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

I thought George made a commendable effort to try and slow this thing down and perhaps effect some kind of truce. Apparently not.

A couple of questions to Craig: I mean no offense, but do you look at the pictures before you post them?

In the first image look at the differences in coloration between the pommel and the crossguard. Doesn’t it look a little strange to you? Like possibly an aluminum pommel. Over either a nickel silver crossguard, or an aluminum one that has that brownish haze that is sometimes seen.

As for the handle. You say that there is no way that it could be a break. In the second image do you see to the left where that side is offset (projecting down). And to the right the baseline is noticeably higher?

BTW: I was finally able to open Rob’s pictures. I don’t have his permission yet to present them. But if I get an OK I think it will be interesting for those who are following the thread. The images here are repostings of the ones presented previously. (I also don't normally broadcast when I get information/pictures asking for evaluations. But it's already public knowledge with this topic. And while there is no point in being secretive or appearing to be secretive. I don't know what Rob's wishes are at this moment.) FP

The handle.

After looking at the images some more I’m coming to the conclusion that the pommel in the picture and currently on the sword are probably the same. As is the grip. However, the actual date of the picture I think is unknown, although it is reported by Craig as circa 1970. And a mention of paper clips and another picture at the moment seems to be somewhat confusing. There is no scabbard in the picture.

Back to square one?? FP

FP--Why are you making a big deal over the grip? He said -but -and then he said--It does not matter-Does a break in the grip mean it has been replaced? Maybe-- but IMO it also could mean someone sometime just turned the pommel just one too many times. So which is it? Only the Shadow knows and as usual he ain't telling.

Houston, The reason is that the grip is part of the “package” just like the scabbard and all of the rest. Originally I was trying to figure out why the written description did not match up to what I was seeing in the images. It did not make sense unless somebody had fooled around sometime between point A and point B. That focus was more on the scabbard and the grip was secondary. Let me ask you this: You have a lot of experience. When you look at the grip, the wiring, and the overall condition what does it look like to you? How does the grip’s condition compare to the crossguard and pommel? What time period is it from? Is anything out of place?

Even though I personally had reservations, I was willing to let the matter go. Then there was a rather pointed comment that not only could I not tell a rip from physical damage. But it was implied (if not worse) that I was trying to deceive other collectors. I’m ready to address those comments - but need permission to use images that are not my intellectual property. If I get it then everyone can have I think reasonably sufficient information to make their own conclusions about what are facts. And what are not.

And like you suggest it could be that perhaps somebody was just little bit careless a time or two. But that was not my sense of it and my opinion has not changed. Assuming I get the OK, I would be interested to see what your impressions are regarding the grip after you have gotten a better look. Regards, FP

PS: Let me add that I think that the picture already posted is sufficient. Any additional images will only be corroborative.

This is a very interesting discussion, and I have been following every post. All I can say is, Damn, you guys are good at what you are doing! And that goes for all of you.

This is definitely NOT my field, and I will not say anything to suggest that the sword in question is either good or bad, but I have a couple of (very "basic") questions, just out of curiosity:

Most of you people who are participating in this discussion is well known collectors (and even writers) with lots of experience and knowledge. Who else has said something about this sword? I mean, its a one of a kind sword wich has had several owners, and a lot of "big names" must have seen it. What does other well known collectors have to say about it, like for example Tom Wittman, Johnson, and so on?

You guys who do not think that the blade is "good", when would you say it has been produced? It is hardly an "eBay-fake" from yesterday... How old would you say it is?
And does anyone think that the sword described in the 1960s correspondance was a fake, or do all of you agree that if this is not a good blade, then it is not the one described in the letters?

As I stated, I do not wish to pass any judgement what so ever about the sword, since I do not have any experience at all with this type of items. And I am sorry if my questions are "too basic", but I just have not seen any answer to them in the already existing posts.

Hi guys , sorry cant help it , but I noticed something .
You all might want to check out Collecting the edged weapons of the third reich volume 1 , by Thomas Johnson page 158 .
You WILL find this blade , With his current hilt , WITH his current pommel , and guess what ...? ALSO his current handle .
So check it out .
I am off , on a holiday .
You guys made me nervous

FP--To be honest in this case I think I would have to have the sword in hand to really have an opinion about the hilt. All these photos really are no substitute for the in hand look. It does seem to have been in its currect state for many years-but something may have been changed before that. It would be nice if nothing had been changed but, if so, to me that does not condemn the sword. It is just SO RARE. The fact is that many things in our collections have been changed/upgraded over the years. Some things we know about-some things we don't.
Consider that some of the Allied troops upgraded/added things to the pieces they got from the piles. Can you see one in your mind's eye? He picks up a Voos etched Army with a crushed scabbard-throws it down and takes another scabbard. Some time much later a collector notices that the scabbard is not "textbook" and changes it to the "correct" scabbard. Do we know about this? No. Does it increase value? or decrease value? To some Yes-to some No. Will we ever agree on this? No. So--that's why I think most everything has been said here. It's like an argument about a Voos dagger with a "non textbook" scabbard. Did it come that way or not?

