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

FP,
Yes you’re correct. . I believe the solder was also taken into account though. I remember reading something very important concerning secondary metals used as alloys or was it reinforcement devices consisting of other metals. Dang! Let me stop while I’m ahead!

Not surprising to me that G has found some articles that came up short of what the actual content was stated as. I’m sure it happened and on occasion as we know still happens. There’s always someone trying to scam a buck or in this case a reichmark. They might have tried to scam the little guy, but I don’t believe any would’ve had the gonads to scam Himmler or any of the other big dogs, do you think. In any case, the law is clear as to who to blame when this occurs.

The law also states a margin of error “may” not exceed ten thousand-parts. FP,G, maybe this answers your question in some way. Notice the word “may”, and again there was no official assay office, no government agency, nix, nada, nothing, in other words, unregulated by any official means to check content or marks, so no one to turn a blind eye to in either direction and no one to suspended the content marking laws either, because the laws were in place to follow, but I will say in the same breath in some instances it’s the lack of a law. lol. But I understand what G is stating and agree.

Yikes, I’m in trouble! What I do differ with is mandatory marking. . Prior to 1886 “all” gold and silver articles had to have punzierungspflichtig (marks required by law) and were under the control of the masters of the cities guilds. The next set of laws took effect as of 01 January 1888 and no mandatory marking by these laws. However, it does explain the requirements if one were to do so, the form of the symbols to be used, with what to use them with and how they are arranged.

Again this isn’t strict UK law where every little detail is covered and restricted and controlled by the government. These early German laws concerning gold and silver didn’t have a law for every little thing, no need to, it was all about getting everyone on one sheet of music to help ease the process of selling and trading and left a lot of breathing room for businesses to operate freely. It’s the intent of this law that makes it what it is. It was all about trade.

As I hinted above, let me put it to you all this way and I truly believe this is the way it was viewed a lot of the times by these businesses such as Gahr. We’re not talking murder here okay so let’s keep it in context. For example, would a person’s actions be considered lawful or unlawful in the absence of a law? Well, it depends on ones few or on what side of the fence you’re on right. I believe most businesses thought because there wasn’t a law that stated to the contrary, that their actions were lawful. Look, it was all left up to the maker to decide, either to mark or not, but once he did then he was to apply his “registered trade mark”, which is the very reason for marking in the first place, but not always did he have to apply a content mark. It depends and then again it was up to him anyway. See how generous these laws were.

I’m just curious; I wonder how Gahr (if original of course) viewed these Gahr connectors and chains as, jewelry, ornament or military equipment, or pieces of Scheiße. Hmmm! Only kidding, shouldn't really matter. .

"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 m,

Your statement above is interesting and has intrigued me since the very first time you mentioned it some time back. May I kindly ask the source from where this came? Is it from word of mouth or actual source material? Thank you.

Ths is just basic common sense to me and others have voiced the same sentiments. How can or why should anyone regulate the content or purity of something that's not for sale? Where's the opportunity to defraud anyone and that's what regulation is generally all about.
I haven't see anything published either that relaxes the requirement to mark the quality of silver during the 3rd Reich but I've seen enough examples to accept this as being the probable case.
However this is really NOT the point here. The point is no manufacturer would put spurious cast hallmarking on objects and that's where the real issue comes in with the "Huhnlein" hangers.
Jim .

The SS seemed to have its own set of rules when it came to how things were done, so I don’t know if trying to use the the TK rings is a really good example. SS swords made at Dachau did not have to have the SS ‘Kulturzeichen’. Those from Solingen did, and it included about half of the German Police swords. With, as I recall, there being some kind of indication that what might be considered royalties or payments to the SS being involved. And with the SS items being gifts from Himmler, as opposed to open marketplace sales. Jim, or one of the “silver guys” can correct me on this, but I think that to have an item assayed and marked was not free. And this lack of markings on the rings might just be another example of cost cutting by the SS/Himmler.

