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

Craig, As to what we can agree on, at least from my perspective, I think that it depends on what it is.

1) The Huhnlein signature on the back of the damascus blades are all identical to each other with respect to shape.

Yes and no. They are generally similar, but exhibit (IMO) noticeably more variations that comparable Himmler signed blades. (See attached.)

2) They do not match identically with the "fake" inscription on the back of the plain-bladed fake (as has been alleged),

I’m not quite sure what is going on with this one. And it’s a little hard to say for sure (at this late date) from an old photograph in print. Could it be just be poor workmanship versus something intentional? A problem with an etching mask, or a less skilled worker? Unknown. See second image.

3) and all observable Huhnlein signatures exhibit variations - printed, etched, cast: whatever the medium.

I disagree. I don’t ever expect to see significant variations in stamped plaques. Or cast ones using the same (master) mold for that matter - other than them breaking down. And I would not expect to see really significant variations in the etched signatures on blades from the same maker (except to the same extent that we see for example minor variables with the Himmler etches). Which does not seem to be the case here. And because the plaque signature more closely matches the one in the book. I think that it has more credibility as to what his “official” signature was supposed to look like.

4)But again, lets get back to the new documentary evidence, which I will be adding to over the next few days.

That’s fine. But I’m not as interested in the documentation as much as I am the dagger itself. By way of explanation: The guy with the P-38 pistol that I mentioned earlier had a ton of documentation. With no disrespect intended to the original owner. His problem was once the item was looked at. There was no question that it had been significantly altered in the postwar period. With the documentation really only proving that he acquired that particular pistol from that individual. My point being that for that particular item - the item itself told the story. And the documentation had no real value as regards its current configuration.

And I would also add, without seeing an item first, how do we properly evaluate the supporting documentation?? (Usually it is the other way around.) FP

Attached: An image of some signatures which I think I’ve posted before in an earlier thread. Showing some of the variables in signatures. My best recollection is that there was permission to post these images, which has not always been the case, and if I have erred I apologize.

And possibly what the blade in the book was supposed to have looked like when the name was etched(??).

I'm glad I tuned in for this discussion. It is very interesting. Thanks for providing the GPB #19161 for Herr Gr?ner on the party file card Craig. He was living in Landau an der Isaar in 1935, so he was a Brigadef?hrer in Brigade Bayerische-Ostmark? That is the Gau where he was registered.

I thought I would add these two H?hnlein signatures to the discussion. The one on the left is from a page of an old Manion's catalog that I found in my copy of Angolia's NSKK/NSFK book. The signature on the right is from a 1936 NSKK clothing/equipment manual. The signatures shown in Hamilton's book on III Reich signatures seem all to be of the "falling N tail" variety that seem to be common for him after 1939 till he died in 1942. Perhaps caused by complications with his health?

Hey FJS, did you ever find out if that two handed sword you sent me photos of eons ago was in fact a III Reich executioner's sword?

Craig,
The images that you show from the 1974 book are misleading, in the sense that the image of the damascus blade was not photographed head-on. The original print of the photo shows the lower edge of the blade (and the signature) to be closer to the camera - and thus you have a slightly distorted and parallexed view of the signature image. This may account for some of the "differences" that you detect.

The photo of the signature on the steel blade was taken more or less overhead, but I do agree that the lighting was such as to limit the clarity of the image.

Subject to minor variations occasioned by etching times and acid exposure, I still feel that the images are identical to each other - and will search my records for better photographic evidence.

Fred Prinz, glad to see your contributions - you have a great eye for the finer details, and I will look forward to your continued observations.

Joe W. Your information about Herr Gruner is excellent (his existence was never in doubt), but where does it say that he was an NSKK-Brigadefuhrer? Even if he was, I still maintain that the dagger has been tampered with.