Houston, I think that you make some very good points. Photos are not as good as actually physically examining something. Really good ones can sometimes help determine obvious outward characteristics, but it’s not the same as personally looking at something. Like you I did not think that anybody had done something in recent times to the sword, and whatever might possibly have transpired was a long time ago. And I would certainly have to agree that a personalized mid-war Fliegerschwert would be a very rare example from that era.

As I think you may already know my early collecting years were focused more on guns especially those from WW II. Mixing and matching both by veterans and gun collectors was not an unusual occurrence. And having handled quite a few blades of all types spanning several centuries I know exactly what you are making reference to in that not everything was brought back in perfect condition. While there are some exceptions, generally the older something it is the worse it looks. (Something antique dealers like to call “character”.) And for this example there is probably a 25 or 30 year gap where we have no history or idea what might have happened to the sword.

If nothing else the discussion should alert collectors that not everything is always open to a clear interpretation - and for many things there can be a variety of opinions. And when it comes to opinions that is when a topic can get a lot more interesting as the different viewpoints are presented. I really do hope that Rob enjoys his sword. And that he is not too put off by the technical discussion regarding it. Regards, FP

I agree 100%. It's always a sad thing for me to see someone's treasure torn apart. Sometimes we need to do that but sometimes we don't.

Hey guys I just worked my way through this thread and there are just a couple of things I like to ask you as a german native from Solingen.
First of all, the letters are basically worthless since they stop before we learn anything about wether the exchange took place or not. We only hear that they are talking about exchanging the swords.
Now if they exchanged the swords, Wolf obviousely recieved the real deal and the other guy the remake.
The NSDAP punctuation deal is not to be worried about. NSDAP is a political party and by that it is a noun byitself. Basically an artificially created name that can be used in anyway. Its the same in the US. You can write U.S.A or USA or US of America or just the US and so on.
The etchings should be considered very carefully though since these were made to order. You could choose from standard designs and custom made ones. Now we are talking about a luftwaffen sword and not about a bajonet. I doubt that real flaws were allowed on those.
But something that is always forgotten is, that fakes were immediateliy produced after the war ended. It was a great way for the germans to make money since they were good souvenirs. And in Solingen they knew how to make them. And still today pieces are copied here in Solingen. Sometimes even by using old parts and by pimping them to represent something more valuable.

So i am not saying that this is a fake, it might be a good one, but so far i am not convinced in both ways. I would love to see more detailed pictures of the angle. The detail pictures of the grip dont say anything. Because the grip can be a real one, the only thing that is questionable is the blade, because this makes the difference.

I hope my english is not too bad, didnt use it for quite a while.

Greets from Solingen

Jagdtiger

I posted a message early in this debate and have followed the discussion since then. I must admit at this point that I understand and share Craig’s general frustration. Over the past 20 years I’ve specifically studied factory presented edged weapons of the 3rd Reich. My equal passion for pieces I own is to locate original owners or their families. Over those two decades I have seen exceptions to many “accepted” rules. Rules developed by collectors, I should add, not decrees by Herr Eickhorn or the Reichführer SS. In those cases I have listened to the people who were in fact there, and who actually owned the pieces that refute common assumptions. I will only note a few cases, but which address some of the topics raised in the debate on the Wolf sword [note, i reference photos below, but for some reason the exceeded the max allowed by GDC. sorry i couldn't post them].

1) Etching flaws. A couple of years ago I was very lucky to acquire a blue & gold paneled presentation sword to a Hauptmann. Lucky for me he later turned out to be a General. Even luckier, I found one of his surviving sons. Turns out the sword was in the family until the 1970s, when the older brother decided to sell it (without first asking the other son who I contacted last year). You will note that the blade has, in my opinion, a flaw. In fact, I’d say a major one. Look at the raised line that runs through the tops of the letters on the top line. Not the regular “accent” line between the border and the etch, but the one that actually cuts through the middle of some of the letters on the right side of that line. I’m sure that someone would say that it’s “not right”, but the son says otherwise, and noted that he held the sword in his hands many times when he was younger. It’s sloppy workmanship in my opinion, but anyone who holds the sword would know that it is real (well, maybe not everyone). Anyone who wishes to refute the authenticity can contact the son (who is still living). If you convince him that his father got a repro sword in 1931, hopefully he won’t ask me for his father’s Soldbuch and other documents back, which he gave me to preserve with the sword. (And for those who think the son is “in” on some fix against me, his gift of the Soldbuch and other documents is worth more than I paid for the sword, so you can bag that theory.)

