UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons German Sword & Miniatures Forum Presentation Sword to RK Winner

8

9

10

11

12

If I am reading it correctly, one of the documents says that the leather hanger was not on the sword scabbard - which was otherwise complete. And that the leather on the handle was in very good condition. The picture posted shows a leather hanger, and a (compression (?) split in the lower portion of the sword's grip/handle. Am I missing something here - or does the documentation not quite match up to the sword posted?? FP

Come on, Fred - a leather hanger may be something that collectors add on just about any sword or dagger. And a compression split? Don't you think that things age as the years go by? Come on here, I think the best reaction on Rob's posting of these documents is awe, don't you think?

Of course, Fred Stephens has suggested that General Wolfe was somehow involved in a charade to pawn off fake swords to unsuspecting collectors, all because of aspects of the sword that he finds "questionable" so I guess that means his theory must be true! His comments regarding the sword when I first showed it to him were "fake" and he provided a long laundry list of why it was fake. Fred?

If you look at the date of the letters , it was in the time that an SA Rohm cost 110$ (where is my back to the future car ), 40 years have past .
I think that ,if somebody turns the pommel to tight , this can happen to the leather on the handle.

this theory that general Wolf was into the charade could be when it was in this time , when swords like this are worth much more then 350$ . Maybe the original owner even gave a better price to the buyer , so it wasnt lucrative at all.

Yes, Rob - we all know that the charade theory is rather far-fetched. I was mentioning it tongue-in-cheek. In today's world, we MIGHT stretch our imagination to believe that a well-respected and well-off Knights Cross winner and Luftwaffe General would do such a thing for a huge, huge pile of money. But for the modern sum of $2000 (which is $350 adjusted for inflation), I seriously doubt it. Besides, the ONLY reason Fred suggested this is because his other theories did not pan out - there was no evidence to suggest such tomfoolery.

quote:

Am I missing something here - or does the documentation not quite match up to the sword posted??

quote:

Well ,if you took time to read on it also describes the etching.
I am sorry , but it seems that people here are beeing negative at everything that I post.
Why dont you post some of your pieces , with some documentation , so we can see if everything is still the way that somebody describes it 40 years ago.
Go ahead Fred Prinz !

An �added� hanger, or an entirety different scabbard and mounts? Compression splits will take a little longer to explain and I have some things to do right now. More later.

PS: Yes the documents are impressive. And in a strange twist of fate I knew Dick Deeter in his later years. FP

Fred: Hey, anything is possible - does it really matter whether a collector added a hanger, or put an entirely new scabbard on the sword? Maybe about $500. The blade is the important thing.

Craig, The �mounts� that I was referring to were not just on the scabbard as a replacement, but the entire hilt as well as the scabbard. My mistake, and I apologize. By way of explanation I was on my way out, and thought the reference to the split in the grip would be sufficient. To yours and Rob NL�s credit you could have destroyed that bit of the paper trail and did not.

This next part is a lot longer than I would like. But at the moment I can�t think of how to truncate it and adequately get the point across:

Compression splits: I am going to use another type of Third Reich blade to illustrate my point and go from there. I have seen a number of rationales from dealers and collectors trying to explain why their (especially SS daggers) have fractures, edge chips missing, splits etc. in the wood grip. The usual explanation is age/shrinkage. When wood ages it generally losses moisture and shrinks. Meaning that with age a grip will eventually be smaller and will decrease the amount of pressure against a contact surface. No stress, no breakage. HOWEVER, if a dagger is taken apart. And is over tightened upon reassembly it causes stress in line with the wood grain causing the wood to fracture, chip away, split (etc.) This is especially noticeable with replacement fittings from another dagger and the individual is trying to get the best/tightest fit possible - which causes the damage. How much pressure is needed to cause permanent damage? For SS grips generally a wrench is used, and anything over �finger tight� (light pressure) can be too much.

For Luftwaffe sword pommels they also should be �finger tight�. Taking it around another 180 (more or less) degrees to get it to line up properly can cause damage to the wood and to the leather covering. Without physically examining a sword�s handle and internals an analysis at a distance is not necessarily a given. However, the general appearance of the lower portion of the sword grip posted including the split suggests that a possible replacement pommel from another sword was not properly lining up. And in the course of it being over tightened there was damage.

