or a facsimile. I’m pretty sure you’ll find differences. An easier project is to study your own signature. How often is it identical? A final point to consider is that the process is being applied to Damascus.

Differences yes, but that is precisely the reason that master patterns are created. So that there is some consistency from one to the next. As for Damascus, I can see all sorts of problems with acid undercutting hard steel while going more easily through softer steel. But that is not a reflection upon the design being etched. Only in how diffused the edges (or bottoms) will be. FP

Observation on my part and not saying the etch is period or not. But if I were to compare the Adolf Huehnlein signature's shown in Charles Hamilton's book on pages 287/288 to the similarities and or differences of the signature on the blades shown.
I would surmise that the signature's on the blades are not very good rendition's of the true signature as per Hamilton's book and that the signature on the award plaque a much better rendition. IMO

Thanks for the interesting thread!

Guys

Sadly I think the subject at hand was Purposely brought up too try and Pull Fred Stephhens into a fight of some sort,This is an un-winable argument because there are people who have No money invested who think one way and others who have LOTS tied up who think the other way,maybe its best just to Agree to disagree and walk away from this.

FP--All the points you make saying all the signatures should be the same for the real also applies to the fake. One would think they all would be the same either way--but they are not--So-IMO-there is no answer here. It is not really logical to go one way or the other.

Houston, First - Part of me is inclined to agree with Tom that some folks who for whatever reason were encouraged to enter this discussion. Now find themselves in a type of discussion that they had not anticipated when it started. And that where opinions (versus facts) are involved it will be difficult if not impossible to to find a common ground.

As regards your statement: “All the points you make saying all the signatures should be the same for the real also applies to the fake.” I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. If we take 20 modern reproductions from a factory and line them up they are probably all going to look alike.

But (at least as far as I know) there is no “Counterfeit Central” that altered in one fell swoop all of the conversions of original (and parts/fake/etc.) SS daggers to create counterfeit Himmler presentation daggers. It happened over time from multiple sources. And over time from (quite possibly) multiple sources with different or no tooling (specialized equipment) you are going to see different results from one item to the next.

My point being that especially with the Eickhorn company they were not amateurs and about as good as it gets in producing quality items. And the quality control for the signatures on all four blades - but most especially the one that started the thread - is NOT good. They all appear to be hand done, the etching depth is not consistent, and with the original one posted the acid went crazy and messed up the blade. How do you defend that example as an Eickhorn product??

I have voiced what I feel are valid opinions mixed in with facts. I have no ill will towards those who joined in, and as Tom suggested am prepared to walk away from the discussion. As we all know there were two other recent discussions - one of which ended a little prematurely. So at some point, when everyone has provided whatever input they may wish to get across, I would imagine that this discussion could also be allowed to taper off or be ended. And if it’s not over yet, that also is OK.

PS: Please permit me to make a correction and strike “diffused” and make it: “Only in how uneven the edges (or bottoms) will be.” which I think would probably have been a better choice of words. Regards, FP

FP-You seem to ignore the fact that the fakers would have kept the template just as Eickhorn would.
The signature? Did you ever see a signature written with a fountain pen with a medium point?
Quite often the ink runs a bit making the signature a bit smudgy. No ball points or pilot pens those days. TW likes to sign his books with one of those old style pens--and there are smudges.
So--you blame the etch--could it be the pen?
Also you continue to disbelieve those who testified that these were found over the years by motel buyers and bought in bad condition for next to nothing.
I talked to a VERY experienced dealer today and he confirmed that. I know this dealer VERY well and I know the motel buyer also--VERY well. These guys are old school and they don't do internet and they don't like their names mentioned here. They will tell you in private though--and I believe them. They don't have any for sale and they don't own any. As far as I'm concerned --that's the end of the story. Believe it or not-there is no real proof-just opinion. You gotta believe someone--or just sell everything. Buy a reference book today.

I was asked to provide photos to a colleague so that they could be posted here. Instead I chose to post them myself and enter this discussion. Mr. Stephens and I have corresponded via email from the beginning and I believe this will continue...

I don’t find it a useless debate. If Craig had personal motivations, they don’t concern me and I was not aware of them.

As for what I personally anticipated when entering this discussion, this is exactly what was expected.

It is interesting the question of fact versus opinion has been raised. As Mr. Stephens and I have discussed, for one to make an authoritative statement, one must be in a position to do so. Since I have publicly clarified my experience and Mr. Stephens has done so in an email to me, I would like to ask the active participants to share their experience in hope of separating opinion from an authoritative statement.

How many of the NSKK High Leaders have you examined?

How many Eickhorn Honor daggers total have you examined?

Some statements that need clarification:

“Most of the feldernhalle pieces were known as of 1975 with a very few coming to the surface recently.” What was the basis for this?

The FHH daggers known to the collecting community have an establish pedigree based on the internal numbers and most weren’t known as of 1975.

What is the highest numbered FHH you’ve examined?

“Just looking at the way Germans did things...........They may have etched for a 1 off piece but if these were made in numbers than the name would have been raised up and gilded” What was the basis for this?

“the Eickhorn company they were not amateurs and about as good as it gets in producing quality items.” What was the basis for this?

It is widely known Eickhorn quality specifically with political daggers and the fitting of grips and the blade shoulders is lacking when compared to some other makers. Since a question has been raised about the grip fit on the first dagger posted here, it might be worth mentioning that each grip is custom fit to the hand finished cross guards. If reassembled improperly as is the case here in my opinion, you’ll have a fit as seen and noted.

A question was asked did Hunlein wear a dagger with his own signature. Goring’s sword with leather trim dyed to match his boots was a standard Luft General with his name on it, so it is entirely possible. However, Hunlein was most likely given a dagger from Schwarz like given to Himmler and Lutze.

The purpose of this isn’t to offend or express ill will. It is an attempt to qualify statements. To make such statements and for them to have merit, the individual responsible must have the ability to substantiate them. If unable to do so, then they are just opinions as defined “the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment”.

It has been stated that there has been valid opinions mixed with facts. A valid opinion is nothing more then an opinion as defined above. The only fact is that these daggers did exist during the period as documented in the one photograph.

When this thread was first started, it was stated by Craig that Mr. Stephens asserted that these are post war fantasy pieces. I would ask Mr. Stephens to clarify this.

It would seem that the topic is still active. RE: “FP-You seem to ignore the fact that the fakers would have kept the template just as Eickhorn would.” Houston - No offense intended, but that is pure speculation. How do we know 20 or 30 or 40 years ago what every counterfeiter who was active would do? Even you said back then nobody knew anything. Look at some of the items that got into the books in that period. Some of them are pure unadulterated fakes from guys that were clueless with only minimal (if any) knowledge.

And I did offer this comment earlier: “another possibility. Once upon a time there were one or two (or more?) signature blades that were legitimate pre 1945 items. And over time these items were copied by counterfeiters....”. Assuming that speculation is a fact, that does not mean that they had to be good copies. We’ve had guys troll this site to pick up information so that they could make better fakes. Even after they got the information they wanted - sometimes they would still make mistakes. And fakes copied from books and other sources have been around as long as I can remember.

As far as etching and the Eickhorn company is concerned we see some very precise etching on bayonets which were not particularly high ticket items. By comparison - cleaning up a signature mask would be child’s play. And these were not your “average” blades, they were honor daggers. And the dagger from Craig was just an example of somebody “having a really bad day” at work???

Regarding Jason’s comment about the following statement: “the Eickhorn company they were not amateurs and about as good as it gets in producing quality items. What was the basis for this?" My basis is Eickhorn and non-Eickhorn daggers, bayonets and swords I’ve owned or still own. Admittedly however, I’ve gotten away from the late zinc types with the cheaper grades of wood (personal preference). As to what I find objectionable with the original dagger Craig posted I think the image below will be more eloquent than words (even with showing only two of the affected areas).

I also would like a clarification if possible. Does anyone have a 'true copy' or enhanced version of the photograph? FP

FP,

I understand your concern with the fit of the grip but in my “opinion” it is due to the assembly of the dagger. It is also a common occurrence to find these grips have experienced some shrinkage over the years thus accounting for a slight gap between the guards even when properly assembled. Theses grips are virtually unique to early Honor daggers. Most of the examples I’ve examined have been numbered as well. Though these numbers are sometimes very difficult to find and read. These two authoritative statements mostly preclude undetectable grip switches.

Jason, I understand what you are saying, and if we had the dagger in hand I'm sure a much better opinion could be formed. Unfortunately we don’t, and additional pictures do not seem to be an option, so I think that we have to go with what we have available.

Besides blades, I’m also a gun collector (WW II German/Other) and understand I think reasonably well how wood acts. Rifle stocks swelling, shrinking, warping etc. is something that we put up with. But that (the dagger grip) is not the way wood normally shrinks - with wider gaps on one side and narrower at the other (on opposite sides) - affecting both the upper and lower fittings. And there are some other areas which I see which I think are also problematic, which I can illustrate if you wish.

I also found much to my regret that there are some guys out there who renumber parts to make guns match. Some are better than others, but it’s one more problem that we have to put up with. The problem here is that we don’t have pictures showing any internal markings. So I don’t see how we can make assumptions - other than those that we can see with our eyes (?). Regards, FP

For those who dont have the book.

quote:

Originally posted by Frederick J. Stephens:
Jack's new work appeared in 1974, and I duly received my copy. Sure enough, there on page 209, appears my photo of the piece - but there is another surprise in the book....

quote:

Originally posted by Frederick J. Stephens: Elsewhere, on page 146 of the book there is an illustration of a close-up section of the reverse of a damascus bladed "NSKK Honour Dagger" - and it shows the same, identical "Huhnlein signature" as on the piece that I had submitted!

well apparently I have not touched enough things to comment any further.

Tom,

As stated in my post,

“The purpose of this isn’t to offend or express ill will. It is an attempt to qualify statements. To make such statements and for them to have merit, the individual responsible must have the ability to substantiate them. If unable to do so, then they are just opinions as defined “the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment”

FP,

I agree with you about the shrinkage and numbering. Again, the issue here is assembly. Notice how the grip is resting on the lower guard and not properly seated. In other photos that I will post here of this specific dagger, it appears the dagger has been reassembled with more care but still not completely correct. Please have a close look at them and I think you will see if the grip is properly seated in the lower guard and the top guard is properly installed you’ll achieve grip a fit that will show acceptable and even shrinkage.

1

2

Thank You ibrahim !!!

A VERY INTERESTING observation! But I’m afraid that I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Stephens. The signatures are NOT the same!! Look at the bottom of the “H”. No loop! Whereas the reported fake has one.

This just gets more and more interesting as time goes on.

PS: It’s going to take a little time to have a better look at Jason’s images - which I will do when I finish some other things that I have to do. FP

Jason, Here are some reworked images. As in all things digital there may be some artifacts or things that would look different in person. But I think they are accurate enough that some conclusions can be drawn or at least inferred. Although not everyone may interpret them the same.

The first is your dagger showing some shrinkage which not out of line, although I’ve seen other Eickhorn daggers that have a better fit. Given the variables with wood such as seasoning, storage conditions (etc.) not particularly unusual.

The second image shows the same images with the right half flipped. What is apparent here is that the shrinkage on one side is repeated on the other which is what would normally be expected.

This image shows the dagger that started the thread.

And this image also has the right half flipped. There is quite a difference here because the gaps are not the same on both sides of the grip. To have a wide gap on one side, and little or no gap on the other side. Either the wood or the crossguard socket is diagonal - not straight across for both the top and the bottom.

The last image is a closeup of the crossguard to the mouthpiece. And the lower portion of one side of the grip. In this image the grip to the left seems to overhang the crossguard a little, with a perceptible gap on the opposite (right) side. There is also a fairly noticeable shadow (ie: daylight) between the mouthpiece and the crossguard on the right. And possibly a lesser one to the left. It is possible that if the dagger was reversed in the scabbard there might be a better fit. But just looking at it I suspect that it very likely could even be worse. In any case, something is not quite right. But with only these images it’s going to be hard to tell just where the problem (or problems) might be.

The bottom line is that from what I can physically see in the images (at least from my perspective) - it still looks more like a parts piece with a seriously flawed blade than a period original. Regards, FP

FP,

A point I had missed until you pointed it out was the fit of the lower guard to the scabbard throat. Since these guards are softer then nickel, they tend to bend easier. It appears this is the case further explaining the grip fit. Do you agree?

Jason, There are actually a couple of issues here. From a structural standpoint the solid part would not bend because of its cross section, and the socket itself is a lot an “I” beam. And (properly oriented) “I” beams are designed to minimize deflection from a load.

Nickel is really copper (2/3). And copper and other things were added to silver to harden it. So from a metallurgical standpoint I’d have to try and find some data for the alloy that they probably used. But from what I already know, while it would likely be softer than say (for example) zinc. While zinc would break. With silver you would probably see stress lines where the bending movement took place. And there does not seem to be any of that kind of activity visible in the images. Also, how would the bending take place?? If it was struck by something like a tool or something hard you would likely see a place where it impacted. And if you put it in a vise - it would flatten out the curve and probably make it fit the scabbard better (and could also make it break if the part was over stressed).

And how does the curvature affect the fact that the grip and guards have that diagonal separation in both socket areas?

But, as I think more about it: If you bend the “I” beam area slightly and it does not break. It’s going to change the relationship of the wood grip bottom to the top of the crossguard “I” beam section. And it’s going to have either more curve or less curve. And fit either better or worse. But if the crossguard was bent to make it fit the grip better - it would cause a gap between it and the mouthpiece. Or vice versa? Hmmmmmm..............

It sure would be nice to look inside the crossguard and see if there is any evidence of bending. But from what I’m seeing in the images those components were never put together like that by Eickhorn. Regards, FP

Jason, A few additional thoughts. First a typo correction/clarification, Make that: “and the sides of the socket itself are a lot like an "I" beam. (Or at least one half of an “I” beam.)

And while I think that the simplest argument to make is that if the crossguard is bent to accommodate the mouthpiece it makes for a worse grip fit. And vice versa if it’s bent to accommodate the grip.

One additional factor that might be kept in mind is that if the crossguards are really soft and can be bent more easily they could be replications. They should have a hardness greater than a Brinell 59. That’s because while silver has a relatively low yield point. It increases the potential for damage or deformation. Which is why it is normally alloyed, instead being used as a purer form of the metal. Regards, FP

FP,

Please look back at my pictures.

Image 1 will show the upper grip has a gap on the right side.

Image 2 shows this to be equal on the upper reverse as expected based on shrinkage.

This space can be manipulated a little due to the channel for the tang. If the tang is bent to one side or the other, the gap will even out or enlarge. In this case, the upper guard appears be properly assembled and pretty well centered.

Now, if the lower guard is straightened just a bit so to fit flush with the upper scabbard throat, the grip will be seated properly and fit snuggly to the left and have the comparable gap to the right as does the upper guard due to shrinkage.

I understand your questions regarding the silver showing signs of stress. What I’m suggesting is so minor, unless matched against a throat or another guard it is virtually undetectable.

You ask how this damage could occur. First, it was carried swinging from a man’s hip during the period. Then in most cases, it was shipped home in a crate with other GI souvenirs. Then for the next 30-50 years it lay around in a variety of places occasionally being played with and taken to show and tell by the children of the veteran. One Honor dagger I’m aware of was stored in the veteran’s tool box. Can you imagine the damage when a hammer or wrench was thrown in on top? What if the drawer was over filled and then closed, imagine the damage this would cause. There is so many ways this could have and did occur and with a variety of daggers. I’ve personally examined more then a few Honor daggers with mild bends to the cross guards and assure you, it happened.

In the end, you and I may have to agree to disagree on this point and move on to the next.

Jason, I most respectfully understand your arguments to the contrary. But I must disagree, because the pictures that Craig gave us are the best evidence that the dagger has serious problems. Which go well beyond the various rationalizations presented.

1) There is no way of dancing around the messed up inscription on the blade. It is what it is.

2) And there are the pie shaped gaps on the opposite sides of the grips. Straight across can happen, but at a diagonal?

3) There also is no reasonable way of getting around the fact that the crossguard either fits the grip - or the mouthpiece. But not both at the same time.