2) The use of “early” materials on a later sword. Some seem to doubt that this was done. I think it’s only normal that the factories would put higher quality fittings on presentation swords. I have a sword out of the woodwork that was presented in May 1941 to a Gefreiter (a Field-Marshall series sword, nonetheless) that has early brass fittings. There are actually multiple things about the sword that refute common assumptions (presenting an officer’s sword that he wasn’t even authorized to wear; they misspelled name; his date of birth included in the presentation [the presentation was not on his birthday]; and a chrome plated scabbard). This was another fortunate case where I found the actual recipient. He’s now 92. He remembered the sword like he last held it yesterday, and verified that the sword I own is exactly the sword he had (as a side note, his father-in-law traded it to an American soldier in May 1945 for 2 cigarettes and a pack of tobacco). I can post photos and more info if so desired. Again, my purchase price precludes any “buy-off” of the vet.

3) Different lettering of NSDAP vs the rest of the inscription. Perhaps I’m missing something but it sounds like the theory is that forgers often used those types of letters because collectors had trouble reading the older, Germanic letters. If that’s the case, did the forgers start out the first 2 lines w/ the old script, suddenly realize that they were using the “wrong scrip” to trick a collector, change it for “NSDAP”, then decide “what the hell” and go back to the old scrip for the last part? If forgers were using more modern scrip for the benefit of fooling collectors, why would they use the old style on every other part of the presentation? It’s anyone’s guess why they accented NSDAP. Maybe because the NSDAP ordered it, and was a slightly important organization at that time? We don’t know, but I can give as many good reasons why it would have been done during the period as anyone else can as to why it wouldn’t have been done.

4) The “off-center” line at the bottom. It’s so minor I wouldn’t consider this a flaw. I’ve posted a circa 1904 damascus WKC presentation blade that also has the inscription “off” by about 5mm as well (on the bottom line the lettering on the right side extends out just a tad farther than on the left). I didn’t even notice until I looked at my pieces after reading the debate this morning. It probably doesn’t come through well in the pics, but it’s probably more “off-center” than the Wolf sword. I promise my WKC is real.

5) “Nicks”, “tears”, or whatever else you want to call them in the leather grip. I don’t see where anything has been presented that establishes this as a replacement grip, or complete replacement hilt. There seems to be concurrence that the scrapes could have happened if someone had taken it apart at some point and had reassembled it without proper care. While I can say that Howard Bayliss is a fine person and loves the hobby, he is not the greatest archivist or preservationist (no offense to Howard, who I like very much). When I saw the sword in his collection in the 1990s I was disheartened by the letters and other materials glued to the wooden board. Note that he cut one of the Wolf letters around the bottom to fit into the “collage”. Also, the sword was pressed into a plywood cut-out display (as you can see in the pics posted). I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that the scrapes happened while in Howard’s possession. They’re so minor anyway, I don’t quite understand what’s being proved or disproved w/ the particular focus on that wear.

6) Scabbard hanger. I can’t say. Perhaps the leather hanger was added. Perhaps someone swapped an entirely new scabbard. If I owned this piece and the scabbard was of proper vintage, matched the wear/finish on the fittings, matched the style attributed to the manufacturer on the blade, and was the proper length, I simply wouldn’t care. That’s just me. I don’t swap pieces and I’d rather have a worn piece that I know is original than something I know is replaced. But there’s no way to prove it one way or another in this case, and I don’t think it’s a big deal anyway.

Gentlemen, the debate is really about the blade, and it seems almost unbelievable to me with all the evidence that there is a question about it. Everything I’ve seen thus far questioning this piece is pure speculation, all of which can be reasonably refuted. There are multiple other points that were raised that I’d like to address (such as questions regarding Wolf’s letters), but honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time. Aside from other things to do, I need to get ready for a girlfriend’s visit this weekend. Priorities, my friends, priorities!

The current owner is lucky to have it. It’s a great historical piece. As I said early on in the debate, the only bad thing about this piece is that I don’t own it!
Bob

i tried again to post just 1 pic, and it's way over the allowed amount. i'm not a techy, so i have no idea how to get it to down to the allowed level (it's 776 Kb vs the allowed 101 Kb). sorry.