Regarding the Third Reich "Executioner's Sword" (yes, it is true - such a method was used during the Third Reich, as well as guillotine), I finally concluded that it was a "pageant" sword - as carried in those mock medieval pan-Germanic displays that were popular at the time. My example bears the Alcoso trademark.

Execution swords, it appears, were normally square tipped. They had only one purpose, and it wasn't combat. An recreated example of this pattern is in the Deutsche Klingenmuseum, it was made by Prof. Woenne in the 1930s. Images of it are shown in my "Edged Weapons of the Third Reich" book.

FJS

FJS,I wrote "...so he was a Brigadef?hrer in Brigade Bayerische-Ostmark?" That is a question to be answered.

Remember I wrote to you that axes were also used for executions?

Erich Benndorff did the research and determined that Gruner was promoted to Brigadefuhrer in 1941. Erich can cite the source.

Thanks to Joe Wotka for his additions to the discussion. Especially for what I am assuming is a 1936 print version of Hühnlein’s signature. I don’t ever recall seeing it in what is essentially a more vertical configuration (versus slanted). With the addition of a couple of fairly prominent umlaut dots. A very interesting variation.

I also think that there is now enough evidence to safely push back the “falling N tail" version of his official signature to 1937 (thanks again to Joe for this very apt description - it now has a name). With the further addition (from the other thread) of Helumt Weitze’s award plaque (via Craig) covering the bases for what looks like 1938. (Weitze’s plaque is cut off, but that is what the date looks like to me.)

Which leads me to ask a couple of questions. I’m not an NSKK specialist, and did not do an exhaustive search, but one of my books puts the NSKK Hühnlein dagger at 1938. With presumably the daggers being manufactured somewhere close to that date. Is this universally accepted as a good date? Which leads me to the next. If R. Grüner was promoted to Brigadefuhrer on November 9, 1941. At what point was it supposed to have been presented to him? And when was it supposed to have been made? FP

This dagger reminds me of the die flawed S+L RKs. They were unanimously considered original by all until one self proclaimed expert (who was pretty good for the most part) decided they were fake. For a few years having one was like having the plaque. All of a sudden it was proven to be original, big surprise to many of us! For those of us who have been collecting for some time, the first hotel buyer vet purchased one decades ago. I am pretty sure although someone can confirm this that Gailen David vet purchased one of these also.
Best Wishes,
Bob

JoeW,

Yes, you are right, you did phrase your statement as a question with an interrogation mark (?) at the end of it. I should have been more precise in my comment about it. The issue for myself is, was Herr Gruner in the NSKK? Brigadefuhrers were also ranked in the SA as well as the SS.

Regarding execution axes - yes that is also true. I was really only trying to respond to your question about the sword - and that my ultimate conclusion was that it was a "pageant sword". I still have it, I can make up a better set of photos if you wish - the general style pattern is that of a Landesknecht, a type of general fighting sword which was apparently favoured by mercenaries. But that is another issue,let us not get diverted by discussing it here.

Fred Prinz, you stated: "I’m not an NSKK specialist, and did not do an exhaustive search, but one of my books puts the NSKK Hühnlein dagger at 1938."

OK, Fred, that is a valued observation, so can you pin-point this source of information, please?

My interest here is that if the Huhnlein daggers were introduced in 1938 - same time frame as the adoption of the regular chains - then why do these de-luxe presentation examples have such a poor quality centre mount? To say nothing of the dubious quality of the rest of the chains!

If the Huhnlein Honour Daggers date from this period, then one might expect them to have the 1936-1941 style trademark - regardless of whether or not they have damascus or plain steel blades. Is that not correct?

FJS

FJS, I think you already know what some of my feelings are as regards the quality control of some of the daggers. With over 2500 hits - I’m also fairly certain that among the SA/NSKK plus Cognoscenti/Specialists out there - some of them have answers to your questions.

In the interim I will PM you with the information on the book (which I think I am interpreting correctly.) But what I really would like to see is some input from some others. To either corroborate or refute some of these technical matters like the dates etc.

