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

Here is another attempt:

No, it didn't work, I will seek other help. Please stand by. Thank you.

The last few pages of dialogue on this topic seem to involve the same individuals. Where are all those that were involved at the beginning? cheers

Posting photo for FJS, Nats

In the first discussion my focus was more on the areas that were in my comfort zone, with a number of points that FJS was making outside my experience. But time has elapsed. More knowledge gained, augmented by some of the new photos which have more recently come to light.

I also now understand why there was so much argument about the “individuality” of the signatures. And why it was “OK” (but not by FJS), because they were done one at a time by hand just like handwriting.

I’m going to have to go back and gather some images to show parallels. Because what we are looking at just above is an example where an engraver messes up and can’t afford to toss out the item. And instead has to widen the engraving to salvage his work - and the blade. FP

Fred, your contributions are enormously helpful and educational. the pronouncements of "the debate is over" seem to be (as usual) premature.

Speaking for myself, I enjoyed your thoughtful and very professional analysis as well as Fred Stephens contributions and comments.

Mark

This is much better than CSI......

To show something is a fake without a doubt you -IMO- must show what an original looks like-- It really does not matter that you don't like the way something was made---and we know there is at least one original chain with the different top fitting out there somewhere.
So IMO and in the minds of many-you have presented some interesting facts but there is other worthwhile evidence also on the other side that you fail to note.
Conclusion -IMO-nothing has been proven. Many questions remain. Without the original chain-doubt and opinion is all that is left.

Dear Dave, may we please return to the Hallmarks. These are nor right. You show how these can be used fraudently. Your cuff links tell all. If the chains show faulse marking, what goes for the rest?

Did the cufflinks not have the "real" hallmark silver number on the back or was that an issue number or something?.

sorry it has been proven that the top hanger is a fake as it has cast hall marks which you just do not get on genuine silver items .today the punishment for faking hall marks is very severe imagine what they were during the 3rd reich

Thank you Mark. For me the discussions have been a very interesting and educational process as they have gone back and forth, and touched on a lot of areas. With the credit for bringing the Hühnlein daggers into question belonging to Frederick J. Stephens. Who as I recall was somewhat reluctantly dragooned into the original discussion by Craig. Two years later here we are again revisiting the issue.

Houston, While Craig for some reason seems to be having an unusually hard time in getting the “Offermann” photo posted. No one has questioned its existence. With the photo being around not since the book, but from when it was originally taken. And there are still a lot of photos out there which have never been published but in circulation with specialists in that area.

As for: “To show something is a fake without a doubt you -IMO- must show what an original looks like” doesn't really apply if the original no longer exists or does not come into public view. (And it does matter how things are made, or if they have fake markings or not.) “but there is other worthwhile evidence also on the other side that you fail to note.” With my question being: How much of it is what we might call ‘hard’ evidence? And how much of it is in the form of postwar documentation, testimonials, recollections, or the personal experiences of those in the business of TR memorabilia? Both have or can have value. But when there is a conflict at some point prospective buyers are going to have to make a choice.

As for “proof”: From my own perspective I have to first look at the pictures. With Third Reich artifacts some things make sense, and some don’t. FP

PS: A few entries earlier I should have said: "For example: the lack of the right kind of bending apparatus for the small wire chain connector links. Which is why you see a lot of them flat or flattened, instead of being round ...."

Right on!! With Third Reich artifacts some things make sense -others don't.
If testimony is next to worthless then there is no recorded World History that has much value either. If that is the case then you just simply have to choose what you are willing to accept until some other proof comes along to change your mind.
For me, and for many others, we are willing to accept these daggers as period based on testimony and other factors that we choose to believe until better proof than you have presented comes along.
I doubt if anyones cares much for the way these chains are constructed or the signatures applied-but what we think does not matter. As Tom Wittmann is fond of saying "Sometimes it is what it is"
As for all the ,IMO, hype about proper silver marks-the Nazi's were just a tad arrogant enough to do whatever they felt like-and they made their own law. To compare England or any other European Country to them is, just, IMO, "apples and oranges". Not comparable.

Houston, Maybe I can illustrate my point better with something that happened a number of years ago when I was more in my gun collecting phase. At a major Southern California show a guy had for sale a Russian M1940 Tokarev rifle. There are period photos of German soldiers with the M1940.

The rifle in question had a number of Waffenamts stamped on it, and he wanted a lot of money (for that time) for the rifle. The guy had a “story” to go along with the rifle and why it was so valuable.