Etched blades:
I will resize and post your picture for you if you email it to me.
italianstallion@cox.net Or just go to my profile and click on it.
jim

Bob, (Etched Blades), You make a very interesting contribution to the topic both from your collecting perspective and your knowledge acquired through your association with Howard Bayliss. From my past history one of my recollections from Dick Deeter was that some of the reasons why he got away from dress weapons were all of the fakes/altered originals that were in circulation. I don’t recall the specifics, but It might have been Atwood, Roger Steele, or some others, who knows? I am not - repeat not - saying that it has anything to do with this sword. Only making a general statement.

I understand that Mr. Bayliss seems to be a good friend of yours and respect that relationship. However I must respectfully disagree with the statement that the damage is only a tear. I don’t know how closely you looked at the sword when you looked at in the 1990's, but there is noticeably more going on than a simple tear. I also did not know that it was Howard Bayliss who mounted it on the board which has to be sometime after it was sold by Mr. Grigg.

Some guys will not buy an absolutely first rate German Luger because it does not have a matching magazine. Others could care less. (And the really particular guys want two matching magazines and the holster). As was discussed earlier there seems to be good evidence that the scabbard was swapped out. The focus on the grip was because Luftwaffe grips are not usually damaged in the way that this one seems to be, along with some side issues. And before I forget. There were a couple of others things that were not resolved one way or the other. The trademark, and the hilt mounts-fittings as regards their finish/condition.

That said, the underlying main point of the reply is this: 1) If you’re OK with something because it’s rare whether or not it might have some problems read no further. 2) If you tend to be a purist. And there is a possibility that somebody at some time might have done something to an item - you can’t always necessarily rely on the expertise or opinions of others. And in those cases you have to be prepared to make your own judgment on what the facts are and what is acceptable. And what isn’t.

Personally, I’ve worn both hats at times depending on what it is, although my natural tendency is to be a purist. Regards, FP

(I thought it was over, but it seems that the topic is still active.)

Etched blades--In # 2 you say an NCO was not authorized a Heer "Officer" sword? Wow -that's a very outdated incorrect idea. You seem to have been around a long time-how can you still think this? Where have you been? LOL--Is that you out there Bob L. ?

AH! Etched Blade: Bob J. another young, impessionable john come lately collector.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Jagdtiger74, Your point is well taken that in the postwar period fakes were manufactured in Solingen with some using leftover parts. Postwar items attributed to Jim Atwood come up from time to time. And Roger Steele (who was in the same general locality as Dick Deeter) was involved with high grade postwar blades and medals from original makers. And those are only a few of the names which were known or believed to be involved with postwar manufactured items.

Because of an earlier comment that was made I don’t think that we have seen all of the documentation as yet. But would agree that its impact seems to be limited to showing that an effort was made to locate General Wolf. And that the General acknowledged owning a sword that he wanted to get back. After that there seems to be nothing - which is a little strange because other seemingly less important documents are present.

As for the grip the point was not to try and show a fake. It was to show that it had very likely been damaged upon reassembly. And that similar damage is seen with wood (and plastic) gripped daggers where parts swapping can cause stress resulting in damage to the grip.

BTW: Your English is very good. And much, much, better than my German ever was. Regards, FP

Does anyone know a collector named Donald Vernon? The sword in question here was attributed to being in his collection when T.J. wrote Volume I.
Since Tom would probably have photographed items for Volume I in the early 70s(Vol I was initially published in 1975)it can be stated that the sword was in it's current condition at that time. The scabbard however is not pictured. This still leaves a 20+ year gap from Wars end until there is documentary evidence unless something additional turns up.
Jim

This reply is directed to "Etched Blades" (a.k.a. Bob J.)

Bob, the issue I was making concerning the font style of the letters "NSDAP" on the sword blade is this:

1)If the designer of the etch inscription had been using a "Roman" font (i.e. the normal type lettering font that we generally use) then he would have maintained that typographical style - and the letters "NSDAP" would have appeared in the Roman font - just like the rest of the inscription.

2) If the designer of the etch had been using the "Fraktur-style" or Old German Script (Deutscher schrift), then when he came to the "NSDAP" bit then he would have continued in the same font style - because that is the way it was done.

3)That this inscription is all in Old German Script, with the exception of the letters "NSDAP" which are in a Roman font, then this is an incorrect style for the period in time, and also for the form of the inscription.