4) And please look at the scabbard! The overall condition and especially the relatively soft metal fittings. Does it look like it spent 30 or 40, or 50 years in a tool box? Or got run over by a Pz Kpfw II?

From my own personal perspective it’s a parts piece. And as such I think the only thing that might be worth something is the scabbard. IMO the rest at best would be a filler. And a questionable one at that.

I’m sorry that I have to be so blunt. But I’m just not buying the idea that it’s a period Eickhorn factory original.

And you’re right, we may have to agree to disagree and move on until some more information is made available. Or unless some of the issues/facts are still in dispute.

BTW: I found another example of a Hühnlein signature which I will post later. FP

The middle and upper fittings.

Please note the difference in coloration of the middle locket. Ordinarily you would think that they all would be reasonably close in color if made from the same material.

FP,

1. I appreciate the manner in which you’ve approached this.

2. This isn’t the dagger that was in the tool box.

3. The middle locket is a different material. I thought you were aware of that. It is on all known orignals.

4. Though black and white, the period photo tends to support this difference.

5. The pie shaped gaps are diagonally because the lower guard is reversed.

6. Straighten and reverse the grip and the gaps will line up. I’m positive of this.

7. Before you question the blade inscription, may I suggest a very close look at the daggers given to Himmler and Lutze and the inscriptions found on them. If you haven’t had the opportunity to personally examine them, they’re featured in some of the references. It is my “opinion” that Damascus etching was more difficult and perhaps not as predictable.



I look forward to the other images.

Jason, I also appreciate your even handed approach to the discussion. Sometimes lacking on the forums, I think being civil while still having an honest difference of opinion is the best way to approach sometimes controversial topics.

I knew (or was reasonably certain) that this dagger was the not the one you were referring to. I was using perhaps too much hyperbole to try and make my point. That if the scabbard showed no severe signs of stress - it could be reasonably inferred that a dagger residing inside the scabbard would have been as well protected.

The locket has me puzzled. Before it ages/tarnishes one piece of silver looks pretty much like another. It is only as it is exposed to contaminants over time that you might get an idea of what it could be made from. Besides its composition, what puzzles me is why two sources of alloy were used to make the mounts. I can’t see a reason from a manufacturing standpoint why if one alloy is used for the rest - why not the center? Which suggests a contracted out part. But I can’t see anything unique in its construction that would warrant using somebody else(?).

As for the pie shape, if you reverse the crossguards it might make it better. Or it could make it worse. I can visualize twisting a grip to get two wide gaps on one side. But on opposite sides? That was actually what was behind my ‘flipping’ the images. Whereas when I did your dagger it looked like it was supposed. to.

I have what I think is a fair measure of experience with etched blades in general from the 19th century through the Third Reich and beyond. As for Damascus blades, if you also count Imperial era blades into the mix, it has been quite a few ranging in condition from near factory new to barely identifiable as Damascus.

As you state etching Damascus can be tricky for a number of reasons. And unpredictable for example if the concentration of acid is off. Or the temperature, or any of the other things that can affect an etch. That is why any sensible factory manager is not going to give the job of etching to an amateur. To ruin a blade in which a lot of highly skilled effort and money has already been expended.

Having seen quite a few blades in conditions from relatively crisp through advanced stages of decomposition. It is my considered opinion that something very unusual took place which gave the dagger that physical appearance. But what also is almost as unusual (IMO) is the idea of it leaving a factory like Eickhorn in that condition??

I’m sorry, I just don’t see it. And would be looking to somebody trying to imitate the signature in a postwar setting. And the etching process got out of control.

As for any image or images it is not in the area of blades versus documentation. And will be tomorrow. Regards, FP

I had a friend (now deceased) who was a very serious collector of autographs. His main complaint was that especially with those who were famous, or led very busy lives, that they often used: secretaries, personal assistants, staff members, spouses or whomever was available to keep up with the demand for signatures. And that as far as he was concerned they were of little value because they did not come personally from the individual, and might (or might not) be good imitations of the way that the individual signed their name.

Back on August 14th Mikee referred to Hamilton's book with the observation that in his opinion the award plaque version was a better rendition of Hühnlein’s signature than the daggers. It would seem that in addition to the award plaque, that information has been corroborated in period documentation.

I just came across a very limited edition 1938 book “10. DREITAGE MITTELGEBIRGSFAHRT 1938” that was not intended for the general public. Dedicated to a Luftwaffe Major General who was in charge of motor transport for the Luftwaffe. The Hühnlein signature in the book more closely matches the award plaque with the down turned end of the signature. With two very high ranking officials who had to knew each other personally. Being in essentially the same business with the NSKK training military personnel. I would submit the argument that the book went from Hühnlein’s hand to that of the General. And that he signed it personally instead of some assistant. Which (IMO) has not inconsequential implications as to what the signature should look like.

I can’t repost the images here because they are quite prominently copywrited by the owner. But can post a link to the web site. And would recommend to anyone who is truly interested in the NSKK that purchasing the book might be considered a worthwhile addition to their collection. FP

NSKK Book (1938)

I think its time here to set a few things straight.
There is obviously a difference of opinion here that is not going to go away. Various and sundry arguments one way or the other are not going to change anyone's mind and there seems to be a trend here for some to have an agenda to destroy some of the major treasures of the hobby with what they and others would think are logical arguments. However, those in the hobby for a time might well counter that, in reality, the Germans were not near as regimented as we would be led to believe and many times not all that logical and or methodical, especially in the production of edged weapons. MANY mistakes in the production of edged weapons were made, and they did not bother to correct them. MANY examples have been given here before in other threads.
So--Who to believe?? I would just like to add my final post on this thread, that I hope, based on my 50+ years of experience, and 50+ years of love of the hobby will help the unsure to decide.
First I would like to say that I know personally most of what I consider the leading major collectors and dealers in the US and many of those abroad and in Canada. There is no doubt that they consider the NSKK High Leader, with the signature, to be one of the historic treasures of the hobby, and 100% original.
Having said that, let's talk about the true WWII German dagger/edged weapon experts in the US. There really are not that many, at least those who can,--as soon as you mention a particular piece, off the top of their head, in most cases, name all the characteristics of the original, according to maker, and the time period it was made-early to late--and based on MANY in-hand, extensive examinations of those pieces.
So, who are these true experts?--and how did they get that way? Well, you know some of them quite well. They are high profile authors, collectors and dealers who, over a period of many years, have studied these pieces right down to the last screw.
But, here is the thing-- just wanting to do that is not enough. You must have access to these pieces-and the ability to "take them down" to inspect them. This is the key. When it comes to the major rarities it is only the VERY few who have the contacts to do this. You can't, with any hope of success, just walk up to say-- Tom Wittmann and say -hey I wanna take your SA high leader apart and look at it for about an hour.----You know what he's gonna tell you---UNLESS-You are among a VERY few.
OK--So I want to tell you that I have known Jason for many years, and he is low key, but he is one of those experts who can, and has, done just that.
Jason has had unlimited access to extensive examination of all the pieces in the Waitts collection, which was one of the largest and finest collections ever assembled--and that's not all-I would not hesitate to say that he has no doubt examined in hand the vast majority of all the SA/NSKK honor daggers known to exist in collections today at one time or another.
So, It's up to you. Do you believe Jason and the vast majority of the major, experienced, and advanced collectors and dealers in the world? or someone else?
I hope you will choose correctly, as, IMO, I have. Let's not destroy the NSKK High Leader w/ signature. Hopefully, it will always be thought of as one as of the original treasures of the hobby-- by the vast majority.

At some point, it would be good to establish what we know for certain vs what is conjecture. AND, it should be laid out in bullet points, not long paragraphs.

Dave

I have a great deal of respect for Houston Coates. And especially his institutional knowledge which goes back long before I ever entered the dagger collecting scene. But I most respectfully think he is wrong. It is not a “black” vs. “white” or “old guard” vs. “new guard” situation.

It was Craig Gottleib who started the "Grip Color Theory" thread. Which was very long and hotly contested by especially some of the "old guard". In the end Craig was proven right. And there were some losers. The losers were the guys who paid exorbitant prices for "special order" orange (or whatever) color cast phenolic resin grips. The winners were all the guys who were next in line because they knew that the color change was just a natural phenomena. And those that followed them.

When the discussion regarding the supposed "private purchase"/personalized Luftwaffe daggers with the government acceptance markings surfaced. That also was hotly debated. Guys were paying sometimes significant additional dollars for daggers with coats of arms, initials, and names on them. The losers were all the guys who had already paid the extra dollars for the daggers - that in actuality were worth quite a bit less because they had been postwar altered.

And there are many, many, discussions where the "old guard" provides invaluable information to help both new and old collectors to make the right choices.

The two discussions mentioned above did not destroy the hobby. It’s true some guys got hurt. But the next guy in line did not because he knew better. And following generations of collectors will also benefit because they won't be paying extra money for “special orders” that don’t exist. Or for faked personalized daggers to put in their collections.

It’s not about choosing sides. It’s about establishing a baseline for those who are actively collecting now. And for those who will follow us.

Dave suggested establishing a baseline for what is known for certain. And what is conjecture concerning the NSKK daggers. I think that is an excellent suggestion and a good place to start. FP

We need to cut through this blizzard of .... words and state what is provable and what is opinion.

A graet help woud be posting the "in wear" picture even it means getting the owner's OK.

Dave

Sorry .............

I have another copyrighted example, but here is Hühnlein himself with a dual purpose belt clip. The image is an enlargement of the one Craig posted with the award plaque. FP

FP--You are a sharp fellow-but IMO you like to twist things around and change the subject when things don't quite go your way.
What I said was clear-
What Jason said was clear. Jason stated what is known about these daggers.
You choose not to believe. You are saying the majority of the advanced collectors and dealers in this world including Jason are wrong-Not just me( and I don't include myself in that group), but I agree with them----- and only you are right-- And you continue to crusade trying to make many of the treasures of the hobby worthless-for your own satisfaction it would seem. Can you ever be wrong? Are all these other people just too slow to see the truth as you see it? I think not!

I will try and keep this short:

Houston, My goal is not to tear down things. When I wrote the “SS Chain Link Manufacturer” thread (the Type “X”) I was not: “trying to make many of the treasures of the hobby worthless”. It was a research project which I shared because I have a genuine interest in the hobby. If I have a regret, it was that I didn’t start it earlier so that it might have been available in time for Tom Wittmann’s book (if he had wanted to include the information).

Had this thread not developed as it has. Originally I wanted to look into the chains and connectors because there seems to be some controversy about the daggers. And I was curious how it might all fit together.

I have no ax to grind with Jason - who has been a gentleman which I very much appreciate. It was Craig’s dagger that I first had a problem with as soon as I got a good look at it. And it was as I looked into the topic as a whole that I began to ask questions. There is no “crusade” - I’m trying to get the truth of the matter. But if I’m forced to make a choice between accepted traditional belief and what I can see with my eyes. No disrespect intended to anyone, unless there is some kind of verifiable proof to the contrary, I’m probably going to go with what I can see.

If in the course of events I’m proven to be wrong you will see me come forward and admit it as I have in the past. If not, then lets hope that this can considered a disagreement between gentlemen and let it go at that. FP

PS: With all of the reader interest surrounding the topic - does anyone have some pictures that they can post?

Fred--Problems with one dagger is one thing-problems with them all is another. It is not credible to me to condemn all because of preceived problems with one--especially when that group has long been accepted by the majority of the experienced community.
It's like saying all chained SS daggers are fake because you don't like some--and that they all should be alike-and we certainly know that they are not.
It is my perception of what you have said that you maintain that at least the vast majority of all the NSKK high leaders with signature are fake. This is, IMO, and IMO in the majority of the experienced collectors opinions , absurd. And it's just not OK to do it--there is a major impact on the hobby.
If you are just talking about one dagger then --it does not seem that way--perhaps you should clarify.
When an entire group of daggers is condemned, even by a minority, in a very public way, there is a long time negative effect on those daggers.
In this case, I don't think it is justified or a good thing for the hobby and I believe that is the majority opinion. I don't own one and I never have but I just can't stand by and let that kind of thing happen without strong opposition. It's not personal.
In my opinion it's one reason why Jason stopped posting quite a while ago. He is a true expert and many refuse to listen. So--why bother? This may have happened again--and we just got him to come back-- A very bad thing.
Also-the economic impact on the hobby and the collectors who own these daggers should, IMO, be considered when making such blanket statements. These statements never seem to go away. Consider if you can-that you are wrong. Look what you have done to the collectors who own these daggers. What if in the end--they just become questionable because of all this but are 100% real. Was this a good thing? Will it ever have anything but a negative effect? Will some or many always shy away from these pieces. I think you know the answers. Not a good or positive thing at all IMO.

I will again try to be brief:

Houston, I was not the one who started the thread. If Craig had chosen to present “the best of the best” we might not even be having this discussion. I specifically asked for more images so that I could try and get a sense of what a better example of a Hühnlein dagger should look like. When that did not happen, I had to use what was available, which eventually led me into other areas and I ended up looking at other kinds of artifacts and documentation.

As far as economic impact is concerned - that coin has two sides. I have related more than once on these forums a true story of what happened to me during my first year of marriage. In a not inexpensive three sword, one dagger deal from a major collection. Two of the swords were bad which could have ended my collecting career. I am not saying that this is the same situation here! Only pointing out that it is not just a one sided matter.

Right now I don’t know exactly what to think, which is why I’m still looking for information. That is also why I repeated Dave’s request for some photos of the daggers in wear. But at this instant in time there is not much more to take it further - at least as far as period information is concerned. FP

Houston,

I will speak up because I need to know the answer to this:
Are you saying that because the majority of collectors, dealers, and other knowledgeable individuals accept without question the "pedigree" of the NSKK Huhnlein High Leader Honour Daggers; then because of this no other person should challenge that perception of authenticity?

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you.

There is sufficient failing within these so-called "Huhnlein Honour pieces" that I think that the provenance of them can be challenged - and I will reveal it all when I publish my own account in full.

I think that it is worth pointing out that the reason this current thread exists, is because Craig Gottlieb - still smarting from his defeat over the Wolf Sword - thought he could drag me out for a re-match with these Huhnlein pieces.

Take a look at the start of this thread, Craig submits half-a-dozen or so images, and then challenges me (by name) to speak up against the item. Well, I chose not to do it. Not because I am reticent about facing such a challenge; but because I choose not to waste my time on such a loser who actually has no real evidence to present for his case.

I have been enthralled by other people on this thread, who have independently produced their own incisive questions about the imagery of the Huhnlein dedication. They too, it appears, seem to have formed a realistic basis for their questions. Their observations should not be dismissed out-of-hand, because the arguments they make are very well formed.

Every collector who gets involved in this subject needs to understand and learn all about what it is he is collecting - because this hobby is all about people who wish to know how to appreciate their possessions - rather than those who solely want to know how they can profit through teir "collection" without having to understand the subject matter.

Harsh words, perhaps, but oh so true. I am sure that you could, from experience, acknowledge similar sentiments?

Frederick J. Stephens

My point is this--I know at least two people who have obtained these daggers directly from Vets--and they did not pay much at all for them.
Jason knows people too and so do a lot of others. Most of these people are not going to come forward and say this because they don't care about what they call the "dot.com" people or what you think and they know from the past you won't believe and NO they don't have any signed statements from the vets--and if they did some here would not believe anyway. For many things there is just NO PROOF some will accept and no one's word either. We have tried to tell this because we know it is the truth-we were there-we saw it-- but some of you choose to not believe us. OK- So why? should we bother to tell anything that we know? YOU ( and you know who you are) won't believe--and that's why many don't. If some of you would knock off all the disbelief--MANY CREDIBLE people would choose to tell you something. Just look at how many have left who REALLY KNOW something.
So--I say LISTEN to Jason--if he ever comes back-you could learn something and he is not going to tell you any lies.

Dave, I promise to try and keep this short.

Houston, thank you for your posts.

FP, thank you for all of your contributions. I must admit it has been frustrating, but you have invested a great deal of time and effort in your posts and I respect that.

I’ve not been posting due to time constraints.

If we accept Mr. Stephens position as stated “yes I do believe that there are NSKK Honor Daggers of this form (as well as the later version with the NSKK Eagle forming the lower crossguard)” “So a dagger of some pattern clearly exists.” Mr. Stephens further states “I also have a photo of Hunlein wearing an example which has the wide cartouche”.