The blade: By itself I haven�t as yet seen anything that would cause me to doubt it. And there does seem to be a fair amount of evidence that such as blade was made in the 1942 time frame. Although to be upfront about it - I had considerable doubts from the beginning about the blade�s mountings (ie: hilt and scabbard). Time has not changed that perception, and I think some others had reservations as well.

Richard (Dick) Deeter passed away unexpectedly a long time ago (but well after 1968). Prior to his passing we had some very amicable dealings back and forth. There are a couple of folks that I am still occasionally in touch with who knew him better (and earlier) than I did. I will try and find out what they might remember regarding this sword. Regards, FP

We are still waithing for Frederick J . Stephens to give a GOOD reason why this sword is fake .
Fred Prinz ; doesnt matter what I say or present you , you keep saying the same things .
Thats why I am stopping this dialog with you.
For some reason you just dont like the sword , or you are filling in the comments for Stephens.
I can prove that the handlle was on there the time those letters were written , but I will not waste my time .
Go check with your contacts , maybe they can tell you something that you will believe.
Still didnt post anything that you have in your collection did ya?
Are you affraid that some one doesnt like it?
Well , I tried to give all the evidence to you , but if nothing has changed , why should I have bothered.
Ever considered that the seller didnt gave such a honest or precise description of the handle?
And why would he replace a good handle for one with a small rip in it? Maybe his definition of "very good condition" is different then yours.
I am looking at the handle , and for this very small rip , it IS in very good condition.

Fred: In a nutshell, so what? Actually, your analysis is clever, but pointless. The crack, as far as I remember it in the handle, is a rip in the leather, which can be caused by any number of things. To suggest that it is suspicious is rather silly. The majority of leather grips in our hobboy suffer from problems worse than this. Go ahead and tell us what you don't like about the hilt. This I gotta hear.

Craig, Pointless? Perhaps, but not from my perspective when I first saw what looked to me in the images like nickel silver fittings. If I�m wrong and have misinterpreted them then I�m wrong. If not: Flag 1. The leather hanger (or lack of it in the documentation) is Flag 2. And no mention in the documentation of any damage to the handle Flag 3.

What the above suggests to me is that sometime between the time Dick Deeter had the sword and the way it is now is that someone has altered it using original period parts. No amount of �spin� or rationalization is going to change the fact that the sword as it sits now does not match the documentation.

I did not bring this discussion to the forum. It was brought here for reasons best known to yourself and perhaps Rob NL - although he came in late and I don�t know if it was his original intention to become a participant.

I don�t have any money or collecting effort wrapped up in defending the sword and my interest is more intellectual. In that context let me ask this: What proof is there that the sword has not been altered??

PS to Rob NL: Perhaps you are confusing the late Anthony Carter who was a friend of mine with Mr. Stephens? I have never met Mr. Stephens, and don�t know him personally, although I am aware of him mostly through his books. FP

But Fred, the documentation is 30 years old! I guess in your world, things can't get old, and collectors can't add hangers. The sky must also be purple also

When somebody says that I have a fake sword then will become a participant.
But you are very wrong my friend. This sword was not altered with .
Lets ask the question to you, how can you prove that it has been altered?

No Craig , its 40 years old.

Oh well , I am not going to waith for your answer , it will not add anything to this discussion .
Let me relieve you of your misery , a have a very nice picture that came with the documents.As you can see , the handle always was like this . Good night .

OK Chaps, you have been "Holler"-ing for this response, so now you have got it. Idirect this to Rob NL, and also to Craig - as you will note from the end of this submission,

Thank you for posting all the images of the documentation concerning the Wolf Sword. I am grateful to you for making so much of the material available, and I will enjoy reading it and laughing through it.

With regard to all this, I do agree with you that if I make demeaning statements about the Adolf Wolf Sword, then you are quite right that I should explain my opinions more fully and openly. After all, it is an expensive sword in someone's collection - your collection in this case - so you are entitled to an explanation from me for having spoken critically of the piece.