To cut to the chase: It turned out that the guy had borrowed an original set of stamps. From someone who had no knowledge that the guy was going to create a fake (altered) rifle to extract the maximum amount of money from unsuspecting TR weapons collectors.

Some things make sense, and some don’t. And no amount of paper, testimonials, or photos was ever going to make that rifle legitimate. (And somewhere it's in somebody's collection because it got sold, and at some point is going to reemerge into the marketplace, only to disappear again.) FP

Dear Dave, I would like to high light your thoughts on NAZI Marking. They were just as perdantic, they had the RZM, LDO marking which was regourously enforced. The production of Orders was stricktly controlled. Take the silver marking on Eagle Orders. The silver mark with maker mark on the 20July wound badge. As another example of the control, with very precise ramification, is illistrated by the markings on some Goring silver given to him on his wedding. They bear the silver content and makers mark. When this silver was loaned with the Caren II TO THE NAVY, EACH PIECE HAD A NAVAL EAGLE HAND ENGRAVED UPON IT WITH THE ORIGINAL MARKING. This was a very precise piece of work.They did not make a punch, this would have shown through the silver on the obverse.The silver produced by Zitner, was very carefully marked. Witness the silver frames of Hitler and Goring. The honour goblet, produced in silver, duely marked, that in alpaka stamped as such.One could go on.

quote:

As for all the ,IMO, hype about proper silver marks-the Nazi's were just a tad arrogant enough to do whatever they felt like-and they made their own law. To compare England or any other European Country to them is, just, IMO, "apples and oranges". Not comparable.

Houston:
I am going to have to disagree with you here. In my time spent in the general antiques field I had the opportunity to examine many pieces of hallmarked silver including ones from Germany made during this period. An occasional piece would turn up with a spurious mark as there was fakery in silver as there is fakery in practically any collectible area.
However, In all the pieces I examined I never once saw a piece with cast hallmarks. I am extending an invitation to anyone on this forum to produce a piece of silver from Germany with cast hallmarks.
You have often stated the "One red flag doesn't necessarily make a piece bad" and I agree. However there's a big difference between some German craftsman have an off day and an item slipping thru inspection or someone marking a silver item in an illegal way.
Jim

Houston,, This is really silly,,,we do not have the burden of proof! Craig does,,and he offers none..
How about him showing a 100% Gahr item with those hallmarks?!

Here are some,,do they look even close!

nice, clear, crisp.:

FJS: “The Discussions on the form of the “etched” Huhnlein signature are interesting, and it might well be that a “craftsman” (those quotation marks are “tongue-in-cheek” deliberate) might have presumed he would get a better result if he went over the etched design with some cutting tool.”

I think sums up nicely what seems to evident with this blade. Very likely caused by little or no experience with deep etching on Damascus steel. This partially ruined blade demonstrates why it might have been necessary to change how the signatures were applied to the blades, with mechanical engraving being the next best choice. With later produced blades possibly using a very light etching to first create the design. Which was traced/followed by the one doing the engraving. FP

PS to Gaspare: I can’t argue with that. They bear no resemblance to those on the daggers.

For me, and for many others, we are willing to accept these daggers as period based on testimony and other factors that we choose to believe until better proof than you have presented comes along.
I doubt if anyones cares much for the way these chains are constructed or the signatures applied-but what we think does not matter. As Tom Wittmann is fond of saying "Sometimes it is what it is"
As for all the ,IMO, hype about proper silver marks-the Nazi's were just a tad arrogant enough to do whatever they felt like-and they made their own law. To compare England or any other European Country to them is, just, IMO, "apples and oranges". Not comparable.

Houston:
I'm still patiently waiting for some sort of proof of these statements. You can make any claims you want but you are purely speculating. IMO. These "hallmarks" are in violation of the law and I see nothing contrary to this being posted by you.
Jim

I agree that the Nazis were very arrogant people, certainly the ones in the top positions, wearing daggers like these.

Sorry, but to me it seems impossible that people like that would accept a dagger with such ugly and clumsy applied signatures and bad silver chain links,... They would have sent the piece immediately back to the Eickhorn factory for correction!

Best greetings,

Herman

It seems to me that if Gottlieb found it, it must be accepted. I just read the alleged MAX program highlights announcing Fred Stephens seminar and it is a pure, unadulterated set-up calling Mr. Stephens views "extremely unpopular with the collecting community". WHO exactly are they unpopular with?