My perception is that Mr. Stephens issue is with the Hunlein signature and both the Gahr and “standard” chains and it is further his position that the examples with these features are post war converted SA Honor daggers. Mr. Stephens, please correct me if I'm wrong on these points.

If we accept this theory, then all known NSKK High Leaders are post war. The question then is, where are all the examples matching Mr. Stephens’s criteria? There isn’t any.

Please stop and consider all of the rare and one of kind daggers that have surfaced. Yet, not one single dagger matching Mr. Stephens’s criteria has been found?

Obviously, I and the individuals whom I respect disagree with Mr. Stephens.

Note, I have posted some quotes I attribute to Mr. Stephens received through private email. If he objects, please remove them.

This is a general information question to the expert or experts who have the most experience with the honor daggers. It is about the chains. And first let me make it clear that I am not questioning their conclusions, but am asking how they arrived at them. I don’t have a problem with the idea that Eickhorn subcontracted the conventional 1936 NSKK chains to the Assmann company. Assmann had the tooling and the expertise and would be a logical choice for stamped products like chain links. In fact I would not be surprised if they were subcontractors for a number of items that might not have their name on them.

My question is with the Otto Gahr silver chains. On the first dagger in the thread I can see a “250” (?) mark. Or maybe it’s an “850” (85%) alloy mark? But I can’t see a discernible Gahr marking. And other items attributed to Gahr usually had the 800 (80%) alloy mark. While with still other items like standards, they had the Otto Gahr name deeply struck. Again I am not questioning that Gahr could not have made them. And this question is from a manufacturing standpoint. But I can’t see why Assmann could not have made the silver chains as well? And from the image presented it’s not clear to me what was stamped. What piece of the puzzle am I missing? FP

1

2

3

Thank you Jason, Between the three images I can see the Gahr/Munich and 800 markings more clearly. Especially in the second image it looks cast instead of stamped. Is that your sense of it also? And may be why it was not sent out to Assmann? Regards, FP

FP,

My original thought was stamped because of the apparent double strike to the 800 clearly visible in image 1. However, after studying them, I’m not sure. All points are nearly identical from a position and spacing perspective and the 800 appears double struck to some degree in all of them.

Assmann made the "standard" chains found on the other examples.

Jason, I think that we may be referring to two different things. The “Type I” SS chain link had the Kulturzeichen stamped on the back as a part of the manufacturing process. They were all in the same place. The “Type II” chain link Kulturzeichen is all over the landscape, and was obviously post manufacture. I will look at them again. But my initial sense of the stampings on the NSKK chain links is that they are post manufacture as well.

What I was referring to was the process by which the connector was made. It’s hard to tell for sure from images. But my sense here is that the part was cast. Which seems to be more typical of what Gahr might do versus Assmann which I think relied more on metal stamping.

What made the “Type X” SS thread fairly interesting (at least IMO) was that it showed a logical progression of how the chains were made in sequence. There seems to be some kind of a progression here with the connectors. But I’m wondering if a vendor/process switch may also be a factor? Regards, FP

I have followed the thread with great interest. Saying that I know little about dadders, but have always thought how beautiful these pieces are and would love to own one. Having said this, my spear is the struck art, medals and the like. Fine silver is also a collectable for me. What I do find concerning is the silver marks and maker marks shown. I would offer these are cast in the piece. This is something I would find HIGHLY SUSPECT in a piece of silver. Three examples, leaves me with very bad vibrations.

I also have followed the thread with great interest. All three examples look cast to me also. The first looking the best, however in the 2nd and especially the 3rd example you can clearly see cast marks. If this is true and that is what it looks like to me.....well I don't know what to say except...
"Oh Lucy! You got a lot of splanin to do."

But then I'm sure there must be a reasonable explaination.

-wagner-

It is not just the poor quality of the Gahr marking - which I consider seems to be cast as part of the whole device - the quality of the item itself appears to be nowhere near the quality of the Gahr products that I have previously encountered.

However, there appears to be a more notable failing evident on this portion - and that is the supposed "hallmark". The silver mark should be a Crescent Moon, and a Crown - and they are of a very precise design. The "hallmark" shown on Jason's photos (above - the top image is the clearest) appear to be completely spurious and absolutely nothing like the official hallmark.

I have checked this with contacts in the jewellery trade, both here in the UK and in Germany, and all confirm their opinion that the hallmarking is false.

So I am very sorry, but fake hallmarking suggests to me that the piece has been tampered with in some way. So my view that these Huhnlein pieces are questionable is perhaps not so outrageous, after all.

Is this the silver "hallmark" you were refering to Fred?





Images taken from German War Booty by Thomas Johnson, page 151.

-wagner-

I think that we have to give them the benefit of a doubt while more information is collected. While I have some experience in metal stamping, and larger scale casting operations, these are smaller parts which brings into play other factors. I have a brother who does commercial precision investment casting and will get some input from him. Although as I said initially my sense of the parts themselves is that they were cast. The double strike of the “800” on #2 and the misalignment and possible overstrike on #1 suggest hand stamping. The other markings I’m not as sure of, and while require some more thought, and possibly some outside input. As for the Gahr markings they are not the same as on the Birthday swords. But that is not conclusive in itself unless it can be confirmed that Gahr never ever used the same mark. And even then it could be a gray area, unless it's discovered that the mark was used somewhere else.

We also don’t want to forget the first example which is more or less in an uncleaned condition (although it could have been cleaned in the past). Some of the irregularities we see could be the effect of aging/corrosion which can have unpredictable results. And might require further study. And it could also be that the wide connector links were “product improvements” because the other style was found wanting for some reason. Or a replacement component. What I think might be critical here is how well the links front and back match up to the connectors in terms of wear, manufacture, and age.

When I first started to look into the “Type X” SS chains there was the possibility that some might have thought them to be fakes because almost no one had seen them before. That was not the case - but it was only after a more through investigation that any doubts or fears could be put to rest. FP

Wagner,

Thanks for locating those images - I was rooting through my own material, trying to find something similar - but you have done it better for me, especially as it comes from a respected, published source.

I will try and combine two of the images, to save viewers the problem of scrolling back and forth over the two pages.

Thanks again for your help.

FJS

Thank you Fred for clearly placing the two stamps together. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT, "CHALK AND CHESSE". This is what a silver researcher loves to see. A definite copy.No a fake mark.

I have a request of Mr. Stephens. If all the examples I've and others have shown are copies/reproductions/altered, then please show us one original.

A quick search produced the web site listed below and I ask those reading this thread to have a look. It shows a wide variety of silver marks used by different German manufacturers’ post 1886. Though, not Third Reich specific, it demonstrates a magnitude of possibilities and should be considered before ruling the mark found on the NSKK High Leader Chain to be fake. I'm sure with additional research; these marks will be found period and used by Gahr.

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

While Mr. Stephens is taking his rest in England at this hour, why don't we do this in the mean time....
Since you have seen or handled most of the known surviving examples of this rare dagger, would it be possible for you to show us an example where the "uniquie connector" has a clear "Gahr" co. stamp and proof "rating" which is not part of what at this point appears to be a part of a complete cast molded piece as these 3 previous examples apear to be?
And if they were all cast, why do you think the honor daggers "finishers" would not file away the casting marks? Perhaps war time conditions?
Or just perhaps you can state from your expereance that this is the way all the known "Gahr" NSKK connectors from Veteran sources appear as?
Also where is the official "Gahr" silver mark on the list you so kindly provided?
I'm sure we will get down to the bottom of this since there is usually a simple explaination for these matters. Not always.
Very intersting thread. Thank you for your participation.

-wagner-

Jason, Thanks for the link to the hallmark web site. Hallmarks are not something that I have any particular knowledge of, although I do find them interesting.

When I look at the sum total of the period examples of the Birthday swords in Tom Wittmann’s “SS” book. On the sword fittings besides the "800" silver content mark, one other factor became apparent. They all have the “King” type of crown which would have been appropriate for the Imperial era. And to the left it looks like a crescent moon - probably shown to its best advantage with the hallmark of "Ludwig Neresheimer" on the list.

I have no idea why both the crown and the moon (as parts of hallmarks) are seen so often on the list. Other than it must have been traditional for some reason. The crown I can easily see as a carry over device from the Imperial era. And the moon as a symbol had a significance which was very popular much earlier in Germany as seen on the “Talisman” types of sword blades. I'm not questioning that is what happened - but the two together?

I did not find the Gahr mark on the list either which seems to be a work in progress. But don’t attach any particular significance to that because of the many known Gahr artifacts which are in existence. And I would agree that more research should be done. Because unless someone already has experience with this alternate marking, a more exhaustive search is needed to try and make a better determination of its source. Regards, FP

In German hallmarking, the Crescent, or Sickled, Moon emblem indicated that the product was silver. I believe that the emblem of a "Sun" was used if the base metal was gold.

To answer your question, Jason, you know from our private e-mails that I acknowledge that an "NSKK Honour Dagger with chains" must exist, because of the photographic evidence of them in wear (two examples, for certain). Yet I am far from convinced that these "Huhnlein" pieces are authentic. The phoney hallmark discredits them immediately.

The grossly poor central mount is also another feature of doubt, and they all seem to have this amateur feature. The upper and lower mounts are well made, so why not the centre mount? The SA Honour Dagger, upgraded to a chained version, has a very nice scalloped central mount to accommodate it's new chains, so why not this NSKK version?

It is my theory that all these "Huhnlein Honour Daggers" started out life as "regular" SA Honour Daggers. The scam has been to convert them by adding the chains and central mount together with the Huhnlein "signature" on the blade. Potentially this would double the value of the dagger.

All the examples I have seen, whether being the wide cartouch with Gahr marking or the "regular" spring clip, seem to have fake chains with no NSKK markings (the chain was a protected design for the organisation - hence the "musterschutz" stamping that normally appears on the reverse of the chains).

I am sure that there must be an authentic NSKK Honour Dagger with chains out there, somewhere, but it is most certainly not one of these specimens with the fake hallmarkings and/or the inappropriately crude central mount. As for the Huhnlein signature - what is its purpose? It denotes nothing by itself.

You may not like my theory, Jason, but I think that you will have to concede that with the instance of the fake hallmark, then I certainly have a valid point - and my other observations are not far off the mark, either.

FJS

Wagner,

I never implied the Gahr mark would be found on the list. The link was posted to show a small portion of the various marks encountered.

Very interesting discussion.

Re: the Gahr mark-

Does anyone out there in GDC-land have an original piece of non-SS Gahr silver jewelry?

If so, I would think that it would be hallmarked/stamped and could be compared to the image(s) above.

Just for the record, I find it very unusual that Gahr would have replaced the traditionally used Crown of Charlemagne with a generic, 3 pointed ducal crown in their hallmark.

Just Google Images "Gahr Silver" to see several.T Johnson's book GERMAN WAR BOOTY also show several.

As to the silver marks as used in Germany a very good description was given in the site shown by Jason. This clearly states the how and werefores. The crown shown on the silver mark clearly is not correct. The half moon and crown was used throughout the Third Reich perriod, this is illistrated by the Wagner mark on the Silver Luftwaffe honour goblet. As to post 1945, this still is the mark employed. Thus Jaon, I think your input has clearly shown that the silver mark is not correct. To this the fact that it is cast is NOT CORRECT. This marking shows the quality and place of origin. No firm would be able to use a cast method to prove quality. Taking all these points into consideration, one has to question the whole. I show the explanation from the site to clarify the possition. In 1884 a law was enacted making .800 the minimum national standard for silver in Germany. In 1886 the use of individual city marks was abolished and replaced by the national mark (reichsmark) of a crescent moon & crown mark (Halbmond und Krone) representing the entire German state. These marks became compulsory by 1888.
The crown & crescent moon are used in conjunction with a maker's mark and a decimal silver standard mark.
Common silver standards are .800 & .835 __ .830, .900, .925 and .935 purities are also used.

It is just as Christopher says.
Seiler (Yank in UK)

Christopher, Thanks for the ‘mini’ lesson on German silver marks. I’m going to abstract it and add it to my list of things to be remembered. Roger also made what I think was an interesting observation.

The crown used with the crescent moon is a German “King’s” crown versus that of an Emperor. I had assumed based upon Craig’s statements about these daggers, and things that he says that he has had in his possession at one time or another, that he had some expertise with hallmarks. Now I am not so sure that is the case.

When I first saw the marks on the original dagger in the thread they did not look like the markings on the swords. But I thought that maybe they had worn or were polished off? When I got a clear look at it I thought that perhaps it was a modernized version?

If the crown was to be more strictly interpreted it would be that for a Viscount from Belgium. With Viscounts from Spain, Italy, and France as runner ups - because they have a single small lobe between each of the three main upward projections (total 5). There is no crown in Germanic heraldry which matches the one on the dagger connectors. FP

Mr. Ailsby, you are a collector of note of some very fine 3rd Reich items. You have seen more silver proof marks than the majority of us will ever see. My question to you sir is: Have you ever seen a piece of .800 or above silver piece that was cast in anywhere near the confirguration of the above connecting "Garh" links?

-wagner-

As an aside and to show the importance of the Half moon and Crown on the marking scal, this silver belonging to Hermann, was in 1943 passed to the German Navy. The Navy then marked the piece. This was hand enraved. Not wonce, but on some 25 pieces that I have. The expertise to hand engrave on these small pieces, leeds one to think? I return to casting of marks. No not possible.

I don’t disagree that hand (or machine) engraving could produce a greater level of detail. But I’m afraid that I’m not quite following some of the fine points of the discussion correctly. Rather than asking questions without a reference point. I’m posting an image borrowed from a GDC discussion of SS chain links. (I know that steel is not the same as silver being a much softer metal. But the underlying principles of commercial metal stamping operations are the same.)

The SS 'Kulturzeichen' on the “Type II” link to the left is obviously hand stamped - with one end of the marking making a deeper penetration into the metal than the other end. And we know from experience that the markings are not at the same place, and are often at angles, varying from specimen to specimen.

The “Type I” to the right shows the 'Kulturzeichen' (insofar as depth is concerned) evenly stamped at all four corners. I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the Kulturzeichen itself was relief cut (positive image) onto the polished face of the die bottom. So that the marking was automatically embossed into the bottom of the link as a part of a mechanical stamping process. And is more or less in the same place from one link to another.

Is it being argued that the outward appearance of the Gahr marking(s) as seen is the result of: A broken down (damaged) metal stamp or stamps? Either an intact or defective casting mold? The result of natural wear and tear from use, or corrosion? Or is it something else that I’ve missed entirely? I’m not trying to be adversarial. I’m just not getting the main thrust of some of the statements that were made. FP

FP, You have what I think maybe a good discussion regarding the "regular" SS "Kulturzeichen" on the Type 1, 2 & X chain links. However I believe what we are discussing is the conditions of manufacture and placement of silver "Hallmarks" on .800 and above silver pieces.

Here is an example of a .800 "Siver" SS Chained Honor dagger. Image taken from:
German Daggers of WW2 by Thomas Johnson. pg. 419. Note stamped .800 silver hallmark on link.

-wagner-

In spite of all this stuff----What all of you naysayers choose to ignore is that there are many veteran collectors who know personally those who have obtained these daggers out of the woodwork and saw the daggers at that time.
This is a fact -but many of you won't believe. Sworn statements COULD be obtained from those who actually bought them. But I wonder--Is there anyone in the world you would believe?
I do have to add that the statement made that to convert a M33 SA Honor Dagger to a chained NSKK Honor dagger with signature would increase the value very significantly ( DOUBLE? ) is just not so and not worth the effort. You can easily check this out--so where's the motive?
To me the 33 SA would be VERY much more wanted and in demand. NSKK? Who cares? What did they ever do? The SA boys were the nasty ones--and that's who we like--Oh Yeah.

Oh--and if you naysayers can name one well known collector/dealer that is not a naysayer here that you would believe I'll do my doubledamnest to get him to post here and tell you about it.

Houston,

For all the arguments that you make concerning these NSKK Huhnlein pieces that have "come out of the woodwork" - and I do respect your opinions and observations about these (you are a landmark in this collecting fraternity) - if the cartouch of the chains is seen to have a fake form of hallmarking (and it is just not on one example but several specimens - in fact I think that Jason quotes about 8 such examples with the wide style Gahr cartouche), and compared to the 4 others with the "regular" NSKK clip that he has examined, then what is the obvious conclusion about such an obvious fake marking?