The SS Birthday Swords are good examples of what period silver hallmarks from Gahr should look like. These - never seen before or since - fake cast in place markings are unique to the “Hühnlein” daggers. I’ve also done a little work on the alloys/testing etc. and I’m still working on it. When and if these silver dagger chains ever do get tested. The ersatz nickel silver(?) center mounts should be examined as well - because they might have their own “story” to tell. FP

I think we need metal DNA testing here if it available

FP,

This is what I've tried to convey. There was no assay office in Germany during the 3rd Reich. Makers marked their own wares. No cost cutting needed. In other countries like the UK yes, and they charged for everything, then taxed it to death. Tax there own mother's milk if they could!

How can or why should anyone regulate the content or purity of something that's not for sale?

Jim,

I also understand completely what the “real issue” is about, but it wasn’t my statement. My question isn’t meant to be sarcastic, belittle or take sides, sorry if I didn’t convey that properly. My question is out of pure interest in the subject as a whole and to learn from your “point of view" and statement only, no matter the product produced or how much common sense is involved. Common sense is normally written into law, but some laws make no sense what so ever, right.

The questions I ask have to do with silver articles which include these so called silver connectors and chains and hopefully learn and understand from you and others with more knowledge than I in the process. Maybe I should’ve asked this question in private?

I'm ignorant to a lot of what is already known. Anyway, your statement is interesting and I’m just trying to understand it. Gahr, it seems had many costumers including I presume the government. The funds came from somewhere. Are you saying, Gahr didn’t sell these rings to either Himmler or the government and that he made them for free and didn’t profit from them? Thank you.

Before you continue ranting on about the
Gahr Company,might I suggest you do a little reading on the Gahrs,the Company and its product and clientele(AND NSDAP associations)
If you can find an owner of this very rare book
to let you borrow it.If your German is schoolboy
you are in trouble.
"Otto und Karolina Gahr,Die Silberschmiede der NSDAP und der SS"
(or continue your rant)
Seiler (Yank in UK)

Seiler (Yank in UK,)

You’ve been drinking too much of that taxed mother’s milk, haven’t you! And suggest you stop drinking it, that is if you still what to have kids! or before your Yank falls off

The rant continues;

Jim,

In any case and for what it is worth, I think your common sense question is sound and has merit. Good question. The laws briefly cover the issue of jewelry and marking, which I believe covers the HR. If anyone is interested I will provide it. Thank you and best regards.

quote:

I think we need metal DNA testing here if it's available.

In today’s marketplace, if somebody wanted to make a “super fake” TKR he might have to look no farther for a metal source than some period German 5 RM silver coins. In fact they are a lot of sources that can be used for period silver alloys including the 800 types. Closer to the TR era 40 or 50 years ago, when these daggers were created (modified), it was even easier. FP

quote:

Originally posted by Mikee:
How can or why should anyone regulate the content or purity of something that's not for sale?

Jim,

I also understand completely what the “real issue” is about, but it wasn’t my statement. My question isn’t meant to be sarcastic, belittle or take sides, sorry if I didn’t convey that properly. My question is out of pure interest in the subject as a whole and to learn from your “point of view" and statement only, no matter the product produced or how much common sense is involved. Common sense is normally written into law, but some laws make no sense what so ever, right.

The questions I ask have to do with silver articles which include these so called silver connectors and chains and hopefully learn and understand from you and others with more knowledge than I in the process. Maybe I should’ve asked this question in private?

I'm ignorant to a lot of what is already known. Anyway, your statement is interesting and I’m just trying to understand it. Gahr, it seems had many costumers including I presume the government. The funds came from somewhere. Are you saying, Gahr didn’t sell these rings to either Himmler or the government and that he made them for free and didn’t profit from them? Thank you.

