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

This Holler navy has me scratching my head? Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I don�t like the looks of it. Scabbard doesn�t look right -the detail of the pommel is poor-doesn�t have the typical Holler bands or grip wire-Blade etch doesn�t look like a Holler look at the end of the etch toward the crossguard and compare it to another Holler? I am out in left field here?
http://www.craiggottlieb.com/data/inspect.asp?Item=2543...C+Gorgeous+Condition

Tom, I just got a message from Craig, due to the content of the email the navy in question looks like its on sale at least The pommel looks buffed and re-gilted?? or just really worn and re-gilted??? parts is parts. Bret

cog-hammer:

The e-mail from Craig is his regular monthly newsletter. In this one he states that a number of items on his site are on sale.

I don't believe that he only picked out the Holler navy to be put on sale.

John

Got ya! my bad!!!yeah no crop circles this month maybe Craig can take some time and clear this one up at least. Does he still post here?? Dave??? The last few mails I have sent him on factory tags went unanswered. Maybe he is working??
Bret Van Sant

On Sale for .... what ...$2,400 !~

As you Navy guys know that Hollers have many unique features in them.
WW2- collector is IMO correct.

IMO besides what appears to be a poslished and refinshed dagger, many of the "parts" are not Holler "parts".

There are so many things wrong with that dagger that I would only consider it as "junk".
I do like how he mentions the "green" washer.
Holler's came with leather washers.

-serge-


Here are what a Holler should look like.

You do not need to be familiar with the subtleties of Navy daggers to recognise that piece for what it is.

Serge that�s what I call one lookers great pair of Holler navy�s.

Thanks WW2.

Lanser, go ahead call it. You see what it is...

---- MEGA MINT... - JUNK

Unfortunatly some poor stiff newbie will buy it and then come on one of the forums with it and say "Look what I got"!
Then we will lose another collector.

-serge-

Since you ask....I`m not a Navy collector but I have just disposed of a mint WKC example that I had, full gilt & lacquer! In my opinion none of the gilt on that piece looks right to me. The tone & finish just does not look correct - unless it`s lighting. The pommel is very badly worn & pitted & is certainly not in original finish. I would expect a mint pommel to be very crisp in detail & in all probability to have the swaz highlighted in bright finish to contrast with the matt finish,(my eickhorn also has remnants of bright on the swaz). Scabbard bands also matt finish to contrast with bright fire gilted body. The new buffer stands out like a sore thumb & the port does not look original to the piece either. Can`t comment on the rest of it. Just the opinion of a non expert who looked at it & shook his head. Caveat emptor!

Are we missing something here? it would be nice to see some of the guys with all the years of collecting under their belts give opinions on this. Does some of the finish look re-applied to anyone but us? Bret Van Sant

this is the best gilt on a dagger I own. Crappy pic!!!Bret

Maybe a bit closer? Bret

I certainly agree that this Navy is not a textbook example and the pommel has poor detail. But refinished? I doubt it. I have never seen a Navy that I thought was refinished. Why? Because the methods used in WWII are , as I understand it, not available today. So--costs would be considerable and the resulting look would not be right.
When it comes to colors of gold gilting it has been my experience that photos often don't display correct colors.
In this case IMO one would have to have it in hand to determine if in fact it had been refinished.

And another, I'm sure to be looking at apple and oranges here. Sorry best I can do with the phots. My bad again!! Bret

Oh! That is very nice cog-hammer.
I see you have the seldom seen optional chased scabbard rings on this minty Alcoso.

Any chance to see a bit more of this beauty?

-serge-

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
I certainly agree that this Navy is not a textbook example and the pommel has poor detail. But refinished? I doubt it. I have never seen a Navy that I thought was refinished. Why? Because the methods used in WWII are , as I understand it, not available today. So--costs would be considerable and the resulting look would not be right.
When it comes to colors of gold gilting it has been my experience that photos often don't display correct colors.
In this case IMO one would have to have it in hand to determine if in fact it had been refinished.

I believe they used mercury in the fire gilting process so need-less to say it was a highly risky venture and most of the guys probably didn�t reach retirement. The scabbard on this just doesn�t look right to me Houston are those eyelets post-war? Bret I remember many years ago when you bought this navy I tried myself but you beat me to the punch it is a great looking example.

The ring eyelets are like those used on post war scabbards but the rest of the scabbard looks original so I would say No. Post war scabbards that have these type eyelets are almost always the lightning bolt type and have bands made as a part of the scabbard.