As being someone who falls into your category of being a "naysayer" I am offended by your dismissive tones. Perhaps you can offer me some real evidence that qualifies your claims about these daggers?

Sincerely

Frederick J. Stephens

I don’t think that a technical discussion of something that we can physically see. Or prove using period references can be considered naysaying. A personal testimonial is one more factor that can be considered with the well known individual providing his input as a welcomed participant.


Wagner, Thanks for posting the image of the SS Honor Dagger chain link.

I know that what is under discussion is the silver NSKK Honor dagger connector piece. However, the example you posted I think is directly tied to the images that I posted, and has an indirect connection to the NSKK component under discussion. The example in Tom Johnson’s book is basically the same as the steel Type II link - with the exception that it has the silver markings added. All done by hand at various angles and locations. And the overall appearance of the silver chain link approximates that of the steel link after the difference in physical hardness is taken into account. Both having a smooth finish.

For all of the NSKK connectors seen so far. With the possible exception of the “800” numbers, the other markings are all in more or less the same location. A logical assumption or assumptions might be:

1) A stamping fixture was used that placed the markings at the exact same location.

2) The markings were an integral part of a mold.

I have some thoughts as regards some of the physical characteristics of the connectors and markings themselves. But don’t want to prejudge them, and I’m still waiting for my brother’s input in case I’ve missed something.

And I find that I made a mistake and am going to have to correct myself. I did not take civic heraldry into account. While it is not a particularly long list, there are European cities which employ a crown with three upward projections as part of the civic coat of arms. Most of them are outside of Germany, but for the relatively few German cities, Munich itself is not on the list. FP

Fred,

As the Admin, I love these discussions and I wish I could figure a pay-per-view scheme for this one

Just to add another dimension to this could you please offer some real evidence that qualifies your claims?

Thanks,
Dave

PS - Houston you say "The SA boys were the nasty ones--and that's who we like." Actually the SS wion that discussion

I Guess I also fall into Houston's category as a "naysayer". And I also don't care for the dismissive tone.
I don't have his knowledge I just go by where I believe the evidence is pointing.
That evidence and with statements by the esteemed Mr. Ailsby, whom many of us consider an "expert" on the topic of silver manufacture and "Hallmarking" in the 3rd Reich, seems to confirm to me the "weight" of evidence supports Mr. Stephens thesis on this matter.
Are those fake "Hallmarkings"? Mr. Ailsby say's they are.
Are there any other examples of either the "Gahr" or other silver makers where the "Hallmarks" are cast into the mold? If there is...I believe we would all love to see it.
And if there are any of the "Wise Men" whom are behind the curtain that have "proof" to the contrary. I welcome them and their evidence.
But for right now...I'll stick to the old formula.

" Buy the piece and not the story"

-wagner-

Wags,

It seems you mostly don't like anything on gdc axcept the stuff you are selling. What sort of expurt are you ?

The POINT just keeps on being ignored. IF you KNEW that these daggers with signature AND with the same silver marks that are shown here came out of the woodwork many years ago and were bought for next to NOTHING--would you then dismiss all these arguments? I do, Jason does, MANY others do also--and so would you if you would only listen------to those who WERE THERE and KNOW. But--I know many of you won't--because you don't want to believe anyone--and you want these daggers to be fakes. But they are not.
So--why are you collecting? The SAME people who wrote almost ALL the books that taught you MOST of everything you know will verify what I say and what Jason says. So--if you don't believe them-why believe ANYTHING that they have written? So then--you know nothing-you don't even know what you have. What good is it?
What treasure of the hobby will you try to destroy next? Or will you continue with this series and suggest that all these daggers are 100% fake, not even parts. Then--will the SA High Leader be next? How about those Himmlers with the smooth tail? Oh --and the Railway daggers, WPP, or anything rare-then the Armies and Lufts that have "non conforming parts"-they must be bad too.

Houston, Our messages must have crossed paths seconds apart. Speaking only for myself, it’s not about dismissing what the pioneers in the hobby discovered and wrote about. They have provided a pathway to more completely enjoy the hobby. But lets be honest about it. Sometimes mistakes were made which were visited upon generations of collectors. The most recent significant correction to the body of knowledge that comes to mind was Joe Wotka’s revelation about German Police swords and the SS Kulturzeichen. My point being that sometimes you have to take a fresh look at things, and reevaluate all of the evidence at hand. I hope that the well known individual that you mentioned can provide some more insight.

I probably should have posted this computer inverted image of the connector (that Craig used to start the thread) on the 20th when I asked about the Gahr and “250” alloy markings on the 20th. I know that this is not a “true” image. But the surface seemed to have a strange texture, and some other characteristics that seemed out of place. I also think that the alloy marking does look a lot a “250” in the enhancement instead of an “800”. I’m not saying that it is. But that is what jumped out at me prompting me to ask. FP

I'm going to make an attempt to provide some balance to this thread as a mere collector. Is there any definitive proof that these are good pre 1945 daggers? and I think the honest answer is no. However is there any current proof that these are post 1945 creations? and I think the honest answer is also no.
So much information was lost due to the direct and indirect destruction of records that what was actually produced during the 3rd Reich period will probably never be completely known.
We as history buffs and collectors from this period can only continue to delve into whatever infromation is available and make our own personal judgements depending on the information available at any given time.
To me this is one of the intriging aspects of 3rd Reich collecting.
Jim

I always keep an open mind when it comes to our evolving and growing hobby. I have many questions, but never enough answers, just the nature of the beast… Besides none of this "other stuff" comes close to or compares to the quality of hirschfangers anyway!

I would like to ask some questions and make the following observations.
It's been my experience to never judge a piece based solely on the lack of a crescent moon and crown. It's also been my experience that some makers stamped their wares with a crescent moon and crown while others simply didn't. I've always believed that jewelry and other small items weren't required to be marked with crescent moon and crown. Again, some did and some didn't.

The first thing I eye ball is the silver content mark. Which in this case is .800 parts silver? Because that's what it should be. Is it? The Gahr maker marks and the other marks posted require more research and comparisons in order to come to positive conclusion. Have we done that? Has the Gahr firm used this very distinctive type crown and crescent moon mark on other items or just these central mounts or do we see the use of other marks during this same period? Another company involved? I’ve heard no?

This crown on the Gahr piece in my opinion is a very distinctive mark and resembles a trade mark in design that would be registered. Maybe to small in this case, I don’t know. The mark with one or two crescent moons inside a circle, if that's what it is? Not a clear enough image for me anyway to actually determine what type of mark it may or may not be. Although the marks are unusual and not what I'm used to seeing, I find these marks very interesting.

I have seen very similar Bavarian crown type maker marks on other types of wares resembling the crown mark on the Gahr piece. Not all Bavarian makers used this style of Bavarian crown mark on their stuff, but a few did and again are some what very similar to the one shown on the Gahr piece. What we need is more information on the Gahr firm presented here on this forum.

The 1886 law was mentioned. Could this explain why we see the different style of marks on this Gahr piece(s)? A German Imperial style crown mark versus a Kingdom of Bavarian style of crown mark? Was this 1886 law only for Prussian companies? Or did it include the Kingdom of Bavaria? The Kingdom of Bavaria became part of the German Empire in what, 1870/1? But did the Kingdom of Bavaria follow German imperial law?

Anyway, during the 3rd Reich period from what I gathered from other posts the Gahr Company it seems followed the law marking other items more to what we are used to viewing. But chose to mark at least these central mounts with a Bavarian style crown? I’m not sure if anyone at this time knows the consistency or types of marks used by this company during this period? To think a faker could be so far off base with these national marks with so many to choose from to get it right. Maybe it is right!

Could it simply be the Gahr firm chose this style of Bavarian crown due to being located in Munich “The Paris of Germany”, which is the Bavarian Capital?

It's hard to believe that up till now nobody after all these years has at least attempted to find out more about these marks. Somebody must have?

It’s all debatable, but we need to research this one further. Thanks for the interesting topic.

Hi there, here are a few points on German silver marks.First of all the Half moon and Crown mark are nothing to do with Otto Gahr.
They are German Reichs marks.Half Moon and Crown for silver and Sun and Crown for gold.
The item is made first,them the metal is tested for its silver content,and the hallmark is then struck.
On small objects the Reich mark is not used ,just the number.
Heres is a link to German Hallmarks.
http://www.925-1000.com/Fgerman_marks_a1884.html

Hers a gold item by Gahr,From Snyder's Treasures.? I 'am still trying to find a silver one. I hope this helps with some of your questions,nats

I found this silver on on Tom wittmans sitenats

With this renewed discussion of the markings, this observation is more of a commentary at the stage of the discussion before established German silver markings were brought into the picture.

At this point a short while back when looking at the connector on Craig's example it looked like an unknown number of metal stamps had been used. If you look at the border area it looks like one very large made to order/single use stamp had been used to create it. And then three or four additional stamps some at angles to create the other markings - with the silver content mark an unknown. Then I envisioned one large stamp with everything included so that it would only have to be struck one time to impart all of the markings. But the markings had some very apparent high and low spots and angles, so that was ruled out, and I was back to square one with more questions than answers.

Creating metal stamps to be used for any process involves a considerable amount of effort from highly skilled tool and die makers. Some of the Gahr markings just presented are what I would call “minimalist”. It seems (to me at least) that a lot of extra effort went into “branding” the connector as a Gahr product - and I will leave it at that. FP

I think many of the more analytical observations above have significant merit.

My attention is still drawn to the use of the three pointed crown.

I am not an expert on silver or silver hallmarks, but would offer the following:

The crown, as a symbol, is a VERY authority-specific heraldic device. Use of the crown of state, as in traditional hallmarks, designates the "approval" of the state. Therefore a period German silver hallmark, when used in its entirety, would show 1) material=crescent moon=silver, 2) content=800,and 3) who endorses it=
the IMPERIAL monarchy/government.

I don't believe this 3 pointed crown is a Bavarian, or any other monarchy-represented, device. The closest "Bavarian crown" is a 5 -pointed coronet found on the Bavarian coat-of arms.

The 3-pointed ducal crown (or ducal coronet) is traditionally used when NO other "crown" is designated. It's generic. It is primarily used to represent the general concept of nobility without representing any specific level of nobility.

The portion of the silver hallmark showing the moon and crown is NOT a private commercial logo or trademark to be randomly altered on a whim, it's symbolic of an imperial endorsement. Therefore, it should show an imperial crown.

If this "stylization" was done by Gahr, it was an extremely uneducated decision.

But, then, if this is a fantasy mark on the Gahr chain, why wouldn't a forger simply use the Imperial crown and avoid the question?

Maybe, the generic crown is the one detail that keeps this piece in the semi-innocuous realm of fake collectables and out of the realm of criminally counterfeited, government-endorsed silver.(?)

I don't know.
I wasn't there.
Just my thoughts.

Just a little insight from a 31 year old 6 year TR collector.

There has been many comments good insightfull and some less insightfull on this blog and many other areas of the forum. I could see why some knowledgeable long time collectors leave simply because you have a few newbies that trash perfectly good daggers w/ NO real factual basis, experiences or evidence. The heard mentality really can damage a "good" dagger or collectors reputation. If there is a subject matter I know nothing about.... like high leader daggers, I keep my eyes and ears and mind open.....and my mouth shut. Listen to the Sr collectos, expecially the well know active GD members. They have seen the fakes, scams, good bad and they really ugly.

In the past I had owned a nickel silver SS officer's buckle that was a quality reproduction made in the 60's in England. The back was nicely stamped with the "crown, 1/2 moon, 800 and the #3". Quality piece....... total reproduction with convincing stamps.

JR, It’s a small world. I don’t remember what I did with it, but I had a nickel silver SS “Officer’s Prototype” belt buckle myself. It had a bunch of markings all over the back - “SS” markings and some others I don’t remember. I also was told that it came out of England from that era. The quality was really very good, and it was sold as a repro, and cost me almost nothing. FP

quote:

Wags,

It seems you mostly don't like anything on gdc axcept the stuff you are selling.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, at least not on this forum. I can tell you that the NSKK High Leaders are real. I purchased one from a veterans son with half the original leather peeling off. It was black and had never been touched. The blade was coated with petrified grease. It was absolutely untouhced. Funny note: The sender sent it to me in a priority box with no packing or wrapping. It was just banging around in the box. There were chunks of the scabbrd leather in the bottom of the box from the chain beating the hell out of scabbard durings it trip through the mail. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Gailen David

This is a very brief overview of some of the problems confronting those doing small scale precision gravity casting, with an emphasis on silver. It is a general discussion not directed towards any object or individual. Those who are engaged in the casting business as a profession are generally aware of the problems, whereas it is more likely that amateurs are not.

For an amateur there is an increased likelihood of solidification shrinkage causing a deformation in the casting. It can also manifest itself as a crinkling or unevenness in the casting.

And voids. As discussed in the “Reverse Swastika” thread on the sword forum. Gravity casting can be a problem especially for those who lack either knowledge or experience. Silver is heavier than aluminum, but improper mold design can cause and magnify problems.

And most especially for amateurs - silver as a metal has it’s own fairly unique problem. While silver is generally stable in the atmosphere. In a molten state it absorbs a lot of oxygen. Which if not compensated for creates pin holes, voids, and other casting flaws when it cools. Sometimes it can be a few pin holes or flaws, or it could be a lot of them under the right conditions. (Discussed in several GDC sword forum threads a few years back where fake silver hilted “SS” sabers were under discussion.). There are some other issues as well. But those are some of the “biggies”.

The point of this commentary being that not only with stamped parts should there not be any of the above mentioned flaws. With a well experienced company that was in the business of manufacturing silver castings as part of its core business. There is I think a reasonable expectation that the manufactured goods will be reasonably defect free. FP

I agree w/ Fred. I was a casting engineer in my past. Gravity castings had many problems with traped gas, burned in sand, shrinkage due to poor pattern design (undersized risers) Poor part design..etc etc....

If produced in modern time the lost wax (developed in the 1950's?) castings would fit best for this application.

To provide a visual frame of reference for some of the previous comments here is an image taken from one of the Sword Forum threads I mentioned. What the counterfeit/postwar “SS” langet equipped silver hilt posted here shows is where somebody has tried to remove evidence of a worse than average casting effort with an aggressive over polishing. While the majority of the pin holes have been removed the larger voids are still mostly intact. To add insult to injury - the extra added stamped “SS” markings are also fake. FP

Does anybody have this book in their library:
OTTO UND KAROLINA GAHR - DIE SILBERSCHMIEDE DER NSDAP UN DER SS

That could possibly answer some questions regarding the hallmarks.

Cheers,

Most of the items pictured are "front" shots
only.
It states they used in ,32-- O.Gahr Munchen
until 1932.
Therafter---Gahr Munchen
Specific SS items are the runes in a box as on the sword and M 36 dagger chains.
In the section related to "Stempel" there is no
indication they used the standard German silver marks.
I have two Gahr items.
SS Zivilabzeichen No 1 (Yes)is marked 900 Silber
Gahr Munchen.and the No 1.Berlin Docs confirmed.
The other credited by the Berlin Docs Center IS marked with the Half moon and Crown and silver content.
Not much here!!!
Cheers
Seiler..(Yank in UK)

those that originally advocated the legitimacy of these pieces have fallen conspicuously silent...

We haven't fallen anywhere we are just tired. Tired of defending an original piece that needs no defending, that's all

Gailen David

If someone would have told me years ago that some day I would be defending the NSKK High Leaders Dagger, I would have laughed out loud.

Gailen David

I am also tired but still maintain these are 100% authentic and will continue to do so because it is true.

Houston, Like I think any of us, I would imagine that being involved in a discussion of items where long held beliefs are being challenged is not a pleasant one. But like many discussions there are areas where there is sometimes agreement.