Simply disgusting, if true.

Mark

Here it is...

SEMINAR PROGRAM

This year the MAX seminar program presents an “Evening with Frederick Stephens”. Mr. Stephens, an experienced British author and well known 3rd Reich daggers expert, will be on the “grid iron” this year for the MAX seminar presentation. Fred says he is ready to speak on varied topics and answer attendee’s questions.



In recent years, Mr. Stephens’ militaria related statements are not without controversy, as recently he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. This is a great time to attend the seminar and express your personal observations and experiences, and give Mr. Stephens’ a sound verbal challenge!

You hit the nail squarely on the head Kingtiger

To put this in proper perspective...

1. Gottlieb finds the dagger and "video tapes some interview". The dagger is first seen by the current owner in 1963! But his father brought it home in 1945? The video is being "edited". No kidding.

2. Gottlieb gives Whittmann exclusive rights to show the dagger. Why? Is Gottlieb making a token offer after he escaped the inquisition that was supposed to be be held at the MAX? Why would he not show it off himself...only to give it some more credibility I think.

3. Gottlieb admits he and Whittmann have serious problems. He e-mails me telling me that to please don't run any of his problems past Tom as they are having disagreements.

4. Whittmann tells me personally that "whenever there is controversy, Gottlieb is right in the middle of it every time".

5. The MAX Certification Program has no written ethical standards and now they must be written.

6. The invitation to beat up on a respected researcher is sent out TWO WEEKS before the MAX Show.

7. We are expected to be quiet and not raise any voice in all this?

8. Anybody that want to come to my house and video tape a dagger and use that video as proof it was real is welcome to do so. It must be accepted...is this not what is being said here in the opening of this thread and the letter from the "veterans son". Plus, I too am a Viet Nam veteran..what the heck does that have to do with anything. Is Gottlieb a Viet Nam veteran? I think he was in diapers when I was in the field. This stinks gentlemen...all of it.

Mark

As I read it from the content of this thread the debate really is over these NSKK Leaders daggers are all humped up FAKES
Lets have a forum vote on it then let it rest but leave FJS out of it

PLEASE!!! The comments concerning the Seminar Program Friday Night at the MAX were written and composed over a year ago when the original program was set up for LAST YEAR'S PROGRAM, which had to be cancelled at Frederick's request due to personal problems. So, don't attach this current discussion to the written comments concerning the seminar program.
Ron Weinand
MAX Seminar Coordinator

What can one say? Smoke and mirrors. Fake "Hallmarks" and "Old Programs". Could this be a wonderful fairy tale? Goblins goules and gosties?

The problem that I’m having is that when I looked it up. I found an online bulletin for the Max show on the "Military Trader" website not from a year ago, but a new one dated September 2, 2009. With a description of the new facilities, a list of attendees (ie: recognized names in the collecting). The fact that a TV film crew is going to be there, and some other things.

And the same description of the MAX seminar program that Mark posted is simply an oversight?

Here is a link: MAX show agenda

FP

Frogprince: HELLO! We are using the SAME press release that was written for the SAME PROGRAM that was cancelled last year for this year's seminar as IT IS THE SAME PROGRAM now that Frederick can come over.
There is no disrespect here, just a disagreement on certain topics in Third Reich edged weapons? What's NEW??

If you all want an example of what the discussion will be about, just look at the old threads on the RAD "FAT MAN" Hewer that Frederick was involved with on this forum in the past.
It will be one of the topics for discussion as I already have collectors asking for this to be brought up during the program.
Ron Weinand

Hello Ron! OK, lets assume that in a best case scenario the writer simply reused what was published last year. (If I have a copy from last year I don’t know where it is.)

The bulletin on the Military Trader website is very well written. And I am going to make the assumption that the writer read it at least once or twice before it was published because his name was attached to it.

“In recent years, Mr. Stephens’ militaria related statements are not without controversy, as recently he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. This is a great time to attend the seminar and express your personal observations and experiences, and give Mr. Stephens’ a sound verbal challenge!”

To an outside observer, wouldn’t that look something like a challenge to try and intimidate him?

PS: Not to distract from the Hühnlein discussion. I think I saw somewhere that another topic might be on the agenda ie: the many varieties of knives that use the “DJ” knife as the basic “chassis” or building block (to create all those different themes with diamonds, stag grips, etches etc.). Is that on the list also? FP

After seeing Max 2009 it could be read as "Now’s you chance to try and humiliate FJS in person...."