However, before I make my explanation, let me state that your ownership of the sword was unknown to me until I read your reply on the thread yesterday. It was Craig who sent photos of the sword to me - requesting my comment about it. And following my pointing out of some features that I found questionable, it was also Craig who insisted that I was "100% wrong" because he had the correspondence from Wolf to Bayliss, that �proves� that the whole piece is authentic.

Well, having re-read the correspondence (again) I have to say that I do not agree. There are features in the Wolf correspondence that do not sound true. For example in page 1 (I refer here to the translation that you (Rob NL) have provided) Wolf states: �The procuring of a Luftwaffe pennant - at least, I presume this is what you mean by the word �standard� � - this comment is a joke, Wolf is playing a game here with Mr. Bayliss. He is pretending that he doesn�t know what a �standard� is (yet the word �Standarte� must be known to him.) Instead he pretends that �standard� must equate to a �wimpel� - the German word for a small flag or pennant. Elsewhere he is emphatic in the correspondence that �no photos were taken� and that the whole ceremony was �unofficial� - all very convenient to cloud the issue of Wolf�s recall or his understanding of the questions being asked by Mr. Bayliss. I do not propose to follow this theme, because it diverts us from the main issue. Suffice to say that I do not trust Wolf�s replies in the correspondence, and I will concentrate my efforts towards the inscription on the blade.

I have identified a lot of features on this sword etching which I find to be questionable, and indeed completely at fault. However, as I cannot be bothered to fend off the mind-numbing atavistic rejections that my information attracts from one particular quarter - I will reduce my critique of this item down to one single line. It is the last line on the sword etching, the one which states:
NSDAP. Mannheim 20. April 1942.

The man who prepared this inscription had a job which is known as a �Lettering Artist�. He may not necessarily be the same person who etches the blade, as that also is a specialist skill. The Lettering Artist forms the inscription in an acid-resistant wax paint - and he does this in reverse form (i.e. �wrong reading� or mirror image) on a special carrier paper. When this is done, the image and paper is transferred to the blade to be etched - this time the wax paint image is face down on the blade (now �right reading�) and it is bonded to the blade. Some other masking may be done to the blade to protect other areas from the acid, but basically the blade inscription as defined above is ready to be etched.

However, the Lettering Artist has made some notable failings with this line. For example:
Point 1) The whole line is off-centre to the rest of the inscription. It is not much, only about 5mm, but it is enough to be seen and any professional artist would have corrected that.
Point 2 - and also Point 3) The wording and punctuation seem to be at some odds. NSDAP is followed by a full point (period mark (.) - US) then by the word Mannheim. A much greater space follows this - and then appears the date 20. April 1942. It becomes impossible to tell if this means that the award is from the NSDAP at Mannheim ? OR, Is it from the NSDAP. (given at.....) Mannheim, 20. April 1942? The legend becomes incomprehensible.

These features - the notably off-set line, and the clumsy spacing and punctuation are in my opinion evidence of extremely poor workmanship (by the Lettering Artist) and are indicative of a non-professional approach to the job. Craig is going to dispute this - he is going to say that mistakes and flaws are common on German Daggers (that they are virtually �normal�). In fact he will come out with his fatuous argument about the Bahnschutz crossguard with its famous �flaw�; or his claim that the Blood Order has a similar �flaw�. None of these arguments are proven (in my opinion), but we have to put up with it. Well, there is another feature here, and I have saved it to the last, because I would like Craig to address this specifically:-

Point 4) Take a look at the first word in the line: �NSDAP� - those five letters are presented in a solid Roman Font complete with serifs. And this is very curious because it is also a very post-war style. You see the usage of the Black Letter, or similar Fraktur styles does not encourage the expression of words in an all capital form. The reason being that it is almost illegible to read, the Black Letter does not lend itself to the complete capitalisation of long (or even short) words, and so the post-war western European practice was to substitute these Capital words with a non-Black Letter type face - a �Roman� form type face.

However, this artistic practice was not the norm for the Germans. They quite happily utilised all capitals in Black Letter with some of their words (NSDAP, NSKK, NSBO, etc. etc.). because the Black Letter was a very common alphabet to them - they had no problem in reading it.