An hour or two after this thread was started on the first of August, on the Sword Forum you acknowledged that some NSKK chained Honor Daggers were fakes. Is there some kind of consensus among the Cognoscenti as to the characteristics of the fakes versus what are considered genuine daggers? FP

The fakes would be quite obvious to most and nothing really close to the original. They are in a few books and have various features--no two seem to be exactly alike. Many have TM's other than Eickhorn and damast blades that are other than the maiden hair pattern. Just as with the SA there are also originals that have been repaired over the years. Each needs a separate evaluation just as with any other dagger.
If a group of experienced dagger collector/dealers looked at any of these I doubt if there would be much disagreement after a brief discussion.
In fact, that is the way questionable rare things are really authenticated.
A rare item almost always surfaces at a major show-sooner or later and is shown to several of those who are known to have specialized in the item in question for several or many years. In the end, most of the time, there is a clear majority or sometimes even 100% agreement one way or the other.
Having the item in hand is often necessary to do this. The Forum is great but in some cases photos are just not good enough.

I AM NOT CONSIDERED A DAGGER COLLECTOR SO LIKELY MY OPINION WILL BE HELD WITH LITTLE TO NO ESTEEM. I SAW ONE OF THESE IN A CHICAGO COLLECTION BACK IN THE EARLY 60'S LONG BEFORE ANYONE EVER HEARD OF JAMES ATWOOD AND HIS PARTS AND FAKE DAGGERS. AS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED, A GOOD FREIND OF MINE FROM YEARS BACK HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE PRIVATE COLLECTION OF A FAMOUS AMERICAN GENERAL OFFICER WHO DIED SHORTLY AFTER THE WAR. THE COLLECTION IS NOW IN THE CUSTODY OF HIS SON. AMONG THE ITEMS WAS ONE OF THESE DAGGERS. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT FAKES OF THIS DAGGER EXIST TODAY. I ALSO STAND WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE COLLECTED FOR DECADES AND UNDERSTAND THE VAIDITY OF THIS PIECE. I ALSO CONCUR THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER REASON TO ARGUE FURTHER WITH THOSE WHO HAVE CLOSED THEIR MINDS TO THE SUBJECT
BOB

Trigger,

I have had this book in my possession, and nowhere is there any mention of the Gahr company making NSKK Chains or the cartouche hanger. The book doesn't show much in the form of the hallmarks, but does show the "entwined" SS culture emblem.

I have a contact who is a friend of one of the authors of the book - Arthur Meyer, and who seems to have good access to the Gahr company files. I enquired through my contact if there was any evidence for the Gahr company having manufactured chains for the "NSKK High Leader Honour Dagger". The information relayed back to me was that they had not found any evidence to support the claim that these NSKK fittings were manufactured by Gahr.

I have to state that this does not prove that they didn't do this - merely that the author was unable to find any evidence to corroborate this one way or the other. However, I have to submit that if my contact could not find any evidence that the Gahr company had made items such as these - then it is probable that they had never made such items at all. And of course, it goes without saying, that as the “Gahr” marking is crude, and “cast-like” - well then maybe this was not a real Gahr marking at all? All the genuine Gahr markings I have seen have been clear and crisply stamped marks.

All the evidence seems to point to these chains and the “Gahr“ marked cartouche being poor, crude imitations - unlike anything that the Gahr company would put its’ name to.

Gailen - you have related to us the acquisition of one of these Huhnlein pieces, sent to you through the mail and with no interior packing, causing the chain to damage the leather work. Is this correct?

Is this also the same dagger that had the metal snap from an SA dagger hanger crudely soft soldered to the back of the cartouche - in order to cover up the blatantly obvious fake hall marking?

Just to confirm a point, I am not saying that there is no such thing as an NSKK High Leader Dagger with chains, I am stating the reasons for my disbelief concerning all the examples that I have seen. It is not as if this hinges on a single, questionable feature, but the fact that the items have numerous, questionable features. The central mount being another feature. If they could manufacture the upper and lower mounts with such obvious precision, then why permit the centre mount to become such a crude monstrosity? It doesn’t match the rest of the original fittings, and does not make sense.

Bob - you have just related to seeing one of these NSKK pieces in the early 1960s. Are you quite sure it was one of these with the Huhnlein signature on the blade? And do you recall if it had the "wide cartouche", or the "regular" style clip?

And please do not assume that those of us who challenge the authenticity of these pieces, that we are deliberatly "tarnishing these relics" or that we have "closed minds". Far from it. We have open minds, and wide open eyes, and based upon what we can observe we ask uncomfortable questions. That is how we get to learn things.

FJS

AFTER ALL OF THESE YEARS, SMALL DETAILSD THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DAYS WERE NOT BACK THEN. IT DID HAVE THE SIGNATURE. IT WAS IN THE HANDS OF A "COLLECTOR/DEALER/FRINGE LOONEY IN CHICAGO. OLD TIME COLLECTORS WOULD REMEMBER
JACK BAUMGARTNER. I HAVE NO HORSE IN THIS RACE SO WHAT I RELATE IS ONLY RECOLLECTIONS FROM MY PAST. JACK BOUGHT THAT PIECE AND A SS HONOR DAGGER AT THE OLD MAXWELL STREET FLEA MARKET IN THE LATE 50'S. AS NONE OF US EVEN KNEW WHAT DAMASCUS WAS UNTIL THE R & L BOOK CAME OUT, HE WONDERED WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE BLADES! I THINK HE TOLD ME HE BOUGHT THE TWO FOR $10! HE SOLD THE SS HONOR DAGGER TO A COLLECTOR IN CALIFORNIA IN THE EARLY 60'S FOR $500! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NSKK PIECE.

Did Gahr have a RZM code? Could he be the great unknown NSKK chain maker? M3/23.

Hey, Bob Coleman, are you losing the plot? I simply asked a question if you could be certain that you had seen a Huhnlein Honour Dagger (with signature). According to your claim you state this indeed so.

I don't have an issue with what you, or other people, remember - I like to think that I respect your views and memories. What I have a problem with is these so-called vet acquisitions which have fake hallmarks on them. It just doesn't make sense - and that is my gripe with these pieces.

FJS

Mr. Stephens,

Enough is enough! Prove the marks are fake!!!!! Until then stop posting an opinion as a fact!

quote:

If someone would have told me years ago that some day I would be defending the NSKK High Leaders Dagger, I would have laughed out loud.

Seems to happen more and more often in the relm of TR items.

Yes, it's really sad. My years are numbered and probably, I wont be around 15 years from now to see what happens to what was a wonderful hobby. I feel very sorry for the collectors of today and tomorrow. We are lucky to have some of the younger dealers/collectors who have really good knowledge to carry on.

Gailen David

I can understand where Mr. Stephens might be getting a little frustrated with the issue of the hallmarks. But I think that it goes beyond the hallmarks.

Whomever cast the connectors did not know how to cast silver. And failed to take into account the lower density of the metal (compared to gold) and was unaware of molten silver’s absorption of large quantities of oxygen that had to go somewhere when the casting cooled. Which is why we see the pin holes, pock marks, voids and other evidence of a bad casting. And the resultant highly variable cast in portion of the markings. Were the silversmiths at Gahr that ignorant??

That would be making me very uncomfortable, and I would be looking at the chain links themselves for similar evidence.

I can also understand “thread fatigue” setting in. I’m getting that way myself. But we were not the ones who started this thread. And if somebody had called my judgment into question like Mr. Stephens was, I very likely would be defending it, not sitting on my hands. FP

Frederick:
Reagrding the below quote. which was forwared to me by a member.

quote:

Gailen - you have related to us the acquisition of one of these Huhnlein pieces, sent to you through the mail and with no interior packing, causing the chain to damage the leather work. Is this correct?

I stated in our last spat on another thread that I wouldn't comment on anything that you said again and I meant it.

To tell you the truth when I get to your imput on this subject I just skip it and go to the next. I would appreciate if you did the same when you come to one of my post.

Gailen David

Hello Bob,
Could this NSKK High Leaders from the 1959 Raidl & Leslie book be the one you could be talking about?









I believe this may be the same dagger that is now on "Snyder's Treasures". A very interesting Huhnlein NSKK/NPEA "Marine" Presentation.



To Bad this one seems to be missing the chain.

Wednesday, 29 August, 2007

Jason,

I am sorry, but I cannot prove that the hallmarks are real. Believe me, I have looked everywhere, and checked with the sources that really do know this subject. And all confirm that there is no record to document or demonstrate that this hallmarking pattern ever existed on an authentic item.

I am afraid that you must accept the inescapable conclusion that the hallmarking is wrong, and all else that it implies.

FJS

No we don't. Obviously -just because you can't find it does not make it fake. Fred-the lack of evidence is no evidence.

Dear Huston: You must realize by now that you are beating your head aganist a brick wall. There is no way that all the guys at the top of the food chain in this hobby can be wrong. We are talking about more then a 150 of years combined experience in the hobby. Johnson, Whitmann, Jason, you and many others,from hands on experience, know they are authentic. I know you really care about the historic damage, as do many others, done by this kind of thing and I think it's very honorable. But unless we find a NSKK leader buried with one of these daggers this will continue. And even if we found and unearthed such a grave you would hear that someone must have planted it there. It's just a waste of time.

Gailen David

I with no axe to grind, find it very hard to believe that those at the "head of the food chain" have not seen that the marks are not correct. Gahr had a special mark for the SS pieces, in silver and for no silver products. I have examples of these Having said this, it is not for the NSKK. But and the big but, is that these pieces should be marked with the cresent moon, crown and maker mark. The pieces shown are not. Not only that, these pieces are cast. This is not acceptable for proof marking for silver or gold. Please the "Head of the food chain" tell me why this should be.

Dear Christopher: I don't have the slightest idea.

Gailen David

.....and may I add, not disrespectily, that I could care even less.

Gailen David

quote:

Originally posted by wagner:
Hello Bob,
Could this NSKK High Leaders from the 1959 Raidl & Leslie book be the one you could be talking about?









I believe this may be the same dagger that is now on "Snyder's Treasures". A very interesting Huhnlein NSKK/NPEA "Marine" Presentation.



To Bad this one seems to be missing the chain.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE DUTCH HEILMANN COLLECTION REWORKED DAGGGERS THAT SOME ONE STUCK HIM WITH 50 YEARS AGO.

Yes, that's was a real piece of crap and everyone has known it was junk for many many years.

Gailen David

Dear Gailen, sorry that you do not care about the marks. These are the things that prove originality. May I respectfully point out that this is what the whole thing is about. In my field of decorations, I would show awards made in silver that never existed. Mr Souval was the master. E-Boat badges,2nd patter hollow struck, .800 in square box.

Another waste of a good NPEA Leader's Dagger where greed killed a $7000.00 piece.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Interesting to note is that the sworn eyewitness testimony of several credible witnesses is often enough to send one to the electric chair but it's not enough to authenticate a dagger for some of you guys.
You have heard the testimony ( and much more is available) that some of these daggers came out of the woodwork -some in poor obviously real condition-AND were bought for next to NOTHING. Now why would a faker do that? Junk an SA Honor Dagger and then sell it for nothing. Give me a break! Just because you have not seen something and it's not in a book does not mean much of anything. No evidence is no evidence. German craftmanship was not always that great and you all know there are many examples out there.
The technoglop presented here means nothing to me when it is opposed to the testimony of SO MANY credible collectors and dealers.
Someone said it-and you know who--"It is what it is"

Christopher: You mentioned the silver e-boat badge in silver. Did you look at the one I had on my site ( which you probably have since you mentioned it)? It is the first time I ever saw this type in the box. If you really believe that this was produced Soval I would like to know. I certainly do not want to sell or offer something that's no good. I do respect your knowledge in badges.

Gailen David

Thank you Bob, Gailen & Ron.
I guess someone back in the 1950's was taking original rare daggers and turning them into "super rare" ones and selling them to high end collectors even back then???

Oh, this rarity can now be bought for $40,000!

And I hear Snyder's getting numerous inquries.

Really an informative thread!

-wagner-

When Craig started the topic, from comments on the Wolf sword thread, I was fairly certain that it was going to get controversial. My suspicions were confirmed and unfortunately it appears that collateral damage is resulting from the discussion which is truly unfortunate. I was trying to be restrained in my comments - but here is another piece of ‘technoglop’ mixed in with two scenarios for consideration. I am not saying that NSKK Honor Daggers don’t exist. But I have to look at objective data, and what I see that is physically before me.

Scenario 1) A Gahr silversmith makes a mold, casts, and then finishes the piece. If the casting was defective for some reason it gets re-melted. With an acceptable finished piece - the silversmith then uses one of the many stamps that the company already owned to put the crescent moon and crown and the (one piece stamp) "800" content marks onto the finished item.

Scenario 2) Somebody who probably had not worked with silver before makes a mold (from an original period example?). Someone who does not have any specialized stamps, which are expensive and time consuming to make, and consequently has to add the "Gahr" markings to the mold itself. The silver is melted (BTW: silver absorbs roughly 20 times its volume in oxygen when molten). The molten silver is poured into the mold. And when the oxygen leaves at a very rapid rate it partially obliterates or causes other problems like pock marks, pin holes, etc. as it tries to escape. Ordinary individual number stamps are then used to touch up the “800” marks as needed.

I’ve always liked Occam's Razor: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”. Which put into everyday language says: “The simplest explanation is the best”. But if that doesn’t work for everyone that’s fine with me.

PS: While looking into silver alloys that were more tarnish resistant than the standard German 80% silver content alloy, versus Sterling which is 92.5%. I did come upon one piece of information that I hope is non controversial.

It seems that the origin of the crescent moon marking for silver is rooted in alchemy. And it was the alchemists who referred to silver as “Luna” that gave it the symbol we see today. FP

Fred: All I can say is I wish I hadn't sleep through English Class, it is obvious you diidn't.

Gailen David

Houston wrote;

quote:

German craftmanship was not always that great and you all know there are many examples out there.

Take a look at the reversed swastika sword , nice example of german craftmanship.

Houston,

I am aware of the maxim: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The point I was trying to make is that the German assay marks, within some small variations, are of a proscribed appearance and format. Not only that, they are always stamped into the metal.

The markings on the reverse of the cartouche are not just different to the proscribed pattern, but they are completely different in structure - so much so that they cannot even be considered as a "variation" - they are created in a completely different taxonomic style. Not only that, they seem to be cast into the design of the item.

Houston, you would no doubt pronounce that an accepted test for certain daggers is that the trademark has to be stamped and not etched. This is not true of all daggers, of course, but there are certain patterns (Hunting Association, Police Bayonets, HJ knives, etc) where the marking is anticipated to be stamped, rather than etched.

Why are you unable to extend your belief in these matters to the subject of silver markings, where stamping of the proof is the established and authorised way to mark an item?

FJS

Because I believe the people I know who got them out of the woodwork--for nothing. That's all I have to say.

quote:

Yes, that's was a real piece of crap

You can say that agian! There are some dealers I would NEVER buy any items from.

Yes, Houston,

And I know when I believe that hallmarks have all the attributes of fakery. And that's all I have to say!

FJS

I’ve possibly identified the ‘mystery’ metal for the alloy that was used to make the center scabbard mount. Antimony, which is poisonous, apparently was popular at least 50 years ago as something that could be added to silver to make it tarnish resistant. At the moment I don’t know just when it began to be used which obviously could be earlier. Looking at the coloration, and some of the data, I suspect that the copper content could have been "bumped up a notch" also. FP

Frogprinz: I assume this discovery of the chemical composition would tend to make you think its use would date the piece to the 1930s??
I have felt that some breakthrough would settle this question once and forall as I have NO DOUBT about the period of production.
I have always asked myself: Why would any reproduction "expert" utilize a dagger that would have cost him an arm and a leg to start with and then "Hokie It Up" with such a crude center band and hanger?? It just didn't make any sense to me to assume that it was something other than period. PERIOD.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

It seems that some people here just want to see that good items get trashed.
Why ?

I encourage the discussion of metal types and their use in edged weapons. This type of information is invaluable to us youngsters. Frogprince and others, please start a informative thread about the different metals and the use of these metals in hallmarks, links, etc. Not many look at edged weapons at this way. Just because the NSKK piece is real, doesn't mean we should not investigate every piece of this dagger. The only way we will learn is to ask questions and investigate. Some day all of those who could say “I have seen this come out of the woodwork” will be dead, and we need this type of information to carry on.

