UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe Forum Holler navy-Authentic ?

Thanks for the answer Serge. I agree that the dagger is parts. Would I want it in my collection? NO. But--IMO it is not all post war. Some-possibly- and possibly 60's post war assembly. The Holler blade is different--I agree-but it has no post war characteristics that I know of. IMO the lack of the circle design IMO is inconclusive. The TM is not the fake type. The grip looks fine-not a Holler wire wrap but not a fake either. I see nothing wrong with the cross guard-No Holler but nothing to indicate a fake. The scabbard is different -Not Holler- but just because it has the different ring retainers-that is IMO inconclusive and as I said before was used by Eickhorn on some high quality Navy daggers-WWI and II.I have never seen a scabbard like this on any fake or on any other dagger. I don't know about the pomnmel-Not Holler -poor detail but actually the fakes have better quality. So--again, inconclusive IMO. The finish?- Again IMO inconclusive and unlikely a refinish.
Result --IMO Not proven to be totally or even partially post war. Certainly not for me but I do think we have to be careful when we label things "All bad" and "Junk" when we really have not proven that.

Now --the personal thing. You attack this Navy-certainly justifiable--as parts, IMO-- but have nothing to say about the really bad etched Luftwaffe blade that was offered for sale on GDC recently. I am sure you know the one I mean and I am 99 & 99/100 sure that you believe the Luft blade to be a horrible fake-and the last time I looked it still is being offered for sale as original and for big bucks--or has sold--but you say nothing. So--can we have your opinion on that one? The title of the thread --in this Forum is " Etched Luftwaffe blade review"

I just dug up this thread and am a bit "late to the party", but there is great info. here.
Nice disection work done by Serge! Thanks!
Good hunting,
Johnny

Well the holler in question has more questions than answers so that closes the book on it for me. And yes I think its an expensive mistake by whom ever purchased it. I think its been refinished at least. But then I live in the sticks. Remember.... "go with what ya' know" As for some luft etched dagger was that on the test?? I didnt study!
Bret Van Sant

quote:

Now --the personal thing. You attack this Navy-certainly justifiable--as parts, IMO-- but have nothing to say about the really bad etched Luftwaffe blade that was offered for sale on GDC recently. I am sure you know the one I mean and I am 99 & 99/100 sure that you believe the Luft blade to be a horrible fake-and the last time I looked it still is being offered for sale as original and for big bucks--or has sold--but you say nothing. So--can we have your opinion on that one? The title of the thread --in this Forum is " Etched Luftwaffe blade review"

Please checks your facts before making statments like this...

It is not for sale, nor has it been sold.

So because you dont like Serges information, tell everybody to look the other way...

That will make everything right

Thanks for your kind comments Gents.

So I'm now looking for a obviously fake 2nd Luft etched dagger for sale for "big" dollars...I think I found it!

http://www.craiggottlieb.com/data/inspect.asp?Item=2552...fe+with+Etched+Blade

Hummm...WOW!
For one this is not a "Voos" type etch. Anyone with Wittmann's Luftwaffe tome can look at pages 231- 240 and see for themselves.
Seller says it's a Holler but it shows a Horster maker mark, Ok, an error..no biggie.
But I don't like the Horster logo either on pg. 14. It's weak & poorly defined.
The blade is not "nickel plated" as all original Voos types should be. At least that I have seen and accepted to be originals.
But OK, we know their are "exceptions" and "variations" that should be "acceptable" if other certain criteria are met. And there are ones that just plain are not acceptable ...period.
The one item that was THE "ONE LOOK" for me was on pg. 12. The "Eagle" it has "Stubbs" for "talons". The "stubbs" are not even clutching the swastika. It's suspended in AIR!

Here is what it should look like. Image taken from Wittmann's Luftwaffe book, pg. 235.


Also another image of "period" Voos "type" etches from Wittmann's book, pg. 235.


Note where the author says: "The bird grasps a swastika in his right talon".

There are other features in that dagger that I don't care for but there's no need to go further.
I agree Houston...IT'S A FAKE ETCH..and probably a "put together" dagger. And the $7,000 EACH price... .(Each? sounds like he may have a whole box full).

But I do like to finish on a positive note because there is something I DO REALLY LIKE...Those hangers are real beauties!