This is not a guess, or a hazy opinion, this is a statement of fact. Craig may question that because my training in typography, etc., was in the 1960s and not the 1930s and is therefore not relevant - but the people who tutored me were trained in the 1930s. They were very strict and very formal in the knowledge that they imparted, and in my opinion they were absolutely correct.

It is of further interest to note that elsewhere in this thread another contributor (Red Baron) has independently confirmed much about what I have stated regarding style. So at least two of us professionally trained typographers are thinking along the same lines.

Add to this the contributions by Fred P and Ron W, who bring their own unique and experienced observations concerning portions of the sword and sundry failings that they find questionable,(and they cannot be disregarded out of hand).

This all rather suggests that the inviolable reputation of the General Wolf Sword is actually not as sacrosanct as some people would try to have us believe.

FJS

Along with Freds concerns stated above there's still some basic questions that remain unanswered:
1.Who is the maker of this sword?
2.Who had possession of this sword from 1945 until it is documented in Johnsons Vol. I in 1975?
3.Who was/is the collector Donald Vernon who had possession of this sword when Tom wrote the book?

Jim, The attribution of this and another Luftwaffe presentation sword in the book to a David Vernon makes me think that perhaps Howard Bayliss was using a pseudonym. I don’t know this to be a fact - it’s just a guess.

I am a lot more puzzled by the display. From Bob’s (Etched Blades) comments it seems that Mr. Bayliss was directly involved with the creation of the display. Which in a sense pays homage to the General almost like a shrine. He covers up the blade. And cuts up documents (Rob’s # 8 dated 5. 7. 1968). But 75 % of the display is basically empty space. My questions here are: 1) If this is a tribute to the general, why would you want to cut up a document personally signed by him?? 2) If this is a tribute to the general, why was the scabbard not incorporated into the display?? (Scabbards are not important???). And it was not a question of space - or covering something up - because the display speaks for itself. The first image is the one of the ones I could not originally open that Rob sent prior to those of the grip.

The other part of the puzzle is that “David Vernon” had to be known to Tom Johnson well enough to have his swords in the book. The book was published 30 + years ago. Does Tom Johnson have any independent recollections of what transpired back then?

Jagdtiger74 understandably questioned the significance of the grip. Looking back at the image I posted I can see where it might not be readily apparent what the issue is. If you look at the second image below that was provided by Craig in addition to the partial one of the display, I’ve tried to show where a piece of the wooden grip has broken off and is hanging low underneath the leather. To the right is more or less the original baseline of the grip at the edge. And the resulting gap has shoe polish or some other substance being used as a filler to try and conceal the damage (polish or paint was used elsewhere as well, but that is not the main issue). The third is the same image but without the yellow line (which was a lot harder to draw than I thought it would be.)

The point being that grips don’t normally fall apart all by themselves. And looking at some of the other problems it has is why it was called into question.

And the above is just a part of the discussion which also includes some as yet unresolved issues like the trademark, who owned what and when, etc. Best Regards, FP

Image 2. Delineating the broken piece by showing the natural contour.

Image 3. Showing the area as it would look like closeup without the line.

I would also like to emphasize that I am NOT SUGGESTING that Howard Bayliss or anyone else was trying to commit a fraud or any other impropriety. This is a technical discussion about the fine points of what we collect. And what one collector might find alarming another would not give a second thought. FP

This has to be one of the most interesting thread that I have read in a very, very long time on the forum.
It is so technical that I had to read the whole thread several times with the help of my Webster dictionary.
I also had to use my English-French translation dictionary.
I'm very impressed by the knowledge of some of our esteemed members on GDC and it make me realise that I still have a lot to learn about this hobby.
As for the swords, I don't know anything about it and neither would I even try adding any comments.
This is way too technical for me.
In any case, I have to admit that there are still many unanswer questions that would need further clarification before I would feel completely secure about this sword.
Whether we agree with Frederick or not ( and all the others ), we cannot close our eyes when logics prevails.

All I can say is "My God!" I promised not to come back, but I must comment that posts like Bob Johns are filled with reference to physical evidence. They do not offer "hypothetical theories" and they do not try to "second guess" small rips in grips that could have happened at any point in history. He lays out a very strong argument based on physical evidence, and readers should NOT be mystified by the long treatises that fill the airwaves with nothing but hypothetical deducements and theories about what "should" have happened and what "might" have been. Fred and Fred, plus Ron, have NO defense against the correct and obvious observation that this sword blade conforms in every way shape and form to other sword and dagger blades they have owned and sold, especially with respect to quality. I'm also especially surprised that Ron Weinand would try to discredit Bob Johns by pooh-poohing his reputation. Bob's only crime seems to be that he is younger than Ron. Bob has chosen to specialize in only one thing - etched and presented swords. And if I may say so, like any "collector expert" who spends a lifetime developing an expertise in a very narrow field, he knows more than us generalist dealers do about the subject matter.