Mikee:
I didn't take you remarks as sarcastic and,as far as I'm concerned, they're fair questions. However; There is nothing in writing,(orders) specifically addressing this issue that I am aware of.
These rings were made as gifts/awards at the specific orders of Himmler and of course were not for sale at retail. I expect Himmlers specifications for these were followed to the letter and if Himmler had wanted the silver metal content included it would have been. Perhaps some day the original orders and specifications will turn up and answer this question definitively.
However we are straying from the original topic here and that's would Gahr or any other manufacturer marked silver items they made with spurious hallmarks and that is the crux of the issue?
Another point that hasn't been answered by the advocates of these "Huhnlein" daggers is why there is no mention of them anywhere anyone can find until the early 70s. That's a 25 year period since Wars end where these were unknown. I am unaware of any other daggers that were made in any quantity that disappeared for 25 years.


Quote
In any case and for what it is worth, I think your common sense question is sound and has merit. Good question. The laws briefly cover the issue of jewelry and marking, which I believe covers the HR. If anyone is interested I will provide it. Thank you and best regards.

Yes please do provide this as any additional information could be useful here.
Jim

Jim,

Thank you. Excellent points and well taken.

Almost forgot;

"I haven't see anything published either that relaxes the requirement to mark the quality of silver during the 3rd Reich but I've seen enough examples to accept this as being the probable case."

You've accepted correctly. It's briefly written in German law. Regards

Hey Jim,

The laws are in old script, so will take a little time to translate it and with G's permission will post the German documents and translation on the ring forum. For those versed in this already, I beg your indulgence and please feel free to step in. Thank you.

I hope this rough translation will help explain your inquiry from above.

Translation; "Jewelry of gold and silver may in each fineness be marked and indicated in thousand parts.”

Note the word “may”. What this line is referring to of course are the “fineness marks”. Which are by law; silver .800 or more and gold .585 or more. These same fineness standards mentioned are also the minimum standard by law.

Please keep in mind that the maker “must” have by law a registered trade mark, which is the very reason for marking in the first place. So, the maker may or may not apply his registered trade mark, and may not always indicate fineness in parts per thousand. It’s the makers choice. If you have a scenario you want answered I will try my best or others more versed than I can help as well. Regards.

More lines of "waffle"
As Jim M says"the crux of the issue is"would
Gahr or any other Manufacturer mark their item
item with spurious hallmarks?"
Also I would like to see Fred P,s unanswered
question on the Machine cut blade engraving
explained??
Why further cloud the issue by dragging in
the British Assay Office.They or their marks
are not at issue here.
Stop the flannel and cut to the chase.
Seiler.
Readers are or have lost interest again

Seiler, Where's your sense of humor, lets get along shall we.

I thought we were exchanging in fun. If I offended you by my comment, please accept my apologies. If you feel you must salvage or protect an individual’s reputation because you feel he is more knowledgeable in this subject that’s your business. But respect the fact that there are members here with just as much knowledge and then some. Thank you.

Q, More lines of "waffle"
A, If I can help answer a question that brings clarity to a subject, I’m more than happy to help.

Q, Would Gahr or any other Manufacturer mark their item with spurious hallmarks?
A, Ask Gahr!

Q, Also I would like to see Fred P’s unanswered question on the machine cut blade engraving explained?
A, Ask Craig!

Q, Why further cloud the issue by dragging in the British Assay Office. They or their marks are not at issue here.
A, Ask Alisby! Exactly my point and glad you’re finally on board.

Comment, “Readers are or have lost interest again”. Well then, write something interesting and stop with the sad faces.

Seiler,

During the “ NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over” thread. I believe you provided information from your Gahr book and on two articles that you own and stated that “there is no indication they used the standard German silver marks”. I believe the short debate was about why some articles were marked and why some articles were not marked with crescent moon and crown. I could be wrong on that, but anyway pertaining to your Gahr jewelry, if you would like I would be more than happy to help translate and explain why that is. That is if you or anyone else is interested? Would you like that in the "waffle version"? Regards.

We are discusing 2 marks,,the silver content mark, and the makers mark -

A Master jewelers pride was his work. And, the only way people knew that work was by 2 ways,, word of mouth and,,,the makers mark on the piece.