To add to what FP posted above here's some additional information on Antimony.
Pewter which has been used in household tableware has been around for centuries. The makeup is Tin 90% with the remaining 10% being divided between Copper and Antimony.
Lead shot which has also been in use for a couple of hundred years in composed of 90% Lead and up to 10% Antimony.

IMO: Neither of these metal compositions would be suitable for edged weapon parts.

However "German Silver" which is a combination of Copper,Nickel and may additionally contain Zinc,Antimony,Lead or Cadmium saw widespread use in the manufacture of edged weapons parts.
Jim

Ron, What I found was evidence of a tarnish resistant antimony bearing silver in print circa 1955. If we assume it took 5 years to get into print that would take it back to 1950. Before that it’s a question mark(?). I’m still looking, but it seems to be just one more piece of the puzzle at this point. I do find it a little strange that all sorts of unconventional variables seem to be centered about this particular type of dagger.

Rob, It is what it is. I don’t necessarily accept what people tell me just because they say so. If I did I would have to accept that SA scabbards were “anodized”. It may seem like a technicality to you - but I’ve uncovered more than one fake using my physical senses and experience/training. I am not saying that with the alloy here because I’m still gathering information.

Paloma Kid, From time to time I’ve engaged in discussions, ranging from casting techniques, phosphate finishes on dagger parts, plating, metal finishes in general, anodizing (the legitimate kind), zinc, nickel silver, etc. With items that guys are buying, or they have no doubts about, images are usually forthcoming. When they are not or are 10 feet away it gets a lot harder to make an accurate assessment. I sometimes get challenged with “Vaporware”, but only rarely has somebody pointed out exactly where they thought I was mistaken. Not that I am perfect. Because for example I made a significant error with SA grips actually made from oak instead of stained “oak”. So from time to time like most folks I have to realign my thinking. I'm certain that some of the threads have disappeared over time. But what I like to do is discuss one item at a time rather than everything at once.

Jim, Metal alloys can be a tricky business, and very often is not something that is easily discussed because of the different variables. For example there are casting alloys and alloys for other manufacturing techniques, and it gets more complicated from there. What the data suggests is a relatively low silver content. With more copper as well as antimony added to both increase the tarnish resistance and get the coloration back closer to white. Which was done commercially at least in the 1950’s. Regards to All, FP

FP,
As always thanks for a very interesting topic. Amazing in fact.
It would answer a lot of our questions if we could have a simple touchstone or a X ray Fluorescence test performed, could clear up a lot. Won't harm the items at all. But would the X ray Fuorescene method work with a chemically treated surface? What do you think?

FP - for your information (and anyone else who chooses to read my submissions, rather than skip past them); the use of antinomy has been used in type founding since the 1880s.

The reason being that antinomy has a rare property - from being in a heated molten state it is one of the few metals which actually expands on cooling, rather than the more common contraction of metal.

As such, as it cools the metal expands into the die to make a crisper, sharper image. It also had applications in the jewellery trade, where designs on brooches and badges, etc., could be cast with a greater clearness of detail.

Rob NL - the purpose of this thread is not to trash collectible items. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that the original concept behind this thread was to trash an individual who speaks his own mind.

It has since expanded into a great area of learning, for all who are interested to know the real facts about the construction of these daggers.

FJS

Mikee, Is there something like a point and shoot laser that tells you the exact chemical composition of the target metal? Not as far as I know, although there is a relatively noninvasive chemical test to check for silver content. It is used to detect for other things as well, but I don't think is designed to detect antimony. FP

Antinomy (Greek ????-, against, plus ?????, law) literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term used in logic and epistemology.

The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who used it to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it.

For Kant there are four antinomies connected with

1. the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time,
2. the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist),
3. the problem of freedom in relation to universal causality,
4. the existence of a necessary being

about each of which pure reason contradicts the empirical, as thesis and antithesis. This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. Kant claimed to solve these contradictions by saying, that in no case is the contradiction real, however really it has been intended by the opposing partisans, or must appear to the mind without critical enlightenment. It is wrong, therefore, to impute to Kant, as is often done, the view that human reason is, on ultimate subjects, at war with itself, in the sense of being impelled by equally strong arguments towards alternatives contradictory of each other. The difficulty arises from a confusion between the spheres of phenomena and noumena. In fact no rational cosmology is possible.

It can also be argued that antinomies do not highlight limitations in the power of logical reasoning. This is because the conclusion that there is a limitation is (supposedly) derived from the antinomy by logical reasoning; therefore any limitation in the validity of logical reasoning imposes a limitation on the conclusion that there is a limitation on logical reasoning. (This is an argument by self-reference.) In short, in terms of the validity of logical reasoning as a whole, antinomies are self-isolating: they are like scattered discontinuities within the field of logic, incapable of casting doubt on anything else but themselves.

This carefree position is incompatible with the principle of explosion. In mathematical logic, antinomies are patently not self-isolating, and are usually seen as disasters for the formal system in which they arise (as Russell's paradox in Frege's work)

Bella Luna!! Moon,, Luna,,Silver,,no wonder the Werewolf howled at it!!

Went away for a couple weeks,,glad to see this is still going strong at over 11 thousand hits!

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.

I don't understand the challenge for a member to prove something is fake! The burden of proof should be to the presenter of the piece to show/prove its authentic when questioned.
Why is the maker marking so worn to the point that some letters are almost obliterated/unrecognizable. It is because they are cast in,,and done poorly..
And it is correct that the piece should not have the marks cast in,,but stamped in.
The 'Halbmond und Krone' markings do not look like Gahrs. Nor does the crown resemble anything even close to other German crowns used by other makers.. . For whatever the reason the markings do not seem to be correct..

Yes Gaspare. You don't need to be in the Hobby a half century to see that the markings on this particular "connecting bridge" is/are contrary to all that one would accept to see on an "authentic period produced silver item".
And yes, it appears that the marks are a part of the cast piece.
And I agree it is up to the presenter to show/prove that the item is authentic when questioned. We are not talking about NSKK High Leader daggers but about the authenticity of this "Gahr" bridge mount. All those who think that a cast silver piece with "built in" Hallmark is correct....well I don't know what else to say except that Christoper Alisby has given his expert opinion on this item along with Mr. Stephens And I look forward to the updated edition of Reproduction? Recognition!

-wagner-

Thank you, Gaspare, for your Reichs Gesetzblatt image of positive and enlightening documentation.

Of course there will be other viewers to this thread who will insist that 3rd-hand stories of items "out of the woodwork from veterans" take precedence over documented fact - so I guess that you cannot "teach an old dog new tricks".

However, I am always willing to learn. Thank you once again for presenting this valued documentation to this thread. It is refreshing!

FJS

FOR THOSE ATTENDING THE MAX SHOW: Frederick J. Stephens will be on the MAX Seminar Program. So bring your questions and be prepared for an enlightening session at the MAX. Maybe we can bring this topic up for discussion in the Q & A portion of the program.
Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

While I would imagine that the Q & A session will be informative. Without some examples of the dagger to look at - such a discussion would not be nearly as beneficial as it could be when it gets down to illustrating some of the details. An invitation was extended to Rob NL to bring his blades to the MAX. Perhaps that could be extended to anyone who would like to bring a Hühnlein dagger to the show. The more specimens that are available the better the end result will be. Especially the senior collectors I think could be very helpful in tracking down some of the "out of the woodwork" examples mentioned. To see if they are different in any way for example from the one that Craig posted. FP

Frogprinz: I would say to you: "Be there or Be Square".

Well, I was supposed to take my flight back on saturday morning, however I may just extend my stay till saturday night and attend the seminar.

As there will be no AUCTION on Friday nite, we are planning to move the seminars to Friday nite.
Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

Ron, It should be easy to pick me out from the crowd. I’ll be the guy with the 10 X stereoscopic viewer on my head, and the bottle of Schwerter’s solution in my backpack Regards, FP

quote:

An invitation was extended to Rob NL to bring his blades to the MAX. Perhaps that could be extended to anyone who would like to bring a Hühnlein dagger to the show

No offense , but would you really think that somebody would bring their Huhnlein-dagger to let it get "authenticated " there ?
I have had plenty of personal messages that were supporting , invitations to other forums, BUT also comments that those people were never going to post their " non textbook" daggers or swords here , those etched blades I am talking about.Can you blame them ? I cant .
Even if the daggers that were discussed here would prove beyond a doubt that nothing is wrong with them , they will still have people doubting them .And this will make them harder to sell if the owner wishes to.
For me , if I ever post a dagger here again , it will be a totally textbook piece , and not the rare ones .
Believe me , I feel sorry that it is like this now , but I learned the hard way.
And trust me , I really had a hard time the last 4 weeks , after I got some high end "non textbook " daggers , not posting them here .
To bad , because I like to share my pasion with other Dagger Junkies.
Rob.

OK Rob,
If you have had - (your quotation):
----------------------------------------------
I have had plenty of personal messages that were supporting , invitations to other forums, BUT also comments that those people were never going to post their " non textbook" daggers or swords here , those etched blades I am talking about.Can you blame them ? I cant .
----------------------------------------------

OK Rob. Why don't you put those quotations up on site, and also the names of the people who made them? We - who challenge such things - have to take the opprobrium of people who claim that we are wrong, but yet they have never yet actually had to prove that they are right. We would like to see just exactly who those people are. If you can make this public comment - then why cannot you make this public commitment available for inspection?

The door swings both ways - Are us who so vociferously challenge such things completely in the wrong? Or do those who hide behind the veil of personal secrecy not have the courage to have their statements examined; and their opinions questioned?

Sorry, Rob, they may state that they are strong and reliable friends - but are they really up to it? How about publishing a few names and identities? Let us see if they are really made of the stuff they claimn to be.
Best regards

FJS

quote:

Originally posted by Rob NL:
I have had plenty of personal messages that were supporting , invitations to other forums,

Maybe you could start a poll to help you decide?

Frederick ,
I think that if they would want that other members saw their replies , they would have simply posted on the thread , rather then send me an personal message.
If they will come forward themselves , then I respect that , but I am not the one to point them out. And I am sure that they are nice people , as most of them here , but I have another image of " strong and reliable friends"

Landser wrote ;

quote:

Maybe you could start a poll to help you decide?

Could you tell me what you mean with that remark?

I have seen too many high calibre members leave, get banned & abstain in protest to take the inference of a threat to leave very seriously. I saw no relevance in your comment but if you feel that way your supporters could do so anonymously.

So your suggestion is that I should start a poll to see if other members here would like me to leave?

I have seen enough of the baiting going on in this thread.

If you care to discuss the pros and cons of daggers, then continue. If you want to get into a fight and flame, bait, and insult others, please do it elsewher.

Dave

Part of being a good friend is the ability to tell another friend when they are wrong. Although I feel that this thread has had some redeeming moments of enlightenment I feel that its original intent was to confront a respected authority who held an unfavourable hypothesis on a very impactual matter and intimidate him in a subtle way with the weight of the "collecting" community. A potentially volatile thread should never have been started without the committed participation of the originator.There is merit to both sides but at the end of the day the only one to convince is yourself. If you need to convince the buyer than we are all in trouble, cheers

Dave:
Wasn't "baiting" the intention of this thread in the first place? As was the intention of most threads by this dealer.
After following this one for the last few weeks, I've decided to not respond to anymore of his posts like this. There's never any resolution or end to them.

Dave,

If I have been out of order in any of this then I will apologise, and restrict my commentary to issues of interest and value to the collecting community.

Rob NL - I have re-read your input regarding people wanting you to show your choice items, and I realise that I misinterpreted what it was you were saying. So I apologise for my misleading answer.

Do not be put off from displaying selected pieces, just because I had a heated debate with some other distinguished members of this community. This site has some fantastic members, and is a brilliant tool for exchanging information. There are guys out there who are true specialists in their own disciplines, whether or not it be markings on Police Bayonets, or variations on Customs Daggers, etc. etc. They are all out there, and the bulk of them will be willing to guide you. So do not lose heart - this is still a place learn from people who know much more.

As for this thread about the NSKK High Leader, well I think I have stated as much as I can - and if my view is unpopular, then so be it. I cannot change my sincerely held view just to become a "nice guy".

So, Jason, and Houston, and Gailen, shall we shake hands - instead of shaking fists?

FJS

Frederick ,
I tought allready that I didnt put in in the right words , no need to apologise.

All I was saying is that if an item is discussed here , and its not textbook , and it gets some negative comments then people will remember those negative comments.
Even if the piece will be considered good in the end , its name will be "damaged" .
That will make it harder to sell , because you would have to justify the piece over and over.
Thats why people dont post their rare pieces .

I didnt say this to be "baiting" , or to start a fight .

I believe that the dealer who started this thread has accomplished his goal,it started out as a discussion on the dagger,then after a while he invited Mr.Stephens to comment,knowing that he would eventually do so,and also knowing that Mr.Stephens held opposing views to him,thus a baiting would begin and it would end up in a farce,well it has.It would seem to me that a leopard can not change his spots,or at least once you have made your bed you have to lie in it,certain people have their opinions on this matter and they will not be moved,educated and respected opinions,to which they are entitled.Let the baiting stop,he achieved his goal,sad but true.
Ivan.

As long as this dealer is allowed to start and continue with this type of "baiting" threads we can expect more of this here.

Grip, We can all see the glass as "half-full" or "half-empty". But in my opinion, this whole thread has "backfired" on the "thread starter". There are certainly a lot more questions regarding the "authenticity" of this dagger and it's components now, than if he just left it alone.
And when the "back" of the "Gahr" mounts were shown...well it was pretty much over when Christopher Ailsby stepped in..Clearly demonstrated his expertise for all to see.
I'm actually glad this thread was brought out since it has proven to be very much a learning and informative one.

-wagner-

i think that if anyone should apologise it should be the dealer who started this thread.he was blatently baiting Mr Stephens.i am just glad it back fired on him and his dagger is now in question.

quote:

Originally posted by wagner:


But in my opinion, this whole thread has "backfired" on the "thread starter". There are certainly a lot more questions regarding the "authenticity" of this dagger and it's components now.
-wagner-

Indeed, that's one dagger type ( if I could afford it of course ) that I would be very weary to own.
I'm not suggesting anything here but from reading this whole thread, one has to worried about where does the facts and truths ends and starts ?
I sincerely hope that we are not just putting all our faith on the "vet story" as our tangible proof for authenticating this dagger, because if it is so..............that's a bit thin for proof.

The "proof" is thin for many daggers but that does not make them fakes. The fact is that almost any dagger can be picked apart.
In the end you have to make up your own mind and choose who to believe. IMO the majority opinion among experienced collectors is usually correct.
Those in the minority have a right to their opinions also-You must choose but IMO you also have a right to know and should know which is which, Majority opinion or Minority opinion.
I'm not mad about this but I hate to see attempts to discredit what most consider true treasures of the hobby.

I have to disagree with Houston here, but that's OK this is a forum.
It is not so simple as the "Majority" vs. the "Minority". The reality is the "Majority" is a lot of times wrong because they are lead to believe something by a very small but powerful "Minority" that something is "fact" when indeed it is not. That very small minority "tells" the "Majority" that this is "So" publishes a book ( for example, and we do have many examples, don't we?) Then the "Majority" thinks it is "Fact" because the small but powerful and vocal "Minority", mostly with many years in the "business" has convinced them that it is so.
When in essense many times, sometimes years later, after objective "Minority" review, the "experts" turn out to have been mistaken.

I for one don't want to trash anyones "treasure". But I do, and will question the "Experts" when they can not provide me a satisfactory answer to a physical "anomoly" on the item they say is "Right".
Saying an item is "period" because "guys have got them for nothing out of the woodwork" Is not the "threshold" of proof that I require. And if that makes me in the "Minority" then all I can say is I'm proud to be there.

-wagner-

...I’d like to emphasize that I’m not questioning anyone’s word, opinion, expertise, theory or argument on this interesting topic and I hope that both sides continue this debate. Please, this isn’t a waste of time and it should matter and does.
Speaking for myself, these types of discussions inspire me to collect and present my collection of stuff to the forum. And I’m proud of the fact that we are very fortunate to have passionate and knowledgeable individuals willing to help us, on both sides of the issue. It can only get better.