Well, I wish Craig was still around but guess we will have some doubts on that one, no biggie anyway. Sometimes dealers miss the net. I hope he catches is slip on this one however. Maybe its not gilt but a plating re-applied?? ah... who knows its just does not look right to some of us.
Tom,I think I beat you by a few minutes. I was pumped to get this from Chip. You know it was lost in the post in the days just after 9/11, well not lost but in the mix took about 2&1/2 weeks to get it. I was so lucky to find the tag also.I'm not sure its worthy of a tag but hell its mine . I'll give this one to the kid I hope or maybe spend the cash someday on a vette upgrade. Funny how we mark our time in this hobby huh? two guys trying to get the same piece. I remember when I called him back he said a guy named Tom just called after you did.What was the one you bought? I remember he had 2 at the time. Shoot I think I may have put it on a credit card at that time??? It seemed like a ton of money then. Hey! those were the good ole' days on the forum also remember, good raffles, sunday chats, Jason, Gailen,lots of guys that you never thought would give a regular guy the time of day were all over the place. Good info lots of neat items to talk about.What one did you buy Tom??
Bret van Sant
ah the good ole' days at GDC

I think the original finish - Fire Guilt - was gold dissolved in mercury and then heated to evaporate the mercury and leave a thin gold finish. Note I said "I think" and I'd be glad if anyone has a better description.

While it might have cleared your sinuses, I suspect that (as said above)they did not reach retirement ... if such a think existed then.


Dave

The Best "Gilt" I've got is on this C&J.

-serge-

The gilting description by Mr Hohaus is essentially correct.
It is a process banned for many years in the
Western world BUT still used in China/India
etc etc.Mercury is used still in the Lighting industry but has been reduced in content
and will be banned in the EU this year.
You cannot dispose of a fluorescent or compact
"dead lamp" except via a certified recycler
or Environmentalist Agency.
Just info.
Seiler (Yank in UK)

I had to study up on this for something recently..This applies directly to your guys daggers.
I guess not a job someone wanted to do..

Here's the complete process:

Fire-gilding or Wash-gilding is a process by which an amalgam of gold is applied to metallic surfaces, the mercury being subsequently volatilized, leaving a film of gold or an amalgam containing from 13 to 16% of mercury. In the preparation of the amalgam the gold must first be reduced to thin plates or grains, which are heated red hot, and thrown into previously heated mercury, until it begins to smoke. Upon stirring the mercury with an iron rod, the gold totally disappears. The proportion of mercury to gold is generally as six or eight to one. When the amalgam is cold it is squeezed through chamois leather for the purpose of separating the superfluous mercury; the gold, with about twice its weight of mercury, remains behind, forming a yellowish silvery mass with the consistency of butter.

When the metal to be gilt is wrought or chased, it ought to be covered with mercury before the amalgam is applied, that this may be more easily spread; but when the surface of the metal is plain, the amalgam may be applied to it direct. When no such preparation is applied, the surface to be gilded is simply bitten and cleaned with nitric acid. A deposit of mercury is obtained on a metallic surface by means of quicksilver water, a solution of mercury(II) nitrate, the nitric acid attacking the metal to which it is applied, and thus leaving a film of free metallic mercury.

The amalgam being equally spread over the prepared surface of the metal, the mercury is then sublimed by a heat just sufficient for that purpose; for, if it is too great, part of the gold may be driven off, or it may run together and leave some of the surface of the metal bare. When the mercury has evaporated, which is known by the surface having entirely become of a dull yellow color, the metal must undergo other operations, by which the fine gold color is given to it. First, the gilded surface is rubbed with a scratch brush of brass wire, until its surface be smooth; then it is covered over with a composition called gilding wax, and again exposed to the fire until the wax is burnt off.

This wax is composed of beeswax mixed with some of the following substances: red ochre, verdigris, copper scales, alum, vitriol, and borax. By this operation the color of the gilding is heightened; and the effect seems to be produced by a perfect dissipation of some mercury remaining after the former operation. The dissipation is well effected by this equable application of heat. The gilt surface is then covered over with potassium nitrate, alum or other salts, ground together, and mixed up into a paste with water or weak ammonia. The piece of metal thus covered is exposed to a certain degree of heat, and then quenched in water.

By this method its color is further improved and brought nearer to that of gold, probably by removing any particles of copper that may have been on the gilt surface. This process, when skilfully carried out, produces gilding of great solidity and beauty; but owing to the exposure of the workmen to mercurial fumes, it is very unhealthy, and further there is much loss of mercury.

This method of gilding metallic objects was formerly widespread, but fell into disuse as the dangers of mercury toxicity became known. Since fire-gilding requires that the mercury be volatilized to drive off the mercury and leave the gold behind on the surface, it is an extremely dangerous thing to do. Breathing the fumes generated by this process can quickly result in serious health problems, such as neurological damage and endocrine disorders, since inhalation is a very efficient route for mercuric compounds to enter the body. See Mercury toxicity for more details about mercury and its effects on the body. Numerous contrivances have been introduced to obviate these serious evils, but the process has generally been supplanted by the electoplating of gold over a nickel substrate, which is more economical and less dangerous.