It was his pride and joy to inspect the piece and then stamp it with his firms stamp. In effect the stamp says,,,
'See this beautiful piece! I made this! Like it? maybe want something like it,,come to my shop'.

The Half Moon and Crown mark was mandatory during Imperial times. And, even then small items were to be exempt if there was of course no where to make the stamping.

During the 3rd reich , and I have not found any definitive documentation [ it is out there somewhere!], the marking did not have to be applied to jewelery. It was suspended, over looked, not important to them, pick whatever you like best but it was not mandatory to be used when the nazis were in power.

A firm that did occasionally use the WW1 CONTENT mark used their old stamp from back in the day. That stamp looked like the stamps on the law here.. Check every silver site,,all the old German pieces where you find the stamp and they all looked like these do. Yes, maybe a very small variation here or there,,but not a crown like what is on that dagger link!.

Do a search on 'Crowns' and you'll see there are certain types with certain designations. Countries/jewlers took these marks serious. They were the advertising for that firm, the precious metal content marking for that country! They were NOT malformed, the content stamp was NOT from individual die stamps.

The markings on the back of that daggers link are incorrect. Call them spurious, bogus, fake, forged, counterfeit, imitation, specious, phony and you'd be right, they are all correct terms...
I do not know about the dagger, it could be right as rain ,,but there seems to be issues with it also,,but the marks,,no way , no how......

How about making a slight modification to the question?

Q, Why would a faker mark their item with spurious hallmarks?

A, Because: 1) They (the fakers) did not have any kind of proper stamps - not even one of the common one piece 800 alloy type stamps. Much less the legitimate crown and crescent moon types of the period. That is a fact - just look at the image. 2) Also they might not have known what period markings looked like, and (40 or 50 years ago) might have been using a text reference w/o pictures. Which is admittedly just speculation on my part. But because the supposed maker ("Gahr"), the crown, and the crescent moon marks were cast in place - not I think an unreasonable one.

FP

FP,

That would be the template. If I may add. Maybe a text reference with the wrong pictures. This mark has always struck me as something that would be used on porcelain more than anything else. Regards

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Some extraordinarily clever person finds a box of original Honor Daggers, rents a time machine so he can see the Offermann photo decades before it was discovered, is wiley enough to sprinkle these daggers all over the world to slowly be discovered over decades, and yet, doesn't have the resources to spend 5 minutes to find stamps that make everyone happy - stamps readily available anywhere. That's a great explanation. Oh yeah, he modifies TWO of the daggers for wear - something no collector would ever do. I don't know why I didn't think of it. But don't listen to me or Johnson, or Wittmann, or Gailen David, or Houston Coates, or Grant Bias, Jason Burmeister or Keith Cornford, or just about ANY seasoned collector . . . we don't know what we're talking about, and it's all just a conspiracy.

Hey guys, my comment was strictly based on an observational standpoint.

I have the highest respect for Gaspare, FP,FS as I believe most of us do. I also have great respect for all the old timers that were there “no matter what side of the issue they’re on”. I wasn’t there! For this reason is enough to give me pause and take a step back and listen. These marks are to say the least unconventional and not traditionally done in this manner. I haven’t seen it all and I don’t know it all. But I also know enough about these companies when in absent of a law what they’re capable of doing and in fact have done. It's simply an unknown in my book.

Hopefully the silver aging test will provide us all with an answer. If Craig would keep us abreast concerning these tests it would be appreciated.

Mikee, While I along with you, hope that someday we might see some actual laboratory test results (as some others have on occasion shared with TR items. I don’t remember seeing any forthcoming with the “Frank” (aka superfake) TKR ring discussion, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

What you have touched is one of the technical issues with these fakes. I had thought that the more rectangular appearance of some of the small connector links (another indicator of a lack of proper tooling) might have also sparked some interest but it's the cast markings which have generated the most interest. And the markings on the back of the wide connectors do have their own story to tell. Briefly, it has to do with identical placement of the various marks using a pattern (template) as you suggested. And what looks like a failed attempt to cast the 800 alloy marks also as a part of the main set of markings, including the border. Which had to be followed up with the one at a time with the “8” and “0” number stamps to make them more visible to prospective purchasers - especially since the rest of the markings overall were so badly done/barely legible. Regards, FP

Craig, Are we back to the "time machine" again? No offense, but it would seem that you are coming full circle with the same sorts of arguments that were discussed at great length in earlier threads.

quote:

“Oh yeah, he modifies TWO of the daggers for wear - something no collector would ever do.”

