UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SA & NSKK Dagger Forum Glutton for Punishment

Thought I'd show yet another solid bit of evidence to support the authenticity of the NSKK High Leader. This photograph was taken many years ago of a piece that came out of the woodwork with a snout-nosed clip attached to the silver "cartouche" style chain assembly. This is the second documented case of an out-of-the-woodwork piece crudely modified for wear. The photo was just given to me by the former owner, who remembered the debate, and wanted to share this photo with the collecting community.

Here's a close-up of the clip. It's not possible to see the silver hallmarking, but notice the snout-clip that was soldered to the chain to make it more "wearable." I know the silver chain gives a very few persons cause for concern, because the stampings are not "correct" for their tastes, and we all know the reasons. But these few should also give an account to explain why two of these daggers surfaced out of the woodwork on two separate continents, modified for WEAR. Collectors don't weld clips to expensive daggers just for fun, especially when there is no controversy (and there wasn't any controversy when this piece was uncovered).

[quote]I know the silver chain gives a very few persons cause for concern, because the stampings are not "correct" for their tastes, {quote}

NOT "a very few" Craig. Several. They give "cause for concern" to anyone who is familiar with European hallmarking requirements. You can argue till hell freezes over that these daggers are period but NO ONE with even a rudimentary understanding of hallmarking is going to buy it.
"Taste" has nothing to do with it it's the legal requirements in Europe that dictate the form that these hallmarks take.
You want to start this "discussion" back up again that's fine with me and I sure others but fake daggers have been made up since wars end and there's no reason to believe that this "vintage" photo is anything but another early example.
Jim

Sorry Craig, but your latest photographic submission does not present one shred of evidence to establish the authenticity of these faked up Huhnlein pieces.

For a start, you make the claim that the illustrated piece “came out of the woodwork” many years ago – but you fail to tell us where and when, or from whom. You say that the photo came to you from the “former owner” – yet you do not tell us whom the person is? Why does he wish to be so mysterious and anonymous – and yet you state that he “wanted to share this photo with the collecting community”. What does he have to hide, that he chooses to have you front the photograph instead of him presenting it himself?

What happened to the dagger, where is it now? Is it still with the clip attached? You state that it was “crudely modified for wear” – why would anyone bother to do such a thing? After all, the “cartouche” is just an open frame to be attached to a clip – so if it is not broken, why fix it? The whole thing smacks of some faker playing around trying to create some “variation”, for there could be no point in a genuine original owner wanting to make such a crude modification.

Did the former owner correct the feature of the clip by removing it, and also have the scabbard re-leathered while he was at it, to make it more saleable? Just suppose, hypothetically, that a period photograph emerged showing such a modified piece in wear? That might have given a positive identification to the “original owner” of the piece. Such a trace would now be lost by “correcting the modification” – tampering with history for the sake of an easier profit. Of course, I think it is more likely that the subsequent owner recognised that not only was the modification crude – but also that it was applied in recent years.

You clearly state that this is the “second documented case of an out-of-the-woodwork piece crudely modified for wear”. Well then, where is the documentation to show that this really did come out of the woodwork? And also where is the documentation to prove the existence of the other claimed example – and where is it now?

Considering the alleged rarity of these “Huhnlein pieces”, two modified examples seems to be an extraordinary high incidence of modification – we do not see such a range of remedial work with the chained SA, or even the M1936 chained SS, and yet both of these patterns are notably more prolific than these supposed Huhnlein pieces.

I am obliged to point out, Craig, that your submission of this material presents absolutely no viable evidence whatsoever. Indeed, the photo and your commentary (with empty claims, and totally unsupported with verifiable fact) seems to throw up more doubts about these items than any possible “proof” that can be seen. The Huhnlein pieces are faked up, the evidence is irrefutable.