Regards,

-serge-

You are quite correct, there are a number of differences between the example in the book & the one on the Gottlieb site. The absence of talons is obvious & there are other differences on closer scrutiny. What I particularly noticed was size of the actual panel within which the eagle is placed. In the reference examples the sprig to the left is actually touching the lower etch & the wing tip to the right is very close to the upper. The one on the site shows a significant spacing between these two points. Although the placement of the etch varies to some degree on each of those depicted the proportions do not seem to.

Great points here!
I saw that Luft but did not notice the damning details (but that's where the devil is , right?), and those "talons" look ridiculous.
I know we all like to give dealers (and fellow collectors) the benefit of the doubt when something "questionable" comes up, it just seems like the frequency of these "honest mistakes" becomes... suspicious.
Also, I do not think that Gottlieb is being "picked on" here, he is a dealer who has publicly posted these items and guarantees their originality (as he should). I have seen people dispute the originality of Whitty's stuff, Johnson�s stuff, and most other dealers on this site from time to time. I feel that the frequency with which Craig's items are called into question is NOT the result of personal attacks on Craig, but rather reflect the frequency with which he offers "suspicious" pieces for sale. So I guess what I am saying is; this is not about "not liking Craig", this is about not liking Craig's Holler naval, and his etched Luft, and...

As a medal man trying to learn, I have watched the thread with interest. A number of points have come to me and I would like some clarification. Firstly the Navy dagger, this now as I percieve it has been declarded by Mr Housten Coates as a put together piece, at best pre 1945 but more likly post. This is in line with Serges findings. Secondly the engraved Luftwaffe that was shown before, by Mr Housten Coates is a terrible fake. Then, the Luftwaffe from Craig Gotliebs sit is another fake. This dose leave me with a number of questions. Why is this happening. Why is this happeing. Why is this happening.

Again I must stress that my knoledge on the subject is very scarse. But trying to get to grips with the subject, I can not help looking at awards and coming to the conclusion that one should be able to distinguish the incorrect pieces if this is your field.

I hope some of the members will be able to educate me on this.

I never studied for the luft test.... really.
Any red flag that you spot is just that, it has to be explained away or the I've never seen one like that comes into play. Chris, I'm sure that when you started out it was hard getting a grip on stuff. I'm sure you have made an "oopsie" a few times. As we have all done. Thing is to not continue to make the same one over and over.One time is a mistake twice is a trend kinda thing. Craig has been selling and collecting a rather short period of time so his mistakes seem rather large as the light shines very bright on his wares. Shoot small miss small, shoot big miss big.
I am sure he is working on his average
Bret Van Sant

Very funny Serge. Of course you know that Craig's Luft was not the one I referred to. So--you just turned it around and bashed Craig again with your "one look". OK
However the "one look" in many cases IMO does not hold water.
Now you may very well be right that this is one of the new fakes. But--MAYBE NOT. It is still inconclusive IMO. If we start to see a ton of these then I will be the first to agree that you are right. If not--No.
Now I sure see what you are saying about the talons but looking at the marked Voos type I don't see a really big improvement-only slightly better but still pretty poor IMO. Certainly IMO not a " night and day" difference-So--again-Different ? Yes. Conclusive? No.
Now the unplated blade thing. It is NOT true that all the Voos types with leaves under the wings have plated blades. If you look at the Eickhorn excamples in Wittmann's book you will see unplated examples. But --maybe you think these are fakes also as no doubt they are slightly different.
Also if you apply your "one look" to the two examples of Holler Navies you show above-one has got to be bad-as they are VERY different in just the small portions of them you show. Just take a look-different TM's-different release buttons-poor fit of the spring in one ETC. ETC. They ARE quite different! They ARE from the same maker! Do I think one is bad? NO.
How can this be? Because that's the way it is with this stuff!!!!! Many pieces from the same maker have different characteristics.--and YES-some WERE made that way. Why is a different subject. They did not make this stuff for collectors and they just did not care if everything was exactly right or the same. In my 50 + years of collecting and looking I constantly see things I have never seen before. When I do I always look at least twice.