I cannot standby and what and watch a principled honest man (and personal friend of 30+ years) being set up for a fall…. Because of big $$$$

I can only hope that ALL the dealers who own theses NSKK's will be bringing them to the show,
to compare each of them together and all their "Unique Characteristics", if not why not...they should have nothing to hide.

Remember FJS has NO financial involvement in these items just an academic research involvement, whereas the Dealers just have big $$$ at stake.

And some are the dealers that turn to FJS for Advice. !!! Which is rarely mentioned.

Some will have asked for “Favorable reports on a piece” and then “Lose the plot” when FJS will not give it, at any price, if not deserved.

I’m still amazed at the “Let just ignore the silver marks, red flag ….. They don’t count in this case… ” because we’re talking big $$$$, if it was a $100 item it would be dismissed as junk.

I’m sure a lot of other people are thinking what I’m thinking.

Mark

Bottom line if a junior member had posted that dagger here it would have been instantly denounced as junk ten pages ago the hypocracyin this hobby these days astounds me

[quote]I’m still amazed at the “Let just ignore the silver marks, red flag ….. They don’t count in this case… ” because we’re talking big $$$$, if it was a $100 item it would be dismissed as junk.[/quote

Unfortunately that's exactly what's happening as there hasn't been ONE reasonable explaination for "hallmarks" which are not only bogus but would have been illegal. I guess when there's $$$$$$$$$$$ involved no matter whether it's a bad TK ring or a highly questionable "enhanced tunic" or a dagger with no apparent hard documentation it will get stonewalled until the discussion just goes away.
Jim

I’ve got to go and dig out some images. But I sincerely hope that the discussion doesn't die out until the center mounts have been looked at - in the context of what has now been revealed.

Back to the issue at hand, the acceptance as OK of fake hallmarks. FP

The discussion won't die, but there are, again, insults that have nothing to with the subject being posted.

On the other hand, I seem to be seeing the same pictures over and over with little new info

Dave

In my opinion FJS has contributed more to this hobby than any member of this forum....and certainly more than any dealer member of this forum...he has my respect and admiration and has done NOTHING to harm this view...I have yet to catch him offerring reproduction or made up junk to customers..I wish that I could say the same of some others...you live or die by your reputations and unfortunately some of the reputations here are not as unsullied as they were when some started out in this hobby/business...IMO

Dave, I have to agree with you. Current owners seem to be unwilling to share new images in order to make an effort to dispute some of what has been said. That was the problem with the first discussion. As soon as the discussion started to go sideways the new pictures dried up.

That said: Some of what is different here is the wide based confirmation that the Gahr marks are fakes. And that the Hühnlein signatures, besides being all different, are engraved on at least some of the daggers. With both some of the new (and first discussion) photos being used to illustrate the various points.

Also, “stirnpanzer” made the comment: “I can only hope that ALL the dealers who own theses NSKK's will be bringing them to the show, to compare each of them together and all their "Unique Characteristics", if not why not...they should have nothing to hide.”

Why wait? A discussion now along with some images of daggers in the possession of some of the current owners should streamline the seminar. Especially if the seminar is loaded up front with the testimonials that have been called for in the MAX bulletin. Which might not leave enough time to actually discuss the daggers.

I’m also in agreement that insults don’t further a discussion, and can sometimes cloud the issues under discussion. And they can, on occasion, also get a topic shut down which (if I’m remembering it correctly) is what happened with the first one which was unfortunate. Regards, Fred

"he has been speaking out against the authenticity of several well known, accepted dagger types. These views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community.


- you guys aren't kidding,, it stinks. That's pure bull**** whether it be last year or this year,,,and you guys proved they are running it again this year... Hey Fred,,how much they paying you to attend this thing?! ..

No disrespect Ron?!? If that was about you you'd be the first one crying about it to have it changed.. How about playing fair, You have some pull being a major stock holder. Why don't you re-arrange that to make it that Craig's views are extremely unpopular with the collecting community. and sound verbal challenge to him...

Hopefully the younger / new collectors are smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong. To know that guys with items like this,,that use forums like this, to try and legitimize their unorthodox pieces are doing this hobby wrong. To try and not frequent their sites to purchase and to make a stand and leave shows like this to the good ole boys and let these good ole boys trade these questionable pieces back and forth between themselves..
Sure the debate is over..I'd say the second he showed those hallmarks again it was over........