Not at all an accurate statement, every year with the various collector forums, hundreds if not thousands of altered items show up and are discussed. Sometimes it’s the collectors, or dealers who altered the items. With still others it might have been the veterans. And we certainly don’t want to forget those who are just looking to make some money.

In period photos (which show a different dagger than these that are currently under discussion) we don’t see either Offermann, or Hühnlein with a ‘hermaphroditic’ wide type connector with their daggers. So permit me to ask: Instead of a dagger owner sending his adjutant (or himself) out to the “Berlin Jeweler’s”, or whomever. To have a snap type connector cut and pasted onto the chain’s wide type connector (leaving that dark residue).

Would not it have been much easier, cheaper, and faster with a better appearance to have him just buy a proper one of either type - as shown in period photos?? FP

I hope G, doesn’t mind, I just wanted to add a little something pertaining to crown and moon marks in general. The reason for the different variants is quite simple. Remember, there was no assay office or official office to control marking during the 3rd Reich. Therefore, no one set of dies to control either for all to use. If there were, they would all look the same and we would have no need for this discussion. But because each company marked their own wares with their own set of dies, then naturally interpretations of the Imperial crown and half moon will vary. The important part is was the intent of the law followed. Remember there are also varying sizes of dies, depending on the size and delicate nature of the article to be marked, some very small. Regards.

Seiler, I really am sorry, I get carried away when I'm playing around, just ask my wife. . What do ya say?

This may sound dumb of me, of all people, to ask, but does anybody have ultra-high resolution close-up scans of the Offerman-type chain markings? Thanks! If you do, would you email them to me? I had some, but can't find them.

Craig, please pardon my missing an important point here, but exactly when did the dealer Keith Cornford post his comments to determine the authenticity of these Huhnlein pieces?

FJS

Edited for insults

Fred---I have NEVER owned or had ANY part in any deal involving these pieces. My interest is strictly historical but you just say that to discredit me without knowing or having ANY proof. Fred you have recently shown that you have a double standard of proof in regards to the authenticity of any item. Your opinion--which requires no proof--and everyone else--standing over a body with a smoking gun. ( ballistics matching of course) You have shown that for all to see in the recent SS Degen Hanger? thread in the Sword forum.

Hey G,

I hope you don't mind. I just wanted to add something to your statement.

"During the 3rd reich , and I have not found any definitive documentation [ it is out there somewhere!], the marking did not have to be applied to jewelery. It was suspended, over looked, not important to them, pick whatever you like best but it was not mandatory to be used when the nazis were in power."

It's actually a little simpler than all that. It wasn't required because it was passed into law from 1888 onwards and through the 3rd Reich period. Regards

I read Freds insulting post and am truly disappointed. I took exception to it and know see Freds true colors.

Hi Mikee,
No offence taken,hence the "Bribe"pm.
Might have some more.
Cheers
Seiler

Hey Seiler,

Haaa! With information like that, you can bribe me anytime you want!

A complete standard dagger hanger (leather and snap connector) retailed for 1/2 (.5) RM. I would image that a simple “D” ring type hanger with no moving parts would probably sell for less than 1/2 RM (the “D” ring itself was 90% cheaper than a snap type connector). With the price for a composite dual type hanger most probably retailing for less than 1 RM.

Exclusive of the snap connector which was about half of the cost of a complete hanger. In the TR era, how cost effective/practical would it be to pay somebody to cut up, and then graft a N/S snap connector onto an existing wide connector? Versus just buying a factory made hanger?