Craig states, 'voos type' etch, so room for manouver here. Nothing anywhere near it in Tom's book, but again there are several different types of etches shown, I wonder how many of each different type are around? The rest of the piece is certainly correct, it looks superb and if it really is a genuine piece it is much rarer than the more commonly encountered standard 'Voos' and in a perfect world would be worth much more.
However, as we all know, buying is one thing, selling is a different matter and the reason I always stick to text book pieces even though this may sometimes mean passing on a potential gem. Tough one this Luft, I really like it, but 7k is big money to have it dissed later.

Nolan

PS, To my thinking the description 'Voos type' means in the style of, its clearly not voos, the arabesque design is nowhere near, but in the same style , it's arabesque, so I don't think it can be condemned on that alone, there is an Alcoso that is 'similar' but not identical, sorry guys I'm really struggling with this one.

Voos type means just that. Not exactly like a Voos but with the sprigs under the wings and the same general style. IMO it is just too early to tell if this is good. It's just a guess at this point. If we see a bunch of these soon we will know, If we never see another--Well -Would they just fake one? Nope --Not IMO. In that case it would be a good buy.Some want to take these chances-some don't. Sometimes you win-sometimes you lose. I have seen it happen both ways several times in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Christopher J Ailsby:
As a medal man trying to learn, I have watched the thread with interest. A number of points have come to me and I would like some clarification. Firstly the Navy dagger, this now as I percieve it has been declarded by Mr Housten Coates as a put together piece, at best pre 1945 but more likly post. This is in line with Serges findings. Secondly the engraved Luftwaffe that was shown before, by Mr Housten Coates is a terrible fake. Then, the Luftwaffe from Craig Gotliebs sit is another fake. This dose leave me with a number of questions. Why is this happening. Why is this happeing. Why is this happening.

Again I must stress that my knoledge on the subject is very scarse. But trying to get to grips with the subject, I can not help looking at awards and coming to the conclusion that one should be able to distinguish the incorrect pieces if this is your field.

I hope some of the members will be able to educate me on this.

Chris
Both these daggers you spoke of are not textbook pieces hence the differing opinions. Having said that most daggers IMO are easily distinguishable as authentic by the average collector with nominal experience. I feel it is one of the easier fields in the German collectible market. Yes there are exceptions NPEA pieces �etched pieces to name a few but even these if studied in depth can be determined�I personally stay away from these because my comfort zone not to mention my wallet is uncomfortable in this area. Bottom line these daggers discussed here are oddballs and most collectors wouldn�t consider them as Houston said some will and some won�t.

Back to the chase, this is the important part. Having evaluated the posts, it now seems Mr Housten Coates is saying the Naval dagger at best is a parts piece from the period, but more likly that it is post 1945. I need to clear this in my head. The the Luftwaffe dagger, is again a terrible fake. Putting this together it seems that there is a slight problem with the soarce of the material.

Again I have to say I am not at all knolegeble on the subject, but trying to learn. Then back to my study platform, if this came up I would be SHRIEKING, JUMPING UP AND DOWN.

Have I lost the plot?

Please Mr Coates could you enlighten me.

Chris--I'm unsure of what you are asking. Perhaps this will answer you??
1) Many original edged weapon parts were left over after the war. Many pieces were put together and sold to Allied forces in Germany. Where original parts were lacking, reproduction parts were used. This process has continued ever since 1945 with more and more reproduction parts being used with the remaining period parts.
2) After spprox 1939 many edged weapon parts were out of production and many manufacturers were unable to assemble pieces exactly as they did pre-war. So--they bought from each other and also used universal generic parts. This resulted in many pieces being assembled pre-1945 but still made up of parts made by different firms.
3) So--if all original parts are observed on a dagger but they are distinctive parts identifiable as being made by one, two , or more manufacturers--and all have the same age and color etc. It often is impossible to say with certainty whether assembly was made pre or post 1945.
4) Some label these as "Fake" as some are post 1945 assembly-- but some are not.
5) Many collectors--mostly the advanced types or the more knowledgeable ones don't like these pieces and in the opinion of most they are worth a lot less than the pure piece containing all textbook identifiable parts from one manufacturer. But as I said some of these are period made and IMO do have a place with the budget or beginning collector or the less serious collector looking for a period piece at a lower price.