Regarding Fred's assertion that somehow Roman script is incorrect and post-dates this sword, that is simply false. The script used for NSDAP is most likely Bodoni typeface, which was invented by Giambatista Bodoni in 1788. Even if it's not, roman typefaces were in plentiful use. Note that Fred's argument rests on the correctness of the observation that someone who lived in the 1930s "wouldn't have done such and such." That is, in order for his argument to even be supportable, he must show that he has correctly guessed what a dead man was thinking! And that my friends is ludicrous. To see that Fred's suggestion that the Roman font is somehow "wrong" for this sword by being anachronistic, see this link:

http://www.sallygentieuwelch.com/pages/graphic_com.html

To summarize the objections and the status of these objections:

1) "The Germans didn't capitalize common nouns" - FALSE (see above posts).

2) "The NSDAP did not give out Luftwaffe swords." - FALSE (see above posts).

3) "Etched blades must be laser-perfect in order to be real" - FALSE (see above posts).

4) "NSDAP" as it is shown on the sword is somehow wrong for this sword" - FALSE (see above posts).

5) The date 20 April is a suspicious choice for awarding a sword" - FALSE (see above posts).

6) "The inscription makes no sense in German" - FALSE (see above posts).

7) "The handle has been switch out." - LIKELY FALSE, or if true, it was done DECADES ago. Still, the entire argument rests on a rip in the leather grip, which is otherwise 100% textbook, despite Fred Prinz's efforts to suggest otherwise.

8) "The letters are suspicous because they contain two seperate dates on them" - FALSE (see above posts).

9) "Wolfe was a crook, and orchestrated or took part in a hoax." - NO evidence whatsoever - just a desperate attempt to save an argument that is crashing and burning (see points 1-8).

And that (despite previous promises) is ALL I will write. This sword has more provenance than almost ANYTHING in anybody's collection who is reading this post, and it correctly adheres to the standards of other period material. If the arguments are brought up again, I might re-post the list of discredited lines of reasoning, just to make a point.

Donald Vernon has many great pieces in many books attributed to him. That name was well known in the 70's. I don't recall meeting him or what became of him and probably knew him by sight only-- but I believe he was a real person and associated with the well known military shop known as the "Cracked Pot". I seem to recall that he was the owner at one time.
IMO The sword is obviously Eickhorn as it has their well known panel "bookends". I don't know if it has a TM.
This sword is also featured in TJ's new tabletop book on swords. I'm sure Tom knows a lot about this sword and its history but he does not frequent this forum.

Houston, Thanks for the update on Donald Vernon. This is getting a little weird because we see 1968 dated correspondence between General Wolf and Howard Bayliss. Then in the mid 1970’s Donald Vernon has the sword. And in the 1990’s we know it’s back to Howard Bayliss - where Bob Johns said he saw it in the wood frame. Howard Bayliss kept the sales information from Arthur Grigg as part of the documentation. Is there correspondence or records between Donald Vernon and Howard Bayliss? Does Rob have it?

Craig, I don’t want to overload the airwaves so I’ll keep it short. Just when did I criticize the blade itself? I thought that I did good job of avoiding it. Not so for the scabbard - but that’s another matter.

Also, before you invest a lot of time on a line by line of what I said. You might want to look at the pictures Rob sent very, very, closely before you comment. Not a few, but all of them. FP

I'd also like to thank Houston for the update: I for one would like to see some sort of provenance* established for this sword. Apparentely this sword changed hands many times which in itself is curious.
I also agree that the sword is likely an Eickhorn but it sure would be nice for someone whose handled it to confirm this.

Craig:
"Provenance" on an item is the chain of ownership since the item was made. There is NO provenance for this sword that any of us are aware of from 1945 until the early 70s when it appears in Tom Johnsons book.

It also could be that the credit in the books for the sword photos were just that-the photos. Donald Vernon may not have owned the sword at that time but before that or not at all.If you investigate who the true current owners are for items you see in a book-it VERY OFTEN is NOT the person listed. They sold it long ago. I see lots of items in books that I used to own or currently own--but my name is not there. I'll just have to ask Tom J. about this and see what he has to say.