PS: I think Bob’s (RFI) point is well taken. But there is a flip side to that coin as well. How many thousands of items that have spent years and years in collections are found out to be fakes? On forums such as this one? FP

I think it would be good to heed the remark that Frederick J. Stephens made in the recent thread about Hammesfahr etches:

"Do NOT believe any description proclaiming that something is "TEXTBOOK". There is no such thing - because there are too many authentic variations with the originals (and they are recognised by other collectors)."

Are these authentic variations ?

Dave

One thing that always baffles me is the direct vet buy and it must be good because it was bought at a motel buy or from the estate or family of so & so. My dad was a WW2 82nd airborne saw allot of combat and was highly decorated and I do have a few things he brought back he also picked up some stuff over the years - just because it was bought from a vet or his family doesn’t mean it returned with him . Buy the piece on the merits of it not the story.

I bought a WW II vintage German army sword from a vet a few years ago. It had a shooting lanyard attached to the scabbard ring and the vet assured me this was exactly how he took it off the captured German soldier.
Jim

WW2-Collector...I couldnt agree with you MORE...
Direct Vet Buy...Motel Buy...SO What,does this mean the item is more original?

Sepp

Hi Guys!
I totally agree with the “vet buy” story however, as I mentioned earlier this dagger was never questioned by anyone except Fred. He did wonders for the hobby eons ago but I think times are different now. Those of you who know me know that I truly strive to only handle unquestionable material. I do my research and I know who to listen to on what topics. This is one person against the establishment. Against, many of the most respected people in the hobby who were active before most of us were collecting.
Best Wishes,
Bob

Bob, in defense of Fred (what a surprise, eh), history is filled with one person being "against the establishment" and that one person, still 100% right (Copernicus comes to mind). However, in this particular case, your analysis is, I believe correct Bob - Fred is wrong in my opinion. I also agree that while "I bought it from a vet" is not a suitable "cover-all" for artifacts, these pieces, especially the one I just bought), come with more than that. These pieces stand on their own merits, are surprisingly consistent when they come out of the woodwork. Dave: I do like the Fred Stephens quote you referenced, and think it is appropriate to mention again:

""Do NOT believe any description proclaiming that something is "TEXTBOOK". There is no such thing - because there are too many authentic variations with the originals (and they are recognised by other collectors)."

The only difference is, these NSKK High Leaders do exhibit "textbook" qualities that 99% of the world agree on. Fred has done a good job of observing certain anomalies that are not currently explainable. But we do have a photo of one such dagger in wear, one with a period personalization on the upper crossguard, one that was actually modified to make the "silver-cartouch fitting" more functional, and we have between 1 and 4 daggers of this type with excellent provenance, depending on how much credence you give each of the written testimonies that I am presenting in this thread.

Craig, Obviously you have owned and/or handled multiple examples of these (Hühnlein) daggers. And seem to have done quite a bit of research as well. A couple of entries back in this thread I asked a couple of what I thought were fairly simple questions. The answers to which I hope you are willing to share with us.

* Where these daggers authorized in 1938, or is that a bad date, and what should it be?

* Keeping the above in mind, when do you think they were manufactured?

* And the criteria for the award of the dagger was based on?

Thanks for your help, FP

Fred Prinz, to answer your questions:

1) Nobody (including me) knows when they were created or authorized or whatever. A lot of information has a way of appearing, and it is my sincere hope that, like the Offermann photo showing the silver-chain in wear, more photos will eventually surface.

2) I prefer not to speculate on when they were made (of course, I like 99.9% believe that they were made before 1945 ).

3) Nobody knows the criteria specifically, just like nobody really knows how and why and when the SA Honor or SS Honor was distributed.