...As I stated in my other post, it’s been my understanding for many years now that jewelry and other small wares weren’t required to be stamped with the crescent moon and crown. Some companies did and some didn’t and that’s a well known fact. Another fact, companies changed the way they marked their stuff. I can see that Gahr did it as well. My point is, just because we don’t see a crescent moon and crown on an item is no reason to condemn it or another type of marking system that Gahr might have used without researching it first. Thanks to Gaspare for weighing in on this subject as well.

… I do know that companies sent their stuff to the assayer office first before finishing up an item. From the pictures so it seems, we see Gahr bridge links with the hallmarks in the exact same position. Remember we don’t have these in hand, but this is crucial as has been noted by some of our more knowledgeable collectors. Like FP has noted, we need comparisons brought to the show. I also agree with Gaspare and he is correct, marks are stamped/punched, not cast. But if I may add, it’s a fact that each hallmark is stamped/punched “separately”. So it would be a red flag to see two of the same item with each individually punched hallmarks in the exact same position, impossible really.

….Of course don’t bother with this test if all turn out to be cast. But a simple touchstone or X ray Fluorescence test will confirm silver content. These tests will not harm the items. Test the original if one is present at the show for informational sake.

…“If” these marks are real, they have never been questioned or researched, so it seems until now. Cast from an original, maybe, maybe not. But if these bridge links are in fact cast from an original Gahr piece, than the hallmarks are real. And we can still try and research what they mean. What we do is look at known marks that we can then compare to these unknown marks which brings us to a close approximate in hope that this leads us to their true meaning. I think we are fortunate to have all the marks that we have here to research, because quite often you end up with only a silver content mark.

…Like others have noted, but with the idea of stating these two marks are wrong because of comparing them to known crown and moon marks only, in my opinion can not be justified by that comparison alone, unless it’s so close and obvious. Here it’s obvious that’s what their not and not even close. I hope that makes sense. I believe that “possibly” these two marks, the distinctive stylized (Bavarian?) crown, if you wish and the one/two curved lines within a circle, have absolutely nothing to do with “representing” known moon and crown marks. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong! It’s not uncommon to find manufactures that for various reasons stamped/punched their stuff with other marks. I’m not use to seeing this first hand, but it did in fact happen. Very important is the fact that not all, but some companies utilized their own dating system and stamped their wares accordingly. Some more complicated then others. Designers would also sometimes use their own mark. Something to think about, keep an open mind till we find out more at the show.

I think one would have to possess (excuse the spelling) "Cojones muy grande" to even think of buying one of these type daggers. Nothing kills value more than controversy.

Just my 2 cents

Mark

Frederick: I am certainly all for that. Let it end now and lets all be friends.

Gailen David

OK, Gailen - you are the first in - "under the wire" so to speak. I will still remain to be the most obnoxious ******* you have ever met.........but at least we will still be speaking.

See you at the MAX, and I will buy the first round.

Best regards

FJS

quote:

Originally posted by kingtiger:
"Cojones muy grande"
Just my 2 cents

Mark

Excuse my french but what does this mean ?
Mark, I always love your expression that I can't never understand.

I quite drinking but it will be good to see you.

Gailen David

Wow! Frederick and Gailen. You gentlemen show that we can agree to disagree. But in the end by you actions show that you are truly "Knights who bear no ill will".
God I Love this! What a thread!!
I'll get the second round!

-wagner-

WWWHHHOOOOWWW! GAILEN QUIT DRINKING??? Let me keep this in writing. Must be some mistake.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Now that things have settled down a little - is a list of possible questions or things to think about a reasonable suggestion?

I cannot imagine being in a worse position for anyone, especially as a speaker at the MAX, and getting blind sided with no time to reflect or prepare a suitable response to a question. That applies across the board - because questions sometimes occur to other participants after the opportunity has passed.

So it seems that the net effect of these discussions is actually very beneficial. Because it gives everyone a chance to prepare and be on even footing.

I don’t have the institutional knowledge that senior collectors posses, but do have some small measure of knowledge in other areas, and have some questions that I think might be considered appropriate. I have my own short list of questions. But think that in an open forum such as this one where everyone has their own specialized talents. That others could provide insight that might not occur to co-participants. That everyone attending could benefit from.

PS: Ron, Are you saying that the “new” Gailen and the “old” Gailen are not the same guy? FP

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by kingtiger:
"Cojones muy grande"
Just my 2 cents

Mark


Excuse my french but what does this mean ?
Mark, I always love your expression that I can't never understand.

Pat -

I'm not really sure if your question is sincere or in jest about Mark's comment ........... If you really don't comprehend his comment in Spanish, email me and I'll be happy to translate ...... I really feel you're jesting about it ......

Gordon

Well Gordon,

I honestly had to search on the web in order to get the meaning of the word "cojones".
I was very surprised to read who was the first US official to actually use those words in public.
What a lady, she really had "cojones".


.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones

FIRST ROUND?...What Caliber : )

My sole purpose in starting this thread was to bring the discussion of this dagger type out into an open forum where the opinions and ideas of informed individuals (including Fred) could be presented, read and judged by hobbyists. I was not naive - I know Fred Stephens is intelligent and can string together a good argument, and despite his continued assault on my personal character (he even called me a "loser") I maintain that this thread has served a purpose. There are those that turn their noses up at rigorous debate, and call it "distasteful" and such. However, most of the contributors to this thread - including Fred - believe otherwise. Everyone has put forth a valliant effort to make their case. My hope is that people will have the patience to read the entire thread and then form their own conclusions.

I will say this: The topic has certainly created a heightened awareness of the Hühnlein daggers. And the thread is a long one. What was first a discussion of fit and craftsmanship underwent an evolutionary process as the items under discussion began to be evaluated in more detail. Discussed at length have been the etching and form of the signature. The hallmarks and the cast wide belt connector piece, and to a lesser extent the center scabbard fitting with the brass (?) rivet.

Some additional characteristics that might be worth a look. Especially if the item is being looked at in person, or becomes a part of a Q & A discussion, is what looks like in the first set of images more of a brown leather scabbard covering with a layer of black on top. Black leather German holsters and leather accouterments generally don’t have this appearance as they age/wear unless they have been dyed to change the color (which was purposely done with some items). Also the flattened wire link. Not typical of a conventional forming die it’s not wear, although wear does show the flattened surface to a better advantage. (Image # 1)

Again what seems in the image to be more of a brown leather covering on the scabbard. And possibly some more flattened wire links. And what could be cast chain links themselves. Some of the appearance on the rear of others posted also might be indicative of casting. But the level of detail is not good enough to form a conclusion and it is just a matter of interest if a detailed examination is being made. (Image # 2)

PS: Silver as a metal is no harder to stamp than nickel silver. From a manufacturing standpoint with small basically flat metal objects casting is much more labor intensive than stamping and not as precise. The trade off is in the cost of the die sets. Besides Assmann, there were a large number of RZM approved companies that made astronomical quantities of reasonably high quality small stamped metal items. So I think that it’s a fair assumption that there was not a significant shortage (if any) of tool and die makers in the prewar period to create die sets. FP

Image # 2.

3 September, 2007

Craig,

I am aware of your two current submissions: one on the 2nd September, 2007, to the NSKK thread (where this reply appears); and the other as private e-mail to myself. As both submissions contain different statements, it is getting complex in dealing with the dichotomy of the correspondence, so I am going to combine the two - into one, and answer both of them concisely.

You state that I have called you a “loser” in public - well it is true! I have called you that, perhaps it is a trifle harsh - but I cannot deny that I stated it. Of course, if good standards had prevailed I would not have said it, so I suppose I should apologise. It is odd though, as my main adversary you do not seem to think that you have uttered comments for which you should give apology. Yet for several months now you have hounded me, tried to coerce me into debates in which I did not really wish to take part, referred to me obliquely as a coward, and generally made references to suggest that my knowledge is sub-standard and that only you know the final truths.

Well, I cannot be bothered to respond to such vague accusations. I have said everything that I want to say on this thread - and anybody who wants to check it and question it can do so.

I must confess that I have learned a tremendous amount from this site. It is a great arena for revelations. For example - I never realised that the OKH Honour Prize Sword bore a Wehrmacht Acceptance stamp. It was surprising at first, but then other commentary, and photographs, gave me reason to believe it. I am grateful to Bob Johns (Damast) and the Frogprinz for the images which gave me (in my opinion) fairly convincing evidence that this Acceptance Mark was correct in this circumstance. I do not mind receiving erudite correction - it is one way of learning new things. The other comment I would make is this; That if I make an observation that is proved to be wrong, then it is not post hoc, ergo propter hoc - to mean that if one assessment is wrong then all other assessments are wrong. Everybody makes some small mistakes, but it doesn’t mean that all their concepts have failed.

By the same rule of thumb, several years ago, when you visited me, I showed you all the information which suggested that the Huhnlein Honour Daggers were tampered with - including the information on the trademarks and the Gahr marking, but you rejected this totally out of hand. It was only when I revealed the same information on this site (Jason, kindly, provided some excellent photos), that other collectors and researchers (some of whom I do not know) confirmed the same information from their own independent sources. So I do thank them for their good spirit and kindness in making their own information available to the rest of us.

While you were away there were some harsh exchanges between myself and some other of your supporting members involved in this debate. We are not forcing each other to agree with the opposing point of view - only that we should consider it and form our own independent opinions.

I have offered the “hand of truce”, and I am pleased to say that one of your number - Gailen - has accepted it. I look forward to meeting him after around 20 years of spasmodic, postal communication. We will meet at the MAX for the first time.

I would be pleased if Houston, Jason, and yourself, saw fit to embrace the same idea.

Yours,

Frederick J. Stephens

I would like to Thank, Frederich Stephens ,Christopher Ailsby, and Fred Prinz for telling it like it is!

However, GRIP said what has needed to be said for sometime now....

"I believe that the dealer who started this thread has accomplished his goal,it started out as a discussion on the dagger,then after a while he invited Mr.Stephens to comment,knowing that he would eventually do so,and also knowing that Mr.Stephens held opposing views to him,thus a baiting would begin and it would end up in a farce,well it has.It would seem to me that a leopard can not change his spots,or at least once you have made your bed you have to lie in it,certain people have their opinions on this matter and they will not be moved,educated and respected opinions,to which they are entitled.Let the baiting stop,he achieved his goal,sad but true".

Sepp
GDC 0292 Gold

It would be nice if the remaining members of the "Top of the Food" chain" would have it in their hearts to embrace the Olive branch that Frederick has extended. After all - he was not the one who started it.

-wagner-

Wagner: With respect, I don't give a hoot who started it. Frankly, these debates predate you, so please refrain from making statements about which you are ignorant. In fairness to the other viewers and to Fred . . . I think it is good, as Wagner said, to exchange olive branches.

This topic was not about you, Fred, and it was never intended to be. It was about solving a particular problem in the hobby. Namely, that rumor (started by you) was circulating that the NSKK High Leader was a suspect piece. Given how rumors spread like wildfire in this field, and given that terms like "funeral daggers" and "billet clamps" seem impossible to stamp out, and given my belief in rigorous but friendly debate, definition of terms, I felt (and do feel) that this series of debates was both appropriate and needed. I was not in the minority in my belief.

For me, all of these threads we have clashed over during the past months have shown me that my opinions were in the majority, but not universal. Still, I freely admit that they may be entirely incorrect!

Anybody who believes in objective truth, and who makes an argument, must believe their conclusions to each be the right one. And when you are arguing "A or B" you can't have both - each conclusion is mutually exclusive. Fred: It's no secret than in these particular cases, I believe you to be entirely wrong in your conclusions, just as you believe me and the rest of us to be wrong in ours. However, I have repeatedly and explicitly made reference in every single thread to your intelligence, cleverness, and knowledge on many subjects. I have never once derided your general character, integrity, or mental condition! I was the one who was explicitly called a liar, a cheat, a and a loser. I do thank those who came to my defense. Fred: If you will point out to me statements I made which were similarly off-color, I will be glad to offer my apologies to you directly and publically.

Fred: I do accept your apology. And now for my part. Fred: you were quite willing to debate with me in private - extensively, so I believe it was fair for me to assume you had nothing to hide by debating in public. However, if your willingness to debate in private did not extend to a willingness to debate in public, than I misinterpreted your preferences, and for that, I apologize.

So, now we can all hopefully enjoy the MAX!

I don't think the offer of a truce was an apology. I have followed this thread with some interest and I think Fred was proposing a cessation of hostilities. I think I am correct in that assumption?

There are entirely too many "discoveries" for my personal collecting tastes of late. 'Cohones muy grande'..indeed!

Mark

Gee, Mark . . . "I suppose I should apologise" is what I read in the above post by Fred, and I'm trying to reply here. Throw me a bone?

I understand what you are trying to say Craig, but I think it was a different train of comment, not about the dagger itself.

I just personally think that this dagger is not one I would want to have to re-sell. That's really my only point. It (they) may or may not be good, but I like simpler more accepted items as you know from our extensive dealings.

Very good thread overall...excellent exchange of information.

Craig,

We are going over old ground, and I think that this repetition is fruitless.

I have offered a truce, and have done so publicly. It is up to my noble opposition to pick up on it.

Frederick J. Stephens

Again I must say I am not an expert in daggers, having said this and I must ask Craig to look at the touch marks, these tell us that there is a VERY SERRIOUS PROBLEM. Craig, let me have the piece and I will gladly have the stamps verrified. The hall marking WILL BE AUTHENTICATED BY THE APPROPRIATE BODIES. If the piece is correct, then all will be well, if not destruction will be the out come. As you are suree that these are original, then this way will be the proof that is needed. I will do this at my own expencess, so NO ONE CAN THINK THERE IS ANY ALLTERIAL MOTIVE. This test is what is avalable here in England and assosiated with Germany.

A problem could be seen as to the piece being given up. As surraty I will put up the German Order of the Dead. In the words of "UNCLE, A GOOD DOWN PAYMENT".

I hold no grudge here and I am not mad. It does upset me that many won't accept eyewitness testimony but that is their choice. Very unfortunate, IMO, but still, their choice. I have made my position clear, I know the eyewitnesses and I believe them.
I do wonder though--just WHO are these "appropriate bodies" who would decide if these marks are authentic?--and it seems to me that they are so "different" that at least a preliminary opinion could be obtained without sending the piece.

And if those "appropriate bodies" dont like the stampings the piece will be destroyed???
Or just the connectors?

Dear Housten, the relavent uthority, is The Goldsmiths Hall. I think this is enough said. This is the ultimated body for Silver and Gold. Your question, "a preliminary opinion could be obtained without sending the piece." This body has marked and seen over silver and Gold for the last 1000 year, give or take a year. They are the finnal abetrator. The piece will be tested viewed and marks evaluated. If right, provinance, if wrong , CORRECTLY DESTROYED.

By "appropriate bodies" he probably means an Assay office.
if the hallmarks are fake,and the chains are not 800 silver,they would be destroyed,nats

Sorry, not an assay office, this the Organisation that rules Silver and gold makers.It also has juristicktion over many other countries. Their records are the VERY BESR IN THE WORLD.

Well that's interesting but I would not be holding my breath waiting for the dagger to arrive for evaluation and possible destruction
So-back to square one. Opinion.

Craig

Not sure I see your point om "stamping out" terms used in descripions,You have used the Funeral Dagger term on your site

"Luftwaffe Dagger, Black Gripped Funeral Variant • #1041

Category • Archive • Daggers

I purchased this piece on my recent trip to Paris. Bought it at a very high-end antique market adjacent to the Louvre. Exterior grades PRISTINE MINT, with no flaws.

• Photos..

In fact, lacqueur is present on about 80% of the exterior, and has turned a slightly yellowish color. Grip is pristine, with no cracks or chips, and no traces of white paint anywhere. Blade shows ultra-minor age, with one tiny wave near the tip (it is almost imperceptible, but is present, and I don't wish to fix it - it does not detract its so small and fixable). In summary, a stunning example of this enigmatic piece. I say enigmatic, because it's not know if this piece had any specific function (thus the "Funeral" theory) or if Klaas merely got a deal on black trolon and painted the grips white to ship as standard Luftwaffe daggers. Whatever the function, these pieces are very rare, and commands the price, making it the most sought after "non etched" Luftwaffe dagger on the market."

Why did you use it if you didnt approve of the term.