Frederick J. Stephens

The DLV sword is another example of period modification. From chain hanger to leather Luftwaffe type sword hanger.
Still another is the 1st model Luftschutz Officer dagger. Several were modified to 2nd models by changing the grip emblem and adding a center fitting and hanger ring.
Still another-The 33 NSKK modified to the 36 NSKK
Still another-The 33 SA damast honor dagger-modified by adding the center fitting and chain

So-Is period modification unusual? Is it a sign of a fake piece? Absurd

So are the 8 links just blank? flat slabs or what? Is there a front shot here. while upgrades were made I dont know if one single image here will turn the tide.Also the center ramp looks to be toned different than top and lower fittings. A trait that all the other images also had if i remember correctly. But as i have been told "you dont really know anything about these" anyway...should make for a high post count
Bret Van Sant

Quick story,,,At the SOS I was admiring a display of some very nice SS insignia. 2 guys came up and were commenting about that same dagger in the case with the SS insig.
One guy was explaining to the other that its bogus and why etc , blah blah.
When he was done I told him I think the other side the link has a Gahr marking on it that most don't like. He started laughing and said to his buddy something like , see all this wrong with just this one side, God knows what else is wrong on the other besides that Gahr mark. - they walked away..

Houston, I believe a period modification is fine,,but the silver guys have just as much experience as you dagger guys maybe more as silver items have been around way before WW2. Everything they do is from source material, direct comparisons, personal experience etc.,,and none that are familiar with real Gahr marks will ever say that Gahr mark is correct....

Great title for the topic though!

Thanks for the photos, but in my humble opinion this is really just a few low quality images of what I believe was mentioned years ago by Jason Burmeister.

Posted 02 August 2007: “ ....... A unique feature of this pattern is the two styles of chains ....... 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.”

NSKK High Leader Thread

With still another example of the (mixed) amateurish flattened wire connector links. And no readily discernible markings which was one of the characteristics of some of the fake equally amateurish parts/workmanship used in making the “Hühnlein” dagger chain sets, along with the machine engraved blade signatures. FP

Just new information and photos that are not meant to prove anything, just add information to the body of knowledge. This is the second example that has surfaced, and the first example ever pictured, that was modified for wear. The photo was given to me by yet another hobbyist who thought that it was worth sharing. I tend to agree. And Gaspare: the dagger about which you speak was the type with the nickel chain, not the silver one. I saw it too, and offered to buy it, but the price was too expensive to take into inventory.

The information is gratefully accepted in the spirit of sharing data.

Upon looking at it more closely I saw something that I was going to try and discuss with words - but decided that modifying the image might make it clearer.

Below is the image that was posted of the modified wide connector. As can be seen I hope by most it was more than just a soldering job. The snap connector of a dissimilar metal (as was previously mentioned) appears to have been “tacked” in two locations on the rear where the red arrows are positioned. And the top center portion of the wide style connector seems to have been cut away to accommodate the snap connector (green arrow).

Without an image of the front what it looks like is left to the imagination. But what seems clear is that the dagger can never be used again as anything other than one that has to have a “D” ring to attach to - the modification is permanent. FP

As compared to some of the period photos posted earlier. With to the left, the Offermann photo showing a snap ring type connector on a leather strap (with its different chain style/center mount dagger fittings). And in the center, the photo Frederick J. Stephens posted of Hühnlein himself which shows a dual type of setup on his belt for attaching daggers. Which is also seen in the inset from another period photo.

But more to the point, showing a belt loop assembly with two different attachment methods which could effortlessly accommodate either style. Which IMO is not only cheaper and easier to do. But involves no permanent modifications to the daggers. FP

Craig writes, 25 January, 2010:
Thought I'd show yet another bit of solid evidence to support the authenticity of the NSKK High Leader.

Craig writes, 26 January, 2010:
Just new information and photos that are not meant to prove anything, just add information to the body of knowledge.

Changing your mind about these, Craig?

As for Huston's comment about original, period modifications. Yes, we are aware of them, and also aware of the relatively professional standard to which they are completed. Not so with these NSKK pieces; the workmanship is poor and amateur, faked hall markings, absence of NSKK protected design marking, crude centre mount, etc., etc. So many red flags that even a glass eye can see where it is wrong.

FJS

My respect and gratitude for the posters here! May I humbly suggest one more time for someone to please have the “ GAHR silver wide connector” tested for silver content? I just don’t understand why this simple procedure hasn’t been accomplished and the results posted? I would gladly have it tested if I could get my hands on it. Although I enjoy this portion of the debate, IMO we will not move forward and provide the collective community proof either way until we first answer this basic question.

