UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SA & NSKK Dagger Forum NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over

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

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

Does anyone disagree with Fredrick on this statement ?

Not me, JR. I agree 100%.

Dave

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

Hello JR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that this answer now fulfills your requirements.

Sincerely yours,

Frederick J. Stephens

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digression Over: Back to the Hühnlein daggers.

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

Christopher,

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

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

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

Dave

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

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

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

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

The same inverted.

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

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

Christopher,

Exactly. Congratulations on your perspicacity!!!

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

But, hallmarks were cast at least once !

Dave

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting dialogue as regards hallmarks and their application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some additional images.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frederick J. Stephens

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

TRY IMAGE THIS SIZE

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

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