WHY, all feel that the pieces are 100 per cent. This will prove the matter. Goldsmith Hall is the final abitrator in these maker marks. As stated before daggers are not my field. Silver and marks are. Thus, this is the ultimate test. One which one should embrace.

Goldsmiths Hall.The creme de la creme.
NOT an Assay Office Nats.
Cheers
Seiler (Yank in UK)

With respect Craig, I as most people and the police, usually do "give a hoot" who starts a "confrontation". Frederick was asking for a "truce" not an apology.

A very generous and excellent suggestion by Christopher!
You got to admit The Goldsmiths Hall is "THE" authority. Why not let them authenticate it?

And I will accept their findings.
What a great idea!!
In the true spirit of relic authentication. We should all embrace this rare opportunity...

Maybe just send the chain with scabbard?

-wagner-

I dont have the foggiest idea why everyone is so afraid to bring one of these pieces to the MAX,if its mine and in any question I would be HAPPY to have these services done,it would put it to rest for sure one way or the other,any logic that leads towrds the Contrary make me suspicious.

Despite efforts of the Toms of the world (who have some sort of long-ago seated grudge against me, and who would see me poked at at any and all opportunity), I do concur that a truce is in order. Fred apologied for some things, I apologized for some thing, and a truce seems to have been agreed upon by all parties.

I wonder . If the chain, scabbard and markings were found to be authentic by the "Mother of all experts" would the shift then be back to the signature? or the fit? or the leather? or the screws? or the motto gilding? Or? Peace Brothers See you all at the MAX!

No Grudge

You opened this particular can of worms now the Lid doesnt seem to fit anymore.Good luck.

TOM

IF, the chain, scabbard and markings prove to be authentic....I think that would be enough.
However, if they should not...well would we all not want to know? Or maybe some would not?
Christopher's generous offer to pay for the tests and leave a Very Rare Order as a deposit, shows a real willingness to settle the matter.
But we do need the same "willingness" from the side who says it's "good".
After all nobody has anything to hide here and we can all learn from this very important test from the real "experts" who have no interest in "trashing" anyones treasure and no financial interests in the item.
If it was my dagger and I was so convinced as some of you are here of it's 100% authenticity, I would WELCOME the opportunity to prove that the detractors are wrong. Especially if someone else was paying for the "Ultimate" test. That would be the Ultimate C.O.A.! And if for some reason it did turn out to be "bad", I don't think most of us would want it in our collection anyway.
We can ALL rise above this thing. Yes! Peace Brothers!
Is Jason going to bring the dagger to the MAX?

-wagner-

Any more bickering or insults or flames will earn the person some time off. Please read the code of conduct.

Dave

Although I have been honored to handle many of these, I have owned only one - the type with the nickel silver chain (although I would still gladly buy the solid silver chain if given the opportunity). I don't therefore have one to submit.

Wagner wrote ;

quote:

IF, the chain, scabbard and markings prove to be authentic....I think that would be enough.

I tought that the most important part on a dagger was the blade?

The nickel silver chain variant was stipulated to be one of the two proper configurations for the NSKK Hühnlein daggers. If a nickel silver example is being offered for a closer look this might be a good time to introduce photos of it to further the discussion. I’ve been having a problem identifying the alloy for the center mount. And been wondering if it is not more of a nickel silver alloy which would tie in a little better with nickel silver chains(?). FP

Houston, you stated:
----------------------------------
I wonder . If the chain, scabbard and markings were found to be authentic by the "Mother of all experts" would the shift then be back to the signature? or the fit? or the leather? or the screws? or the motto gilding? Or? Peace Brothers See you all at the MAX!
----------------------------------

You made a good point here, Houston, but the fact is that the signature was one of the FIRST points to attract my attention - and its' curious formation and construction added to my doubts that there was something wrong with it.

Naturally I recognise that even with each individual person, their rendition of their own signature is not always exactly the same. So the fact that the signature was "noticeably different" only made it "questionable" rather than being "self-evident proof" that it might be wrong. Of course, there is rather more to the "difference" in this signature than I am revealing to you right now - but the presentation of other, authentic, variation examples made it difficult to insist that my observation of "variance" with the signature pointed to something which I considered was questionable. So I have had to relax my presentation of this opinion until a better, more propitious, time.

The real break for me came when I had access to the Huhnlein example in the possession of Julian Milestone. It was then that I saw the cast examples of dubious hallmarks, and a "Gahr" marking that was all but illegible.

From that moment onwards, from my point of view, if the hallmarking was questionable, then the questionable features of the etched signature were worthy of closer scrutiny. Such scrutiny has presented an observed, and measurable impression that the signature has failings which cannot be ascribed to being simply "another variation". No - that etched "signature" has a defect which needs to be explained.

Returning back to other matters, particularly personality conflicts (where I called Craig a "loser", it was offensive and far below my usual standards), then I openly apologise and withdraw that comment.

If I have - deliberately or inadvertently - offended any one else; moderators/owners of this site, fellow collectors, observers, etc., with any crass comment or off-hand remark, then I do wish to make good and make amends, so that we can proceed into the future.

I am intending to be at the MAX this year, and have agreed to do a Q&A Session (Friday night, I believe, and I think that Ron W might be orchestrating this for me). So I hope to be meeting past friends and new friends, and in an atmosphere of cordiality.

So I hope that my return to your great country, and attendance at the MAX seminar, might be received with a plethora of interesting questions - and not a barrage of over-ripe tomatoes!

I will see you all there!

Frederick J. Stephens

Frederick wrote ;

quote:

So I hope that my return to your great country, and attendance at the MAX seminar, might be received with a plethora of interesting questions - and not a barrage of over-ripe tomatoes!

Frederick , what are your feelings about egs?

Hi Fred it will be my pleasure to extend a hearty "Canadian handshake" and thankyou to a respected author and gentleman whose books have saved me more money and have given me more insight than anyone else on this thread over the past 26 years of collecting. cheers Ryan Sellick

seleck8302 - thank you for your warm welcome.

Rob NL - what do I think about eggs? Well, I believe that it was Hermann Goring who said that: "You cannot make a good omelette, without breaking a few eggs." - so if it is OK by you, I will have my eggs scrambled!

See you at the party.

FJS

Ok , see you there!

As I said I might do above, I have removed some posts that were flat out insults or trolls or attempts to bait people. Sorry to have to do this.

Dave

Well I have bought most of my really good stuff from Craig and I have read Fred's book. I surely hope you guys shake this off and stay friends. It is healthy to have an occasionally passionate exchange of points of view. It is extremely enlightening to see the hard edge of both sides of the argument.

At the end of the day...so to speak...the daggers will all belong to some other collector and we will be DEAD.

I hope you all agree to disagree and have a beer.

Mark

Mark and I do go way back, and indeed - he's been a great customer. I've even saved him from a couple of really bad purchases. Mark: I hope to see you at MAX for a beer as well. Coincidentally, I had emailed Fred suggesting the very same thing - alcohol covers a multitude of sins! Out of curiosity, is it still permitted here to continue discussion on points that have not been covered? The reason is, I have found some interesting information on the meaning of Musterschutz in German Law (Registered Patent Design Protection), and would like to share it for comment by the membership.

Well, go on, Craig. Let us see what it is that you have to say.

FJS

While I was more focused on the manufacturing details, I also wondered about the “Musterschutz” issue myself a time or two. Any clarification is certainly welcome.

At a temporary impasse while trying to find period non tarnishing silver alloys - I looked at the center mount from a different perspective. Nickel silver itself is a form of imitation silver that does not contain silver. Looking at imitation silver I found alloys that used silver as part of their composition ranging from 2% to as high as 30% silver.

I also had hoped for another example to look at in trying to try and determine what alloys had been used to manufacture the scabbard components. Using the pictures already posted with that information I took a (digitally) closer look to see if I was missing something? Then it occurred to me......................

Why not just electroplate the non matching nickel silver (or whatever alloy was used) to achieve a uniform appearance?? Eickhorn was certainly no stranger to the electroplating of metals! And it would have been a very inexpensive way to solve the problem of any possible shortage of silver itself (if that was in fact a problem).

So aside from some of the other issues: What are the odds of problems with etching - inferior metal castings from a subcontractor - mixed alloy and types of parts - and the apparent lack of the ability to electroplate - all happening together at the same time?? From a first tier manufacturer like the Carl Eickhorn company in the late 1930’s with a single item like a high end “Honor” dagger?

PS: I don’t have a problem with the idea of a variant NSKK dagger existing. But at least one fake NSKK presentation dagger was made 50 years ago. And it’s even worse now, as they are making additional counterfeit versions of fakes from the 1960’s or 70’s. And there were a ton of fakes/altered items of all types that were made in the 1960’s and 1970’s. So I think that a certain amount of caution is prudent - especially if you were not the one who personally opened the trunk and removed a dagger which has been untouched in the attic since 1945. FP

Just when you thought it was safe too get back on the forum.Wittmann has a NSKK High Leader for sale in his special offering section.

Thank You Zorro!!!!

For the dagger for sale information that was posted. Along with some good pictures, and a description, which for me helps put some of the remaining questions to rest. And from someone who is very well known to the collecting world that has not been involved in the discussion.

The leather on the scabbard is acknowledged to have probably been replaced. Which seems to have a similar appearance with possibly a couple of the already posted daggers, but cannot be confirmed without a closer look.

The center mount is stated to have some silvering. But it can’t really be determined from the image if it is actually electroplating, or one of the “silvering” solutions in a bottle sold by craft stores (not unlike cold blue for guns). Or it could be an oxidization surface layer that was removed?

The chain links themselves are nickel silver and show no signs of ever having been electroplated silver. And the connector clip is nickel plated steel. (During the Third Reich both metals were electroplated by Solingen makers.)

And the etching which is a little different from all of the others posted - has traces of either gold or gold paint (?) in the etching which seems to be something new.

Had this been posted earlier it would I think have cut short a lot of the earlier discussion where specific information was lacking.

Serendipity: The finding of something interesting when you are not looking for it. FP

I don't quite understand all the discussion/fixation on the center scabbard fitting? In hopes of promoting further discussion I would like to bring up the following points:

- I believe there is documented paper evidence that the NSKK should go to black scabbards in 1936. It should then follow that the black leather covered scabbards would be 1936 or later.
- Could the center scabbard fitting have been burnished or black coated and some of this is what looks like tarnish now?
- Many acknowledged period ss and sa daggers have a mixture of ni-sil fittings and plated fittings on them around 1936. Why is the different metal type on the Hunlien center scabbard fitting a big deal?
- Common wisdom (but no evidence) is that the standard chained NSKK officer "factory made" dagger has 4 upper links and 5 lower links. The "field upgrade" chained NSKK officer has 3 upper links and 5 lower links. The "field upgrade" center scabbard fitting is also slightly different from the "factory" one. With the low quantity of the 3 upper linked Hunlien presentation daggers, couldn't they have been from a small job made environment? Thus variation.
- There is variation on Luft general degens. There is variaton on ss damast presentation degens. Are they the next subjects to be dragged into a harsh forum questioning.
- The few NSKK presention pieces I have been granted inspection of were for the most part, quality and construction of the period. Where would parts (especially blades) have come from to make 12 parts pieces?
- Lastly there is photo evidence showing NSKK presentation daggers being worn. Where are they of these are not them?

Thank you.

It’s a little more complicated than just a focus on the center mount - although that component does (IMO) have one significantly crucial aspect.

As originally described:
“For those of you not familiar with the dagger, it is a chained damascus piece that is very similar in construction to the SA Honor - with three notable differences:
1) NSKK Honor Daggers have a smooth-grain black leather colored scabbard.
2) NSKK Honor Daggers have two types of chains. Either an 800 silver chain that is unique to these pieces, or a standard-looking NSKK chain. Both chain configurations exhibit a very unique looking center scabbard fitting.
3) The reverse of the NSKK exhibits a stylized signature of Hunlein, the NSKK Korpsfuhrer.”

* Unless it has been dyed or recovered, leather covered scabbards themselves are not really an issue.

* Can the non ferrous alloys mentioned - silver or nickel silver (which is 2/3 copper) be artificially colored black? The answer is yes. (But that is not what happens with nickel silver under normal atmospheric conditions.)

* There are legitimate mixed component (metal types) period items - but the overwhelming majority seen now are postwar. Not every maker did the same thing at the same time. But I think for discussion purposes circa 1937 could be considered a crossover point for the non copper based alloys. Brass, nickel silver, malleable iron, zinc, and steel can all be electroplated in nickel, silver, or gold. As per period catalog information: nickel plating was the cheapest. Silver was cheaper than gold plating, and the most expensive was extra heavy gold plating.

* Much more important IMO than counting chain links would be to look at what the chains (and center mount) are made of. For conventional daggers nickel silver preceded nickel plated steel chain links. Silver, while it has industrial uses, was not a restricted war material like copper and could be early or late. And machinery which can stamp nickel silver can very easily stamp even the hardest silver alloy. Whereas casting is the least preferred method for silver because of problems with the metal rapidly absorbing excess oxygen - unless of course you don’t have access to a set of stamping dies and casting is your only available option.

* “Field upgrades” of conventional daggers is one thing. For a “Field upgrade” of a conventional early period Damascus SA dagger - that was not an Eickhorn factory upgraded dagger - there are a number of additional issues that have to be addressed: 1)The daggers have to be collected. 2) Go to what seems to be an amateur (or less skilled) shop to be etched individually without benefit of a master template. Cast chain links and wide connecters have to be procured from the “Gahr” company. The nickel silver chain links have to be obtained from somebody else - along with the nickel plated steel snap connector. And somebody had to manufacture the nickel silver (?) center mount. And the small contractor would have to been someone without any access to silver plating. Which in that time frame might have cost an “outrageous” 3 RM to have all the added components silver plated. Unless of course the daggers were in two grades ie: “Friends of Adolph Hühnlein” for the nickel silver/plated steel chain fittings. Or the “Really Good Friends” grade in silver.

* That the topic has at times been somewhat less than pleasant in nature goes without saying. But frauds have been perpetrated upon the collecting community at least from the 1950’s. And some information which has been accepted as fact (because it appeared in books on the subject) is now known to have no factual basis - and were “Best Guesses” from early writers and collectors. Now is the time to set the record straight - because in another 20 or 30 years it will be virtually impossible to do so - given the inevitable loss of institutional knowledge.

* There is ‘quality’ and the is “Quality”. These daggers were reported circa 1965? 40 years ago “beater” 98K bayonets began to have fake etching added to enhance value of otherwise unmarketable bayonets. Large numbers of daggers were made from parts and sold in quantity and all sorts of other things happened. While the dagger that started this thread unquestionably (IMO) seems to have been made from parts. That does not mean that otherwise whole lesser condition daggers could not also have been used like the bayonets were. Which seems to be the case where there is a probability of the blade etching being added to an already worn blade. And 40 years ago, before the meteoric rise in prices, all sorts of parts and whole daggers were available for (at the time) fairly reasonable prices.

* The question is not - do they exist? But what do they actually look like? Are they conglomerations of mismatched parts with added signatures? Which signature is the correct one? Do they even have signatures? What were the fittings of the photo ID’d dagger made of - or were they silver plated?

Time will tell. And maybe I’ll see one at the MAX which could help change my mind. But today is not that day. FP

So, what's new??????????????????????


Gailen Lee David

--and today is not the day we will be changing our minds either.

Is T M Johnson correct when he states in Vol III of collecting the Edged Weapons ot the III Reich on page 108 that the first time a photo of it was published was in 1978?.What gives with that if known examples were around since 1965?. Also on page 109 of the same book he shows Dr So and So wearing one.How can anything be conclusive with that picture,looks like a chained NSKK.This has probably been brought up somewhere in the volumes of THE RISE AND FALL OF THE NSKK HIGH LEADER DAGGER. by Wally Web.

OK I HATE to reopen this thread but Now since the Max is now History did anyone lay eyes on the piece or Pieces in question and did any Fisticuffs Breakout or Did everyone behave.

ALLES FUR NICHT !

Why won't anybody kick this lying dog?

KICK...KICK....KICK... : )

Tom it looks like you and I are the only people who were really interested it that "THING".

Yes Zorro...its turned into a 2 Man Topic : )

Not a two man topic, gents, just two guys tying to get a fight going again

Dave