So the construction of the Adolf Wolf inscription reveals a very telling point - the Lettering Artist seems to have been schooled in the post-war concept of not using all Black Letter capitals - so he used a Roman serifed font instead. Therefore by doing it �right� he actually got it wrong for the time period concerned. Check the pre-war German references. You will see complete capital words in Black Letter everywhere - then look back at this inscription, it has all the attributes of a post-war construction. The Lettering Artist did not know that he should have used the Fraktur or Black Letter throughout the inscription - and therefore made his intellectual mistake.

So Craig, as it was you who originally started this thread, and subsequently determined to draw me into it, I ask you now to complete your response with a very specific clarification. If you disagree with my explanation about the use of the Fraktur, Black Letter, and Roman typefaces above, then I think that you should present an explanation as to why you state it is wrong. Not one of your wooly-headed responses stating that you just don�t believe it or that I am 100% wrong, or any of the other get-out lines that you habitually present. Let�s have some hard facts. Let us see you quantify your dismissal of my account with hard, measurable facts which can be checked. Let us see if you can present the same exacting disciplines to your answer as you demand from my explanations.

Because if you cannot do the above, then I suggest that you graciously concede the case, and acknowledge that I was right all along - Quod erat demonstrandum!

Frederick J. Stephens

Oh , ok , first the blade was ok en the hilts were bad , now the blade also ?

Fred States: "Wolfe is emphatic in the correspondence that �no photos were taken� and that the whole ceremony was �unofficial� - all very convenient to cloud the issue of Wolf�s recall or his understanding of the questions being asked by Mr. Bayliss."

Unfortunately, Fred has not been present at many award ceremonies, and presupposes a very romantic but inaccurate view of military awards ceremonies. I have been at countless military award ceremonies in my life (both as a bystander, and a recipient) where the whole thing IS rather unofficial. You can say with a smile "how conveeennnnnient" that this was not the number one reported event in the Reich that day, but the fact of the matter is that ceremonies like this are often semi-formal events. You cannot follow this theme, because it presupposes an entirely inaccurate view of how things "should have been" in the military. This is a mistake that you will make again and again in your analysis.

I do not propose to follow this theme, because it diverts us from the main issue. Suffice to say that I do not trust Wolf�s replies in the correspondence, and I will concentrate my efforts towards the inscription on the blade.

You cannot gloss over the validity of Wolfe as a reliable witness to the originality of the sword, and simply dismiss him from the proceedings. That cuts to the very heart of the issue - that a sword that he remembers, and acknowleges as his - does not match up with the way you want swords to look.

I have identified a lot of features on this sword etching which I find to be questionable, and indeed completely at fault. However, as I cannot be bothered to fend off the mind-numbing atavistic rejections that my information attracts from one particular quarter - I will reduce my critique of this item down to one single line.

No, Fred. The reason you will not mention your original objections is because they have been shown to be entirely inaccurate. For example, you stated emphatically that German common nouns are not capitalized. Well, the world proved you wrong. You stated that the NSDAP did not give out military swords, they gave out NSDAP awards. You were again shown by reputable members of the forum to be wrong. You stated that it was highly suspicious that the date 20 April would be used on an award of this type, and we have shown that the date - the Fuhrer's birthday - is one of the most common dates for presenting things, granting promotions, etc. So, your "numerous" features which you "found to be questionable" were not really questionable at all. It is important to remember this, folks. He doesn't have a laundry list of points here to make his case, as he suggests.

It is the last line on the sword etching, the one which states: NSDAP. Mannheim 20. April 1942. The lettering Artist has made some notable failings with this line. For example:
Point 1) The whole line is off-centre to the rest of the inscription. It is not much, only about 5mm, but it is enough to be seen and any professional artist would have corrected that.
Point 2 - and also Point 3) The wording and punctuation seem to be at some odds. NSDAP is followed by a full point (period mark (.) - US) then by the word Mannheim. A much greater space follows this - and then appears the date 20. April 1942. It becomes impossible to tell if this means that the award is from the NSDAP at Mannheim ? OR, Is it from the NSDAP. (given at.....) Mannheim, 20. April 1942? The legend becomes incomprehensible. These features - the notably off-set line, and the clumsy spacing and punctuation are in my opinion evidence of extremely poor workmanship (by the Lettering Artist) and are indicative of a non-professional approach to the job. Craig is going to dispute this - he is going to say that mistakes and flaws are common on German Daggers (that they are virtually �normal�). In fact he will come out with his fatuous argument about the Bahnschutz crossguard with its famous �flaw�; or his claim that the Blood Order has a similar �flaw�. None of these arguments are proven (in my opinion), but we have to put up with it.