"This sword has more provenance than almost ANYTHING in anybody's collection who is reading this post"

Craig that's a pretty insulting statement. Especially from someone not too long in the hobby. You've had your hands on many impressive pieces , have the money ,connections, and do the travelling but you don't have the slightest idea what the majority of us members have in our collections....

Great threat,, keep it to the sword........
*

WOW! Forgive me Craig! I NEVER said that the blade was bad or a fake, just that I am fairly sure the fittings are not original to the piece. Don Vernon was a collector from the 70s and, I believe, New York. I think I have done business with him, but that's another topic.
As to the blade, I said I would have to see it in person. And why is it that no picture of the TM has been presented as it has been requested several times.
My feelings are that FP and I are close to the same opinion on this piece. Are we correct? I don't know and can't say. Opinions are just that: We have ours and Craig et all have theirs, so as far as I am concerned that is all.
No, I did not disparage Bob John and I love his lust for the presentation pieces. I find him a great humorist.
JMO,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Jim M , what do you see as enough evidence?
Pictures of the sword leaving the factory in "42?
And sorry , but what is curious , that an sword is owned by several people ???
Please keep an open mind Jimm , especially you , you were the one to scream out load in another thread , that my Voos - marked blade was FAKE !
Gaspare , I asked other members to post some of their pieces , but nobody did , but you know what ? I dont blame them , I over the years , have posted some pics here of good stuff , and they were allmost all regarded as fake , in the beginning of the thread anyway .
And what do you mean with the words ' Great Threat " ?
Ron Weinand , I dont think that your posting to as well the sword , as well to Mr Bob j , was proffesionall .
I allways liked to post pictures on the forum , even when other friends told me not to , now I know why allmost nobody here posts pics of their own collection .
I have even rarer pieces in my collection , that I will NEVER post here .
Fred Prinz ; thanks for your E-mail , you dont have to appologize .I am in a hotel room in Milan ,ad couldnt help it to comment , I promised not respond anymore .
And one last thing , the blade IS an Eickhorn.
I am going shopping , please dont worry about that sword anymore its mine , and I will not sell it for a VERY long time [because that could be considered curious here ]
I have no hard feelings guys , but dont let me see you in person ....[its a joke , lighten up , I had my fight here yesterday , and won .]

I do actually show all my stuff on the web.
Why ? Simply because I don't know everything there is to know about TR militaria.
I have bought several pieces in the past and for which I have posted pictures here.
Never got burned once but some of the stuff I had bought from others were known to be fake.
I was able to get my money back every time ( lucky me ), thanks to those guys on the forum.
If I hadn't shown those pics on the forum, I would still have those artifacts sitting in my collection and they would still be fake.
I'm not suggesting anything here but I know that many guys just don't want to show there stuff on the web..............guess why ?
I'm extremelly suspicious by nature and do want to be certain ( or at least almost certain ) that my hard earned investment will be worth something in the future.
Recently bought the most expensive dagger in my collection and though it had solid provenance, I still showed my dagger to everyone on the forum.
Was I afraid that someone would think that it was fake ? Perhaps, but I still wanted to know what others thought though.
Today, I'm certain that it is 100% origianl and that's all that counts.

Craig,

The Don Vernon connection with the sword (according to what Mr. Bayliss told me on the telephone) is that in the 1970s Mr. Bayliss was experiencing a very expensive divorce. He sold the sword to Mr. Vernon, which accounts for the fact that it appears in Johnson Vol 1, credited to Don Vernon. Later on, as circumstances improved, Mr. Bayliss re-purchased the sword back from Don Vernon.

I have no doubt that Mr, Bayliss wholly, and wholesomely, believes in the authenticity of the item. There is no stain on the integrity of Mr. Bayliss.

There is a rumour going around over here, Craig, that putting the Wolf Sword up on the GD site was not for the purpose of a cosy little chat about it. That the real reason for launching this thread is that you wanted to get me out in the open to express my objections to it. And then you would have the opportunity to come in with all guns blazing for your counter argument - in the hope of giving myself and my reputation a good kicking. Is this true? I don’t believe it - you wouldn’t do that to me, would you? I am your friend. I have given you the benefit of my wisdom on many, many occasions.

Of course it is true to say that you already knew of my distrust of the sword and its unsatisfactory inscription, and you pestered me go public with my viewpoint. In fact you raised the issue not only early on in this thread, but also in another thread - “Flaws on Daggers”. And elsewhere you have basically called me a coward for not speaking up with my opinion. In your e-mail to me of the 20 June last, you stated:
“Now, I challenge you, if you believe your position regarding the Wolfe sword, to list your points about the sword you don't like. Or, do you begin to doubt that you are right, and are afraid to put your arguments forth in public?”