From my perspective: The existence of these modified daggers is just some additional evidence of the (postwar) experimentation that was done. Along with the alternate use of the nickel silver chain sets, the silver chain sets etc. etc.

Posted below: 'Just the ticket' for those who like to think of themselves as Advanced Collectors/Connoisseur's of the multiple variations of the “Hühnlein” daggers. Here is what I think the front might have looked like. (Most admittedly it’s a ‘cut and paste’ job of my own using Photoshop. I know that I’m an amateur, so I won’t be quitting my ‘day job’ anytime soon ) FP

Craig states (extract from previous posting)
. . . Oh yeah, he modifies TWO of the daggers for wear - something no collector would ever do. I don't know why I didn't think of it. But don't listen to me or Johnson, or Wittmann, or Gailen David, or Houston Coates, or Grant Bias, Jason Burmeister or Keith Cornford, or just about ANY seasoned collector . . .

HOUSTON: I did NOT state that you had traded or otherwise dealt with any “Huhnlein piece”. I merely quoted the list of names that Craig had specifically mentioned regarding these Huhnlein pieces. I have reproduced Craig’s exact wording above – so may I respectfully point out that you have taken me out of context.

The first point I was trying to make, before I was censured, was that I was not aware of any publicised comment by Keith Cornford on the subject of these daggers. I am therefore interested to learn what Mr. Cornford has to say.

My second point relates to Craig’s comment regarding the “modification” by the crude addition of the spring clip. A modification that would never be performed by a post-war collector on a valuable dagger – “something no collector would ever do” - according to Craig. Therefore if the modification had been performed pre-1945, then that surely would prove conclusively that the chains, centre mount, et al, are real. This is the proof that the supporters of the Huhnlein daggers are looking for. The concept opens up a very interesting question, and it is this:

If it was genuinely believed that the modification, involving the spring clip, was really performed pre-1945, then why remove it in the process of “restoration”?

Such a distinctive feature could be of value in identifying an item to its’ time, location, and personality – if it were to be seen on a period photograph. Of course, I do realise that such a possible piece of evidence has odds of millions to one against its’ existence, let alone to be able to find it. The point that I wish to make is that such believers of “scientific truth” (see Gottlieb submission, GD, 07 March 2010) can seemingly accept that it is right to remove such evidence from history. This is nonsensical in my belief.

If the trace evidence had even the most microscopic chance of proving the authenticity of something – then should it be obliterated? My answer is NO. It does not matter that the evidence goes against my personally projected beliefs, all that matters is that the evidence is seen to be true.

I will make this analogy to you, and you may judge me accordingly:

I made the comparison that the removal of “period” modifications to artefacts was absolutely akin to vandalism”. I suggested the comparison that it was no different to remove such “period modifications” than it was to deliberately remove the engraved name or initials of a former owner that were placed upon a dagger. In my view such “corrections” are acts of vandalism – and a disruption of history.

If my viewpoint is such as to be viewed as pernicious, or offensive, or insulting. Well then so be it! I see no reason to sensibly change my perspective. I stand by everything that I say.

Frederick J. Stephens

Mikee,,, That silver content die stamp Fred shows,,,they are super hardened steel and last a very long time as long as they are marking softer metals [which they always do]. The couple period jewelers I interviewed for my project both said that they used the old stamps from WW1 to mark their WW2 time period pieces when they did mark them.. There are 1000s of piece of old silver on the silver forum sites,,not ONE shows a stamp like on that link.

The Imperial German crowns are all the same. The crown on the link isn't an interpretation or anything like that. It's just incorrect.

Like I mentioned a few times,,I don't care one bit about daggers. The dagger in question could be good or fake makes no difference to me. All I can reiterate is that the way the stamp is configured it is not correct.