Fred's opinion about things military, while romantic, is not accurate. He has always believed that flaws such as ones he has pointed out "would never be allowed" and "would not be tolerated." My opinions about the Blood Order flaw are NOT opinions, and ARE very relevant here. The blood order, which was considered to be the most coveted political award during the time, has a flaw. So why can't the spacing of this very long dedication be off a little? My famous Max Amann dagger, which was presented by a Reichleiter to a Gauleiter, has an actual crack in the middle of the blade that is documented in a period photograph to have left the factory that way. I have had formal Knights Cross documents wherein the name of the recipient was misspelled. We can go on and on about flaws, because most people understand and respect the notion that German craftsmen are not as pefect as you would believe them to be. I don't have to prove these things (well, with the exception of the Max Amann dagger, which is self-evident by the period photo). And you don't have to "put up with" these things - the fact is you are too romantic in your view of quality control. This is not my opinion - it is supported by evidence. So the spacing is a tad off - big deal. Give the guy a break, it's a long dedication, and I'm sure that Wolfe didn't panic when he got his ruler out after the award ceremony.

Take a look at the first word in the line: �NSDAP� - those five letters are presented in a solid Roman Font complete with serifs. And this is very curious because it is also a very post-war style. You see the usage of the Black Letter, or similar Fraktur styles does not encourage the expression of words in an all capital form. The reason being that it is almost illegible to read, the Black Letter does not lend itself to the complete capitalisation of long (or even short) words, and so the post-war western European practice was to substitute these Capital words with a non-Black Letter type face - a �Roman� form type face.

However, this artistic practice was not the norm for the Germans. They quite happily utilised all capitals in Black Letter with some of their words (NSDAP, NSKK, NSBO, etc. etc.). because the Black Letter was a very common alphabet to them - they had no problem in reading it. So the construction of the Adolf Wolf inscription reveals a very telling point - the Lettering Artist seems to have been schooled in the post-war concept of not using all Black Letter capitals - so he used a Roman serifed font instead. Therefore by doing it �right� he actually got it wrong for the time period concerned. Check the pre-war German references. You will see complete capital words in Black Letter everywhere - then look back at this inscription, it has all the attributes of a post-war construction. The Lettering Artist did not know that he should have used the Fraktur or Black Letter throughout the inscription - and therefore made his intellectual mistake.

As you can see, I have in my view easily and successfully refuted ALL of Fred's arguments except this last one. He suggests that General Wolfe is a charlatain (with no evidence whatsoever other than pure distaste with the way Wolfe tried to maneuver himself into a position to get the sword back cheap), made at least 3 statements about this sword that proved to be entirely incorrect, and has been shown to have a very romanticised view of military tradition and german craftsmanship that does not mesh with the facts. Regarding your final question, it's a simple one to answer. Walking around my office, I see TONS of material that contains block script. Look on ANY website or in any collection. BLOCK lettering is very common. That the artist chose to use it here is not atypical at all. So in answer to your assertion, I simply point to the myriad of unquestionably real artifacts that do contain block lettering in all capitals. It's shameful how much of it there is out there.

Just for fun, in an effort to show just a tiny portion of the variety of script variation that one encounters during the Reich (contrary to Fred's "way it otta be" view). For example, here's a funny way the chose to abbreviate only the first two words in the phrase Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, even though the "Nationalsozialistische" is only one word. Why didn't they use a hyphen, as they did on the Gold Party Badge? Something isn't right!

Here it is on a Gold Party Badge - hyphenated.

The topic seems to be acquiring a life of its own. I will let those who specialize in etchings debate the plusses and minuses of the sword from that aspect. My focus was more on the differences between the way the sword was first described. And the way it is now.