I would think it is the same with medals in many cases. Many left over parts matched with reproduction parts, ribbons, pins, etc. both pre 1945 and post. Correct?
I don't know if this a big discussion item in the medal world but I also suspect that the medal firms also bought from each other during the war years and many medals may be a mixture of parts but in fact period? Yes? It does seem logical. Oh Yes I know--these are ALL considered fakes I think--but are they? Hmmm.

Well Chris if that don�t answer your question nothing will. Houston you summed that up nicely Bravo-Thank You

The "thing" that will "sum this ... up nicely" is a COA from Tom Wittmann. And IMO that's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Not on the Navy or Luft.

-serge-

Thank you Mr Housten Coates, your eplanation is most enlightening and dose indeed follow that which was found in the medal world. But in the medal world there was much less in the production field. Thus combining parts was less of an issue.

My main point still remains, "Back to the chase, this is the important part. Having evaluated the posts, it now seems Mr Housten Coates is saying the Naval dagger at best is a parts piece from the period, but more likly that it is post 1945. I need to clear this in my head. The the Luftwaffe dagger, is again a terrible fake. Putting this together it seems that there is a slight problem with the soarce of the material."

Do you substanciate the point that the navy is as descibed? The Luftwaffe dagger is a fake. These are the salient points.

I see no obvious fake parts on the Navy so I have no idea when it was assembled. Others have opinions but no real proof one way or the other.

The Luftwaffe blade with an unplated unmarked blade and a buzzard looking head shown in the Luftwaffe etch review is a fake. The fittings, and scabbard are period. The Luftwaffe dagger blade shown in this thread may or may not be original. There is no proof one way or the other, just opinion.

Just re-read this thread....

To clarify my undertanding or the latter end of this thread...

It is totally acceptable for a "one of a kind known" type of luft etch to have no talon's ...to be given the thumbs up.

If the eaqle's head is slightly different from a "Text book" on another known "Eickhorn type etch", its totally unaceptable ?

We all know about etch bleed and how it can make imperfections, but feet falling off ... Seriously.
(I've just taken a second and third look... and its still got no feet ...)

Also what is a "parts medal" ?? I've been collecting medals /decorations for 30+ years.
And have yet to come across "Parts Medals" or decorations in the context of "Parts daqggers"
I've seen the early quality types, and the late war, low quality types, but a parts medal .. no...

Perhaps someone could clarify that for me ....

Mark

Stirnpanzer,
"Feet falling off"? Swastika suspended in mid-air....Just got me wondering...

Perhaps it is one of those "only talked in wispers", "Above Top-Secret", "Vril" Nazi UFO Anti-Gravity, Deepest part of the "Hollow Earth", SUper SS - Alien "Back-engineered", unacknowledged part of the "Gehiem Wunder Waffen" project....etches?
There would be no need for "feet" anymore! You can't say it's NOT impossible!?

-serge-

http://netowne.com/naziufos/

Note the UFO Luftwaffe Pilots badges!

No parts medals? Ha!
Medals with replaced ribbons-some left over -some fake.
Boxes and medals matched up that did not come together
Fake boxes and real medals and vice versa.
Made up medal bars-some with real medals and fake ribbons-some with real ribbons and fake medals or a combination.
Real medals/badges with replaced repro/real left over pins.
Unfinished left over medals -finished after the war.
Medal bars w/ some missing medals replaced with others
Medals & medal bars with devices added.

All these combinations exist and have existed for many years-and they are in many medal collections.

Houston hit that one right on the money! Medals and decorations are the worst area of third reich to fool with! Then there is all the cobbled up headgear nowadays. I have allways thought and still say blades are the safest area in third reich.

Ed:

Safe is only relative. It is a minefield out there.

Only knowledge and a contact list of experts can cut down the risk.

And forums like this.

But one must always be careful of separating the wheat from the chaff.

John

Go with what ya know, simple. I dont envey folks with killer collections and lots of fancy etched and engraved do-dads. But I guess thats where the money is at for the dealers..........
I own 1 etched piece thats named seems like enough for me.
the Holler in question still needs to be explained so end of debate for me anyway.

Chrome dont gey ya home! when i was a kid and really into cars. Old timers would call them 20 footers!!!

UFO badge, whatever....
Bret Van Sant