Reading these posts,,,I'm wondering,what exactly does it take to be a seasoned collector???

a bank account or net wort exceeding 1 million dollars?

this thread is giving me a headache,,, Fred Stephans and Gaspare and Jim are the only ones here who make any sense to me

Right on Niblet three guys with no financial connection with this humped up junk

Hey G,

Thanks. You bring up an excellent point and I will try to address it as soon as I can. But I was actually only explaining the reason why we see variations in the Imperial crowns and crescent moons ”in general”. I believe the Imperial crowns and crescent moons are just variations of the same intent. Because the law kicked in 1888 and didn’t change through the 3rd Reich period it makes perfect sense why they continued to utilize their marks though out that period, no need for anyone to change out ones marks unless there was some need to. Their choice really. The Gahr connector is an interest, an anomaly unknown to me. I'm not defending it nor opposing it for the reasons I’ve stated in this debate. (See all of page 2). Although I do on occasion, like to clear up preconceived ideas at times. So I’m guessing that is viewed as me defending it? Regards

Hey G,

I understand your position and meaning concerning the die, well maybe not as much as Niblet. Believe me, I have my concerns as well, and from what I’ve gathered on this forum, Gahr understood the regulations just as well as other companies. Unrelated to the marks we’re discussing, it seems they might have done something a little differently as well. But that doesn’t surprise me either, because there’s nothing in the regulation that I know of stating they can’t. Does that make it wrong and who’s to say?

They’re not the lone ranger here; it’s a very well known fact that some German companies in the past took advantage of the system, maybe because there wasn’t a law in place to stop them or maybe the profit was too great for them to pass up. I don’t know for sure why, but these companies with highly skilled artisans produced items that resembled antiques or copied known originals and did it extremely well. From what I’m told, German companies to this day copy Gahr jewelry? My point is; If someone wanted this Gahr connector copied, faked, whatever, they didn’t have to look very far to have it done up right. But on the other hand, it was just as easy for Gahr to have marked this item in the traditional manner. But remember also, just because a company’s mark is on an item, doesn’t necessarily mean they made it or marked it!

I as well use to fall into this category so I understand, but some including you, have a preconceived notion that Germany had a controlling or official regulating body,(Assay office). Propagated no doubt due to strict UK hallmarking laws. But in fact, there was no official regulating body to control and regulate marking. So, if there was no official control and it was completely left up to the individual companies with a registered trademark to mark their own wares, then who’s to say one’s interpretation of the law is wrong? Especially if there’s no law that states they can’t. Again, the important part is, was the intent of the law followed. Hopefully the silver aging test will give us the answers we ask! Regards

PS, Jim m had a very profound and interesting statement about marks and the HR during this debate that I would like to discuss, but will do that in the HR ring forum. Regards,

Mikee, There is no offense intended, but I think that you may be getting off the main track a little. I don’t read the older scripts that well myself. However, the document Gapare posted consistently refers to stamped marks, not cast marks. So there is something written.

Gaspare also made a really, really, good point IMO noting the hardness of steel versus silver. Unlike stamping steel, stamps used on silver are going to remain intact and last a long long time. And it was not until roughly late 1943 in Germany that the supply of metal stamps was impacted.

There are also some fairly severe (IMO) technical problems trying to use that sort of design stamp on the affected part (the wide connector). But that doesn't have any bearing on the matter because they (the never seen before - or since) markings are clearly cast in place. Regards, FP

FP,

No offense taken. I'm glad like you; I understood G's excellent point. Not to split hairs but I believe the document you mention refers to "the form of the stamp symbol".

Does the front of this connector tell us anything, craftmanship,quality? Regards.

Mikee,

quote:

Not to split hairs but I believe the document you mention refers to "the form of the stamp symbol"

From a mechanical/engineering perspective the favored definition for "Stempelzeichen" seems to be referring to a die or punch. And "die Stempelung", which seems to be referring to the act of stamping. If there are contrary idiomatic definitions - then I think that it might need the services of a native German speaker who is familiar with the language/process as it pertains to jewelry marking.

quote:

"Does the front of this connector tell us anything, craftsmanship, quality?"

Not as much as the back IMO, where the outgassing of the acquired oxygen seems to have been responsible for a lot of the pitting.

Regards, FP