So that readers can get a better look at what is being discussed. I have taken the liberty of reposting portions of the images provided to illustrate things from that perspective. Craig and Rob NL are encouraged to contribute their opinions regarding these aspects of the sword. And any additional or new images/information.

First is the documentation which describes the lack of a hanger, and the condition of the handle.

The second image shows the hanger and what appears to be a nickel silver sword upper scabbard fitting. From its appearance it looks like a fairly normal 70 plus year old Luftwaffe leather hanger with a little bit of wear/damage. I can�t see any signs of tampering. Or restitching that would indicate that it has been taken off another scabbard to be attached to the scabbard pictured.

The third image focuses on the juncture of the leather covered handle and the cross guard. Where the # 1 is it shows the split or break and what looks like a portion of the handle overhanging the cross guard. To me that suggests that they wood underneath was crushed/damaged permitting this to happen. Where the # 2 is this appears to have been repeated with another overhang, but that is not a 100% certainty due to lighting and the angle. (The point being with the third image, that a previously assembled sword would not have needed an adjustment to get everything lined up. But components from a different sword very likely might not fit together correctly. Which is why it would have to be over tightened to make everything fit.) Most Respectfully, FP

Image 2.

Image 3.

Here it is on the interior lid of a party award (the Gau Thuringen award). Note that NSDAP here has NO periods in the BLOCK lettering - until the very end!

Here it is on two documents. On one document, they have abbreviated it in a totally DIFFERENT way than they did on the DE Standard. On the other document, it is indeed in Fraktur script (which was later outlawed because it was deemed to be too jewish), and there are periods between each letter!

Here's NSDAP with "dot spacers" between each letter (not traditional periods) and this example is from 1933, when Fraktur was in full-use. Note - gasp, that there is even a dreaded "serif" but ONLY on the A! The NSDAP 1933 badge is therefore, according to Fred, BAD!

I think you get the point, folks. Fred's smoking gun isn't a smoking gun at all. He stated it it boldy and with great bravado. However, as these few posts in the 15 minutes I have available to me at the time show, whether you said NSDAP, Nat.Soc.Deutschearbeiterpartei, or N.S.D.A.P, and whether you chose Fraktur or Block lettering, or whether you chose to hyphenate, or put all the letters together with only one dot at the end . . . you were still a good Nazi!

And just to deal a bit here with fred's other "smoking gun" with just a couple of photographs, consider these two swords (both indisputably real). Look how SLOPPY things are! And if Fred (Stephens) comes back and says "oh, but those blades must be fake too, then go get whatever etched blade you have in your collection, pull it out, and I all but guarantee that you will find "slop" to the same degree as on these swords, or on the Wolfe sword. Remember, these guys weren't performing brain surgery. They were trying to sell a product!

Here's another sword with "sloppy" etching. Of course, in Fred's romantic world, they used a laser and would NEVER have "allowed" pieces like this to leave the factory. This picture, by the way, is from a presented sword.

As we have seen, not only does Fred's "smoking gun" of the NSDAP lettering not bear close scrutiny when you begin to look at other period artifacts, but neither does his second "smoking gun" that all things out of Solingen must be superbly executed. Here's another sword which I personally obtained from the son of the deceased veteran. Note the "slop" here too! I maintain that on this point, all things I have posted ARE superbly executed . . . given that we are dealing with swords and not faberge eggs.

From a lettering/abbreviation point of view, the style and font used for 'NSDAP.' is not unusual, IMO. I've researched and studied primarily the SA, have read German for 45+ years, collected for 45+ years, and so on, and I feel that I can readily recognize typefaces that are typical of the period. Speaking of periods, I've seen NSDAP noted with periods between each letter, no periods, and the single final period, although in this case, it may represent the end of the sentence. It's the same with SA printed material--you can find it as SA, S.A., S-A, SA., etc. While I always take a sceptical position when examining major III. Reich items, and spend a fair portion of every day researching, I think sometimes collectors, armed with micrometers, 30X magnifiers, black lights, geiger counters, etc. might tend to spend much more time scrutinizing objects than the original makers or recipients ever did, or ever intended.

Well, I guess the new "Reproduction Recognition" book by Craig and Fred is down the toilet!

Mark

Or perhaps Loo Mark. depending upon which side of the pond you reside on!
Jim