Once again my point is, if it’s not made of silver we can finally but this portion of the debate to rest. If made of silver then due to the highly charged debate over the originality of the marks and the piece itself, and hopefully to help move this debate progressively forward may I also suggest this; It is possible to determine a probable age for the “Gahr silver wide connector” because silver has impurities; it’s like a finger print locked in time. Utilizing a scientific procedure that is used to determine the age and authenticity of antique silver might be the answer. I know it’s not antique yet but still worth the effort and believe this procedure should strongly be considered. It’s called, laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry or LA-ICP-MS. There are other methods but this one is virtually non-destructive to the specimen being tested and believe it will provide satisfactory proof for all. Otherwise, this portion of the debate will go on and on.

Compared to the asking prices of these daggers, these procedures I mention are actually very cheap in comparison.

So why is this chain modified for wear - the 2nd such chain to be discovered? As for metallurgical testing, it might be a neat idea, one I hadn't thought of before. I know what kind of silver Gahr used in the production of Totenkopf Rings, because I have performed similiar tests through David May (the gentleman who is partnered with Kelly Hicks on the testing of helmet decals).



The only problem is that the silver that Gahr used for the Totenkopf ring was 90% silver, and so much of what they made was 800 silver (including, allegedly, the Offermann Style chain). Still, the "trace metals" that would occur in the silver chain might be revealing, as it's possible that Gahr "cut down" the same silver with more copper, or maybe nickel, but the trace-elements (the 1% section that I have identified as "other") might remain consistent. I don't own one with the 800 silver chain, but it would not be hard to get my hands on one.

I think a good comparison to use in the study would be the 800 silver chains found on the chained SS Honor. I know where the one that I bought out of the woodwork is located, and the owner might allow me to borrow it. Or better yet, I think he has both the SS Honor and the NSKK with silver chain, and an Honor Sword, so maybe David could travel to the collection to perform the testing on all three pieces.

Craig,

That's the spirit. Let’s get this piece nailed down once and for all and learn some interesting facts along the way. The companies that perform the LA-ICP-MS test to determine the age and authenticity of antique silver have known signatures of refined silver in their data banks from different eras in time to compare with. But you have a good idea to also take along a known authentic object of silver like an honor ring from GAHR to have it tested and compared to the questionable GAHR wide connector. 800 or 900, it doesn't matter the amount of silver. It's the finger print signature of silver refinement of the period that will determine its age.

The silver content of your honor ring is within the stated laws of the time which state that the margin of error may not exceed ten-thousand parts.

Was the one percent solder and what alloy was used?

One more thing. Interesting is the fact that GAHR it seems followed the law regarding silver content on these honor rings but didn’t take responsibility for it. But then again GAHR was well within there right not to because it was their decision to make. The reasons are very obvious.

Craig states: The only problem is that the silver that Gahr used for the Totenkopf ring was 90% silver, and so much of what they made was 800 silver (including, allegedly, the Offermann Style chain).

Well, Craig, what evidence do you have to show that the “Offermann” style chain was actually made of silver, and furthermore that it was made by Gahr? Surely you must have some evidence to support this claim - which frankly is outlandish, even by your bizarre standards?

You have not yet demonstrated, by any measurable system of accountability known to man, that any of these phoney Huhnlein pieces have authentic chains in any form whatsoever. Proving the chains are made of silver proves nothing – except that they are made of silver. All those fake Totenkopf rings that you push are no doubt made of silver – but that doesn’t make them real.

Fred...Even though I am not a fan of CG...WHAT the Hell do you want from him?? He likes the idea of "Metallurgical Testing" and maybe he might have this test done.

Have you read what Mikee wrote:
"The companies that perform the LA-ICP-MS test to determine the age and authenticity of antique silver have known signatures of refined silver in their data banks from different eras in time to compare with"

Fred you wrote:
"You have not yet demonstrated, by any measurable system of accountability known to man, that any of these phoney Huhnlein pieces have authentic chains in any form whatsoever. Proving the chains are made of silver proves nothing – except that they are made of silver"

At least after these tests are done,they should show if period silver was used on these chains,or it was silver from the 60's.

Sepp

GDC 0292

I would rather keep the "1%" portion of the TK ring alloy to myself, but there were several interesting metals in the "1%" that were fairly consistent from ring to ring. The reason is that it is the "secret formula" so to speak, that will allow us to provide a scientific authenticity document for rings in the future (we're already working on this project). It proved the infamous "Frank" ring to be authentic from a metallurgical perspective, and I am a big fan of the process.