Regarding signatures, I wish to clarify my statement about them: it is fruitless to compare a Huhnlein Dagger signature to other period signatures on other artifacts and photos, because as my archive that I am building will show in the other "sister-thread" to this thread, every time a person signs something, the signature is slightly different. It would be ONE thing if Huhnlein's signature on the blade did not look ANYTHING LIKE Huhnlein's other signatures in the body of signatures we observe. But they do, which says to me that there is nothing inherently "bad" about the signature on the back of the blade of these daggers.

Now, if we could only find one of the "plain-bladed fakes" of the NSKK with Huhnlein signature, we could put the matter to rest once and for all whether or not they are identical or not, to the damascus-bladed examples.

Also, it should be stated that the documentary evidence that is being presented about the origin of many of these daggers is not the same as someone stating without support "Hey, I got it from a Vet."

I now see that the item in question is not shown on your site or even here so again my bad for not understanding all this! I just figured with all the hoopla here it was pictured somewhere. Maybe if your looking for other info you should open threads up at other forums maybe you will get others who dont frequent here to look at what information you are posting and maybe they have other photos or know of another type like you say this is. After re-reading all those older 2007 posts this seems to be a rehash of all of that. It looks like the two sides of the fence never were on the same page then and now. Jason and gailen said their peice and if no one knows much more than was posted then,seems a wheel spinning venture now to me. I think this should have waited until you have the item in hand and have photos. When a few members here were debating the luft machete topic this winter the subject advanced pro and con and everyone used their pieces for examples and the topic moved along towards an end even though we didnt know exact dates of issue and why materials were used in some cases. Not everything was answered but the topic closed with everyone learning. This is starting to look like a guessing game.
Bret Van Sant

Hi
I'm not a "daggers specialist" but I like to learn on nskk.
Maybe can I help you?
I know that Andreas Schulz, a staff member of axis history forum; was searching on a NSKK-BF Grüner Richard :
http://forum.axishistory.com/v...f=5&t=23298&p=202487
You can ask him if he found someone.
Your BF was certainly in the Motorgruppe Bayerische-Ostmark or Hochland (renamed "Adolf Hühnlein" after he deceased).
I will see when I have time if I have something in my documentation on this Grüner.
Cheers

Hi Everyone,heres a Huhnlein chained NSKK forsale here,nats

http://www.egun.de/market/item...3a89adc8de4d1c1d#img

And here's a signature on an original damascus piece (the Bias example).



These two signatures are very different.

Hi
at this moment I have found :
1941 was Richard Grüner Oberführer, leader of the Motorgruppe Bayerische-Ostmark.
Promoted NSKK-Brigadeführer at 9-11-1941.
I hope this help you?
Cheers

If 1 was given to Karl Offermann I'd think a possible reference in his Personalakte is worth looking into. Being an NSKK-Obergruppenführer since September 5, 1938, and a Reichstag member from '36 to the end of the war, I'd think he'd have a rather large (detailed) file. His family is probably all gone for any personal knowledge confirmation/details from the period since he died in July 1956 at age 71, but he was living in Freiburg when he passed away if someone has the diplomacy to investigate.

I have some other matters to attend to. But in the interim, here is a quick comparison of three blades. The one from Stan, the Bias example, and the one that started this topic a while back (in an earlier thread) on the bottom.

Everyone is going to have to be their own judge as to the signatures. And while I see both similarities and differences. Taking into account that the one on top is etched on plain carbon steel versus Damascus. Starting with the first "H", and working our way to the right, how different are the signatures? FP

Fred Prinz

Based upon the images that you have presented, the "basic steel blade" appears to display notable differences to the Huhnlein signature as shown on the "regular damascus steel blades".

As the basic steel blade is commonly presumed to be totally fake, then perhaps we may anticipate that some variation may occur with these faked pieces - or should all the fakes display the same characteristics?

By the same definition - that the damascus pieces are presumed to be totally original - then should we not expect that such etched signatures on those blades should also be totally consistent with each other; because they are not!

My argument has always been that these pieces are not right, and the current evidence appears to support that opinion.