Well, Craig, it became obvious from the above that you were not going to rest until you got me into the ring where you thought that you might hold my opinion of the sword up to general ridicule. Your complete and outright rejection of my explanation - although you are entitled to hold such views - seems to me to be perverse and unproven. Do you seek some kudos in the public denigration of my reputation? I cannot believe that you are so malign (I am that gullible!). And even it is all true, well then I forgive you. I‘ve got broad shoulders and a thick skin, I can take it. So good luck to you - no hard feelings at all, my young friend. In fact just to show you what a good sport I am - and just for a bit of innocent fun - I wish to invite your comments about authenticity of the inscription on this other blade.

I will have to be honest and state that I think it is a fake inscription - for the following reasons, shown
annotated with numerals and the line indicators. This is what I have to say about it:

1) Letters and Letter-spacing, this looks very much like a post-war use of Letraset characters - very uniform although widely spaced - and not like traditional hand-drawn characters. The font appears to be Letraset “Old English” The use of the word “Herren” as opposed to Herrn suggests pluraity of name - but then perhaps they were giving out lots of examples of this dagger, to many people having the same name. (It happens all the time, you know - a bit like the cross-organisational presentations, DAF to NSBO, and suchlike. We can discuss this matter in another thread.)

2) The initial capitals of the inscription are high-lighted with a gold “blob” - I can’t really think of a more accurate definition, but it certainly does not follow the profiles of the letter. Compare this to artifact 3.

3) This is an extract from a photo submitted by a friend, it shows a detail from the etched inscription on the blade. Please note the graceful formation of the drop shadow around the letters - it follows the contours of the letter exactly. Nothing like the gratuitous “splatter” of the gold highlighting on this blade, very amateur.

4) This is an example of another etched script. Once again this demonstrates the close symmetry of the shadow effect to the letter characters, and not only that - the closeness of the lettering type. It is quite unlike the “letter-spaced” version of the example under review. This image has been taken from one of your acquisitions. So you see, Craig, I don’t “have it in” for your swords, you do handle authentic examples from time to time.

5) and 6) This is a real mystery - relating to the 84th Air victory. So odd, why would one commemorate the 84th event? Why not instead the 80th, or the 85th? I can see the logic in those, but not in the 84th. Of course there is one more point to make - the actual “Air victory” the word “Luftsieg” Normally, with this style the letter “s” in Luftsieg would be in the elongated “long-s” form - a little bit like a letter “f” but without the crossbar.

So, Craig, please offer me your response. Even if you disagree with everything I say, please do it up here in the public - same as you demanded of me. I promise you that I won’t shout you down. And it won’t alter my opinion of you at all, not one iota.

Your friend

Frederick J. Stephens

PS I WILL POST THE PHOTO ON THE NEXT THREAD - used up too much space here.

Now that it has been mentioned, so there is no misunderstanding, my email to Rob primarily was to apologize if I unintentionally posted an image he did not want in circulation from the ones he sent me. I also expressed my sympathies where he was concerned as being on the uncomfortable end of a discussion that was not of his making. Having something that you value and probably have some investment in discussed in public, sometimes unfavorably, cannot be a pleasant experience. FP

I made a point of leaving personalities out of this Rob but since you cited me directly I'll respond directly. As just a mere collector; IMO there are valid issues with this sword. The provenance is important because who owned it in past years can speak volumes about it. I, like my friend Pat who posted above, are extremely suspicious of 3rd Reich items and the higher priced the item the more suspicious we become. I've been in this hobby long enough to know of or have heard about some of the incredible crap that has gone on over the years.
Until recently swords were generally considered safe from "improvement" because the prices realized didn't warrent it and many models(not the Luft) were difficult to modify because of the construction. The biggest area of fakery was the converting of police degens into SS degens which was easy to do and reaped great financial rewards.
My own collection is open and available to view by anyone in the hobby including you. I have posted many items that are in my collection on GDC over the years as have many other collectors.
As far as that reversed swastika sword goes in the other thread IMO,and this is just my opinion, yours and others were in all likelyhood made up post war of rejected but original parts. Can I prove this? Of course not.
Again since I'm just a mere collector I'm sure my opinion doesn't carry the weight of a dealer who can't prove it one way or the other either.
Oh! And again just my opinion; But Fred Stephens has probably forgotten more about etching then anyone else on this Forum knows and ditto for Fred Prinz when it comes to metal construction.

Is this now the RK 1st model dagger that was attributed to a Diamonds winner, which Craig bought at the MAX ?