I would say the best comparison would be between the Offermann style chain and the SS Honor Chain and Birthday degen hilt. All 3 are marked "800" and if the silver was a match, it would scientifically connect the dots. We do have strong photographic and documentary evidence to support these chains as being period . . . enough for most to conclude that the strange markings have some other explanation besides "fakery." but scientific study of the chain would certainly bridge the "uncertainty gap" to within a fraction of a percent, for those still on the fence.

Also, can someone please email me contact information for these scientific bodies that have documented silver content markers that identify the vintage of silver used in an object? It would be very helpful, thanks. I certainly don't think this is a "silver bullet" (haha) that ends the debate once and for all, but it does make it that much harder for the small minority of remaining skeptics to stand their ground, if the silver is 1930s/40s silver, or if it matches the hilts and chains on the other Gahr products.

http://www.silvercollection.it...ilverhallmark22.html
The above would probably be a good start for someone truly interested in German hallmarking.
Jim
Quote from Sepp:
Fred...Even though I am not a fan of CG...WHAT the Hell do you want from him?? He likes the idea of "Metallurgical Testing" and maybe he might have this test done.

For the record: Frederick Stephens has forgotten more about 3rd Reich daggers than the bulk of the posters here have ever known. He has saved innumerable collectors from making costly mistakes over the years including me.
Just what are you proposing be used as a benchmark here for "metallugurical testing"? Other very questionable Huhnlein hangers?
What Craig Gottlieb needs to do in my humble opinion is get an education in hallmarking requirements and all he needs to do to accomplish this is spend some time with a seasoned antique dealer in silver.
Jim

I like the idea of testing although I think that it has to be analyzed in the context of the time, versus current standards. A metallurgical (spectroscopic) examination of some TR daggers a few years ago, elsewhere commissioned by a serious collector, yielded interesting results which I personally found quite surprising.

Very often a byproduct of mining other metals, Germany was not noted as being a major producer of silver, and was in fact importing it from other nations (1936). My point being that it’s not just time. Location of the ore source is important along with some other variables.

I’m also more than a little perplexed by what is considered an “Offermann” style chain, and how do we know what it is made from using the black and white photo? Clearly the chain set shown being worn by Offermann in the photo is different from the many silver chains sets now in circulation on the daggers (those with the fake “Gahr” and other markings). As I think can be easily seen in the image below with the Offermann photo on the left. FP

Proved? Tests on the type of metals used in the HR were done 10 years ago. For those who want to know what's in there the info and testing is out there.
By no means because a ring has the same metal composition means its authentic. Next..

Keep going about this daggers link and you can make any bogus dagger authentic. What difference does it make if the link is silver and its content.
O.k., yes if its not silver then case over. But just because it is silver doesn't mean its good. By the way Gahr used and worked with different alloys of silver, 800, 835, 900 and probably more.

How about this little factoid?:::


Regardless of what the Item is MADE From (though important) Its Not as Important as They NEVER CAST HALLMARKS IN METAL WHEN CAST.....Its Just NEVER done that way,The Mark Was STAMPED

badoom tescchhh!

I was wondering about the testing of the silver to see if it was from the 3rd Reich era. Could a person just take a silver item that was known to be made from pre-1940, melt it down and use that to form the chain in question? Or would that process alter the metal content?

I believe Fred Stephens and G have correctly reiterated what I’ve been asking for… Again, I agree and as I stated above, if the piece is silver that certainly doesn’t mean it’s a period piece, which is the very reason why I suggested these tests and if possible hopefully the silver aging test will put an end to this portion of the debate. Anyway, it’s well worth a try. I think FP is better suited to explain this LA-ICP-MS test, he’s absolutely brilliant on the subject of metallurgy and he can correct me if I’m wrong but from what I know in short version, aging silver is made possible due to the “impurities” in the “silver” caused by refining methods used at particular periods in time. I believe this method is used for a number of scientific applications with incredible results so I’m pretty sure this method could tell a lot more, maybe even place of origin like FP suggested.