FJS

To further explain the commentary on these etched signatures; It seems to be incomprehensible that we have these "Huhnlein signatures" with such a range and variation of quality and appearance.

We do not appear to have this extreme variation with "Rohm" and "Himmler" signatures, so why should we accept it as tolerable on these "Hunlein signatures"? The whole issue seems to be in grave doubt - and none of Craig's glib answers appear to actually address the real question.

This is my honest opinion.

Frederick J. Stephens

FJS you are so positive in you opinion on these blades.It seems that you have somekind of information on them that you are privy to and cannot or will not devulge it.

I hope this digression is acceptable given the subject of this thread. I do not profess to be knowledgeable about all the various and sundry III Reich blades. But please explain to me what happened to the NSKK High Leader dagger shown on Angolia's book and supported with period photo? Was it deemed a hoax?

Craig, Thanks for the followup. If no one knows of any period documentation, and it all hinges on something like the Offermann photo. Then that’s all there is. Also, I wasn't looking for a ‘pre-1945’ answer. What I was looking for was your best estimate/information as to the actual date of manufacture for the daggers.

Which brings me to the signatures: You stated: “every time a person signs something, the signature is slightly different.” That’s true. But that has no relevance in my view when it comes to what is (presumably) an official signature on a plaque. Or in print, where the mechanism doing the printing is fixed. Because unlike handwritten signatures, things like die sets and printing plates don’t change from one impression to the next.

Of course if you are saying that each dagger had the signature added to the blade by hand. Not with an etching mask. But with the individual doing the work for each dagger one at a time, scrapping away a part of a (blank) mask to create the letters. Then I think that we might have some agreement because of the variations seen with the daggers. As exemplified in the last image I posted, and some others.

Also, as regards” “..... it is fruitless to compare a Huhnlein Dagger signature to other period signatures on other artifacts and photos, because ..... every time a person signs something, the signature is slightly different.” Once again, on solid metal objects, or a printed page? Why is that fruitless, and how do we know Hühnlein himself signed some of those photos?

FJS, I really don’t want to detract from the signature part of this discussion. But earlier you stated: “ I have stated on several occasions that the issue with the markings on the back of the cartouche, the so called hallmarks and Otto Gahr marking, is that they are FAKED. The are crudely cast into the reverse ......”. In my humble opinion you are absolutely correct. And while the images I used to show that earlier were posted on the first thread. I have seen much better evidence that I am not at liberty at this time to share.

(And to be fair: With the dagger that is the topic of this current discussion it’s a complete unknown at this point. As the Hühnlein daggers are found in multiple configurations using different quality parts, and I have no idea where this one might fit into the scheme of things.) FP

Fred Prinz has just written about the "template".That is my question ,we know Himmler and Rohm daggers were produced in quanity.Now how often were these dagger we are reading about produced ?.Mass produced sitting on a shelf to be awarded.Once a month ,on a special day to special personal ??.Was the same template used or destroyed and new ones made everytime and finally who did the signatures for all the items ,some worker in the shop copying a signature ? May sound like a lot of dumb questions to the "experts " in this field ( not meant as an insult)But they have been on my mind from the start.

Zorro,

No, I do not have any exclusive information concerning my knowledge on these Huhnlein daggers. Everything I relate to, or refer to, can be tracked on this site as a statements attributable to myself.

My basic problem with these Huhnlein pieces is that an identifiably fake specimen of hallmarking occurred on some of these early pieces. Until I can get that issue resolved, there will always remain (in my mind, and in my opinion) a recurring doubt that these items are not as honest as they ought to be. That is my genuine opinion - and I also believe that it is the truth.

Frederick J. Stephens

To be very short and to the point, my discussion of signature variations is presented ONLY to illustrate that Fred cannot discount the damascus signature merely because it does not match exactly to a single penned signature. That was, I believe, one argument that is now dispensed with.