I’m only trying to convey this; It’s just one way to help proof or disprove a piece, which certainly can’t hurt our collecting community no matter what our thought process is concerning these marks and the piece in general. For the benefit of our fellow collectors, proof is required as well as it should be and to test the “precious metal content” is absolutely relevant and important because, according to German law when the decision is made by the maker to mark an item .800 silver and then applies their registered trade mark that must conform to the law of 1874, which is the very reason for marking in the first place, tells me that the piece better have a precious metal content of .800 silver and “nothing less”, and if proven less, then doubt on originality really comes into question. It could be plated for all we know. And let me add, just because an item is marked by a particular manufacturer doesn’t necessarily mean they actually made it or marked it, but they are still responsible for its precious metal content. So in short, let the tests begin! This is one great forum we have.

Craig, I would start by contacting the Assay office in London.
Email: info@assyofficelondon.co.uk. Tel: (020) 7606- 8971. They do provide services for aging silver, and have done this sort of thing for a long while so they know what they’re doing, just not sure if they use this particular method and they might know of a place in the states.

Great question Lar....I bet Fred Prinz or Gaspare can answer that.

Sepp

PS: jim m: For the record; There is not a doubt in my mind that Fred Stephens has forgotten more about third Reich daggers, that most know...
Just wish that he would just say what if anything would change his mind...or maybe NOTHING will because of the markings on the chain?? I am for the record a Fred Stephens
supporter.

quote:

Originally posted by Sepp:
Great question Lar....I bet Fred Prinz or Gaspare can answer that.

Sepp

PS: jim m: For the record; There is not a doubt in my mind that Fred Stephens has forgotten more about third Reich daggers, that most know...
Just wish that he would just say what if anything would change his mind...or maybe NOTHING will because of the markings on the chain?? I am for the record a Fred Stephens
supporter.

Sepp:
And just for the record as well. The problem here is when anyone presents solid information such as hallmarking wasn't done that way the "true believers" in these daggers just ignore it and go off on another tack. If you go back to the start of this discussion I was one of the ones that didn't have an opinion either way at the start. However there hasn't been one shred of solid evidence presented by the Huhnlein dagger advocates to support their position that these are legit. 3rd Reich period daggers.
Jim

I am a supporter of the truth, and dismissing scientific inquiry from this project, in my view, is intellectually dishonest. The passionate disbelivers have one thing to go on - strange markings, from a company known for strange markings.

Another. This is very "off topic" (the topic being a chain discovered, modified for WEAR, and also silver content "fingerprinting), but these images are relevant, and should be studied by those for whom the markings on the back of the Offermann-type chain, are problematic.

Not to mention, the fact that Gahr never even MARKED their Totenkopf rings, which, according to the "assay purists," is a crime. All of this goes to show that in order to be a disbeliever, you have to flush a TON of hard evidence down the toilet and cling to one fact: strange markings, from a company that seemed not to care very much how their products were marked. But anyway, back to the topic at hand . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb:
Not to mention, the fact that Gahr never even MARKED their Totenkopf rings, which, according to the "assay purists," is a crime. All of this goes to show that in order to be a disbeliever, you have to flush a TON of hard evidence down the toilet and cling to one fact: strange markings, from a company that seemed not to care very much how their products were marked. But anyway, back to the topic at hand . . .

One minor little detail being overlooked here. TK rings were NOT made to be sold in the retail arena to the public. Therefore the was NO legal requirement to mark them in any way.
Jim

Not everything is as neat and consistent as one might wish it to be, to fit one's views. Knight's Crosses and Oakleaves were also not meant for private sale, but WERE marked for silver content. The markings presented in my earlier posts proves that Gahr was definitely NOT a stickler for "neat and tidy" markings, and didn't always mark their silver items with silver content markings. That has been clearly demonstrated over the years, so lets get past it and continue our discussion of the subject matter . . . the revelation through the photo I posted early on, showing a dagger that was modified for wear.

quote:

"I am a supporter of the truth, and dismissing scientific inquiry from this project, in my view, is intellectually dishonest. The passionate disbelivers have one thing to go on - strange markings, from a company known for strange markings." Craig Gottlieb, Founder, German Daggers Dot Com

In the spirit of “scientific inquiry”. Would this be a good time to ask for some better images of the rotary engraved signatures from any (and/or all) of the “Hühnlein” daggers??

I had some notes from the “Frank" TK ring discussion Furball on methods for analyzing metal content, and will see if I can locate them. With this latest discussion (like last time IMO) being a multiple type approach to once again try and somehow legitimize the so-called “Hühnlein” daggers.

One approach being the as yet untested silver content of the chains. The other touting a supposed period attempt to make the daggers more “wearable” - whatever that means. As if the recipients being honored could not afford to purchase a simple leather strap attachment (of either type) for their belts like Offermann and Hühnlein used?? Versus some guy (or guys) after the war who had the daggers. And could not find a proper belt attachment, so he (or they) made up one in their garage.

Lastly, just what is an “Offermann-type chain”??? Certainly not anything we have seen to date other than in the one photograph.

Posted below: Forgetting alloys for the moment. This cast excuse for workmanship that is littered with pockmarks. With the never before seen on anything else markings, and the over-stamped "800" marks, is supposed to be from the Gahr firm in Munich? FP

If meant to me. It’s not my intent to legitimize or take sides and sorry if I haven’t communicated this better. My respect to all for a great discussion and your point of view.

Just to clarify and answer some statements made;

It wasn’t a crime. GAHR didn’t mark honor rings simply because of “German law” and were well within there right. Actually IMO it just makes better sense not to. Esthetics probably came into play. But someone decided “not to”, either it was GAHR or Himmler or a collaboration.

Also, once again to set the facts straight, there was no assay office in Germany during the Third Reich era. European law and UK law isn’t ”German law”. In the UK the laws are overly restrictive and governed IMO, like many of the rights of its citizens taken away. In Germany there laws concerning this issue are in fact unrestrictive in this way and unique IMO and quite generous when you consider laws from other European countries. If you’ve ever read Bismarck’s memoir’s,this helps one understand the dynamics of the time and why these laws were in acted and changed. Germany set a course of becoming an industrialized nation much like the US and began a major overhaul of her laws to bring this about and eased restrictions and simplified laws to facilitate trade, trade, trade..

Mikee,

Actually, the silver mounted SS “Birthday Swords” do in fact have stamped hallmarks of the type described by the “silver guys”. They can correct me on this if necessary, but my understanding is that the hallmark numbers were supposed to be a guarantee of a certain minimum content of silver (ie: purity/fineness). Where .800 would equal a minimum of 80% silver, .900 would equal 90% (etc.). With not as much control of the secondary metals used as alloys.

Best Regards, FP

I also did study them a little more closely as was suggested in the earlier posting with the comment: ........ "and should be studied by those for whom the markings on the back of the Offermann-type chain, are problematic.” Which was preceded with this one: “........ one thing to go on - strange markings, from a company known for strange markings.”

Nothing really strange about it IMO - it looks to me like a double stamping from a hand stamp. Not common but it’s also not really that rare, with for example, periodically it's seen with Waffenamts that were hand stamped.

As compared with this one from the Weitze website being used (presumably ?) as an impeccable reference: “Another. This is very "off topic" (the topic being a chain discovered, modified for WEAR, and also silver content "fingerprinting), but these images are relevant, and should be studied by those for whom the markings on the back of the Offermann-type chain, are problematic.”

IMO this supposed factory stamped marking itself is highly problematic. I don’t know it’s physical dimensions, but it looks to me in the image, like somebody took a small pin punch. And created the characters one at a time with many, many, little taps of a hammer.

In black and white (grayscale). Is this also supposed to be another example of “Gahr” workmanship, and the type of tooling they normally used? Everyone can judge for themselves what it looks like. FP

3rd Reich era kind of suspended the content marking law or really just had a blind eye. You could either mark or not your pieces.
Also, many pieces that were marked 835 [900,800 etc.] in fact were a lower content. I've had this checked many times...

Lar/Sepp,,,Yes, of course. Very simply, melt down some old scrap all marked the same. In the melt down process you will get some 'scag' but after the 'pour' your silver will end up having a slightly higher content.

Craig, I see nothing really unorthodox on the markings you display. Plenty of distortion[bad photos].. However, strange markings or not certain things weren't played with. The Crown isn't the German type. WW 1 it was mandatory law to stamp, I showed the actual law in the other topic [or this one?].
So, anyone still stamping the products in WW2 with the Crown/Half Moon was using their old stamp from a few years before,,,and it sure wasn't that stamp!