I would suggest that any variation with respect to the Huhnlein signature on the damascus blade, can fairly be ascribed to the fact that these were not production items. This is shown by the two types of chains, suggesting that these were not all made up in one batch. As is the case with almost ALL of the damascus dagger types, we don't have records from Eickhorn that explain exactly what they were used for.

To return to the main issue at hand, however. There is mounting evidence that these daggers can be traced out of the woodwork with increasing frequency. Fred stands alone as the one expert who doesn't believe in them. He has even gone so far as to dismiss my dagger before even seeing it. This is not fair scientific inquiry. We've seen the following:

1) One NSKK come out of the woodwork through Gailen David in North Carolina I believe, that was MODIFIED FOR WEAR.

2) One NSKK that came out, directly from a veteran family in Pittsburgh, with a personalization to an obscure Brigadefuhrer in the NSKK.

3) One photo of the illusive NSKK with "suspect" silver chain in wear by an NSKK Gruppenfuhrer.

4) One come out in Denmark last summer, found on a farm (full story coming later, as soon as I get the written statement).

5) One that came out through Ken Brethaur, of Herman Goering Wedding Sword fame, in the state of Washington.

These daggers found all over the world, spanning across a period of 4 decades or more, which totally eliminates the profit motive for any faker. Remember - in order for this to be a fraudulent dagger type, someone in the 1960s had to volunteer his stash of original SA Honor Daggers to be taken OFF the market, modified, and then slowly released over almost 1/2 of a century to the collecting public. Where is the sense in that? Would ANY reader of this thread choose to dispense with a box full of SA Honor Daggers in this way?

This evidence continues to mount, and the family of veteran Mooney is planning to attend the MAX show, and will be glad to face Fred Stephens, who is free to interview them. I'm sure that when he's done speaking with them, he'll believe their story. They are good people, and their father was on record stating that he brought this back from the war. This is NOT a "chrome plated PPK" we're talking about here.

Ed, A long while ago I was in correspondence with a blade maker, and one of the topics was the etching process. He very kindly sent me an unused mask (blade template) which I think that I still have that is packed away somewhere with some correspondence. The blade templates (masks) themselves were used one time. Makers kept the screens to make the masks, and usually made them in at least small quantities to keep on hand to avoid unnecessary handling. Or to replace one if a mask already on a blade was damaged for some reason before etching. With the masks being stored until needed.

Craig, If you are saying that every time when Hühnlein hand wrote his signature it was different, then we are in agreement, and that component of the discussion can be dispensed with. And I'm hoping that there is enough evidence for you that his signature did not change using fixed media. And that part of the discussion can also be dispensed with as well.

“I would suggest that any variation with respect to the Huhnlein signature on the damascus blade, can fairly be ascribed to the fact that these were not production items. This is shown by the two types of chains, suggesting that these were not all made up in one batch.”

As I described to Ed, even if Hühnlein ordered these 8, 10, 12, 20, 25 or ? daggers one at a time. Why should the signatures be so different? Including that messed up example I posted earlier. This is the Carl Eickhorn firm we are discussing not some small mom and pop business operating out of a storefront. And does nothing to explain those amateurish castings with the fake cast in (supposed) “Gahr” markings that F.J. Stephens commented on.

“To return to the main issue at hand, however. There is mounting evidence that these daggers can be traced out of the woodwork with increasing frequency.”

An interesting statement. But the proof is with the items themselves. Sprinkled in among all these daggers all “coming out of the woodwork” there might be an original. Who knows?

BTW: “This is NOT a "chrome plated PPK" we're talking about here.” A quick FYI: Although the Walther firm designed and manufactured both the PPK and P 38 pistols. They are quite different, and Spreewerke GmbH never made the “PPK”. FP

A better close up of one of the signatures already posted:

Fred Prinz: let me be clear on one thing. I don't have to explain anything with regard to these daggers. The testimonial evidence is credible, IS important, and should NOT be brushed aside, as you suggest. Tell me, do you believe these daggers are real? If not, I want you to explain one thing: please paint the scenario of how they were likely produced and disributed into the woodwork throughout the world, at little or no profit, and throughout nearly 1/2 a century of time. You've got to come up with a credible hypothesis to explain hwo this happened. In fact, I ask ANYONE to come up with a credible hypothesis? At the end of the day, I will stand with the Mooney Dagger as my proof that these are real.

Craig, You don’t have to explain anything to anyone. None of us do. But testimonies are just that. Testimonies. Which by themselves, are just one more factor to be taken into account. With some more credible than others. And still others lacking any credibility.

You asked: “do you believe these daggers are real”? Maybe. But do I believe those Hühnlein daggers with the (amateur week) poor quality silver fittings, and fake markings are real? No way. Although parts of the daggers no doubt started out their existence as genuine daggers.

As to a scenario - maybe you should reread Mark Yerger’s comments. With fake and/or altered items from the even the 1950's, and of course the 60's and 70's (and later) constantly emerging as the owners pass on. I'm absolutely certain that you have seen some of them in your travels, as most of us have. (I once started to prepare a list with images of fakes/altered items that I have seen since my time on the Internet, but gave up. It was overwhelming and took too much time.) I would also add that what seems incredible now does not really apply. Because as Mark mentioned, a lot of what we now see now at high prices was sold years ago for very low prices. And if the item was a little tired or worn - there were discounts at even those low prices. And there was a LOT of fooling around.

As for: “At the end of the day, I will stand with the Mooney Dagger as my proof that these are real.”. Maybe it will. And maybe it won’t. But if all you have are testimonies. And it has those fake silver parts, don’t expect me to be won over on the basis of some postwar testimonies or paperwork. FP

quote:

Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb:
I have just returned from Pennsylvania, where I just purchased, directly from the family of the deceased veteran, a chained NSKK High Leader dagger with Hunlein inscription. I video'd about 1 hour of interviews with the family, and got a notarized statement from them, placing the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. I've got photos, DD214s, sworn statements from the son of the veteran (who is a Vietnam veteran as well), as well as a lot of interesting video testimony. Dagger is in outstanding condition, and photos will be forthcoming. I will also be editing the video and posting it on my website in due course.

Craig, I don't think you can accurately assert that the notarized statement places the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. The statement by the seller merely states that his first recollection of seeing the "knife" (dagger) was in 1963 when it his father displayed it. There is no evidence when the dagger was acquired, no "bringhome papers", nothing? The knife/dagger was seen in 1963 and found 46 years later in a safe deposit box. Was the son joint owner of the safe deposit box with his father? If not, was there a wife as co-owner? If not, there should be an inventory of a deceased single owner box, or how would the son gain entry?

And the son's testimony offers no hear-say evidence of what the vet said. He didn't talk much about the war or how (or when) he acquired the three items: knife, pistol and binoculars.

These are logical questions that arise from your opening statement and the "testimony" of the seller.

Craig, I have to apologize for misreading the testimonial letter from the seller of the dagger. Of course he wrote that his father died in 1980 and it resided in his own safe deposit box until his wife closed out the box. So it was not unseen from 1963 until 2009. He received it from his father in 1980.

Joe: Good questions, and no problem misreading the letter at all. I know you've got good intentions. However, more information is all on the 2 hours of video that I shot at their home. I'll likely re-shoot it at MAX this year, under better lighting conditions and with more professional sound. My intent was to document this story in it's entirity, which I have done.

Also, Fred and I have been corresponding privately and have agreed in a renewed spirit of accord, to just disagree on this issue. So you won't see us arguing in public about it anymore. The dagger is posted on my website, and I hope you all enjoy it.

There appear to be accusations or insults creeping into this discussion. I would to all concerned to be polite and understanding.

Thanks