Thank you! excellent explanation, always wondered about the process.

Is there an obvious way to differentiate between electroplated gilding and fire gilding?

Red

Yes, excellent explaination Gaspare.

To follow up on Red Barron's question: Assuming one was going to "electroplate" over a old "fire gilt", would in the process the old gilting have to be removed and surface polished to allow proper and uniform adhesion of the electroplate?
And is it correct that in area where all of the old gilting may not have been removed that a "residue" or "bubbling" will occur as perhaps evident in the pommel eagle wing recesses on subject dagger when electroplating?

-serge-

Hey! that sounds like that would make sense for what I see on this dagger. Makes great logic to me. Like on Wagner's navy about much better shots than I have but the lines are crisp on his pommel and not rounded over. I know Tom takes issue with the scabbard but mine is just the gilt my bad for spelling this wrong all these years! also. If it is odd lighting in the dagger in question then the lines should be crisp given the the "gild" or gilt. And with the recess areas having the odd look then if this was replated with another process then the removal of the 1st finish may result in the lack of crispness if I can say that. I'm doing some back ground on nickel plating as it relates to WWII period usgi bring backs for the nickel plated forum and many of the guns were buffed and loose a bit of detail in that process. Hey guys great topic we wondered into!!! Bret Van Sant

The reason for my question is that of the 4 Navy daggers I have, 2 have a "typical" gilded finish, one is an Eick, the other a hammered scabbard WKC. My Weyersberg has a very deep, rich gold which is almost bronze and translucent in apperance, the last is a late plain blade WKC which has a very bright gold finish which is quite yellow compared to the others, similar to Serge's example.

I'm aware that at least 3 finishes are seen, fire guilded, electroplated gold and lacquered polished brass, maybe more.

I am unsure how to identify the difference between the fire gilt and "normal" gilt...

Any tips?

Re--Fire gilt or regular gilt ( Whatever that is) I have several Navy daggers made by various firms. # 1. I doubt that all used the exact same process # 2. Some may have been double plated or even triple plated. # 3 All have been stored and used in different ways resulting in almost--No two being exactly the same color. Looking at my 15 or so--that is what I see.

quote:

Originally posted by cog-hammer:
Well, I wish Craig was still around but guess we will have some doubts on that one, no biggie anyway. Sometimes dealers miss the net. I hope he catches is slip on this one however. Maybe its not gilt but a plating re-applied?? ah... who knows its just does not look right to some of us.
Tom,I think I beat you by a few minutes. I was pumped to get this from Chip. You know it was lost in the post in the days just after 9/11, well not lost but in the mix took about 2&1/2 weeks to get it. I was so lucky to find the tag also.I'm not sure its worthy of a tag but hell its mine . I'll give this one to the kid I hope or maybe spend the cash someday on a vette upgrade. Funny how we mark our time in this hobby huh? two guys trying to get the same piece. I remember when I called him back he said a guy named Tom just called after you did.What was the one you bought? I remember he had 2 at the time. Shoot I think I may have put it on a credit card at that time??? It seemed like a ton of money then. Hey! those were the good ole' days on the forum also remember, good raffles, sunday chats, Jason, Gailen,lots of guys that you never thought would give a regular guy the time of day were all over the place. Good info lots of neat items to talk about.What one did you buy Tom??
Bret van Sant
ah the good ole' days at GDC

Bret what a pleasure to have you back posting on the forum. I ended up with a Holler-hammered scabbard-I sold it years ago. Maybe we should try the chat again? It was a blast.

The subject ""Frankenstein" is now - ON HOLD!

Hope the new buyer is happy with this "humped up" piece..cause he's going to have it a very long time.

By the way Tom your right there is something wrong with the scabbard IMO it's...postwar. The blade is ...postwar, and it looks like the the whole piece might be postwar.

-serge-

quote:

Originally posted by Serge (aka Wagner):
The subject ""Frankenstein" is now - ON HOLD! :eek

-serge-

Expensive mistake, must be good to be the king!too many shoot from the hip collectors these days.
Tom, yeah! if we can still get in the chat thing that would be fun. Thanks for the reminder on the other navy. I just couldnt decide on which one, The later alcose mark sealed it though, figured they didnt make them for long with that mark. On you holler,did yours have knot? I dont remember?? hey! again thanks for the luft belt hanger it looks great, condition was a exact match. worth more than 40 bucks !! Bret Van Sant

"The blade is post war" Why? "The whole thing is post war" Why? Just because you don't like the looks of the finish color ( from photos which may not reflect the true color ) and just because the scabbard retaining rings are different ( They WERE used by Eickhorn on high quality period pieces) and just because the piece is not text book does NOT make it a fake. Parts? Yes. Improper felt pad? Yes. A fake? Post war? IMO that has not been proven in any way. Serge-no offense but I think you went a bit too far in saying the piece is a fake-post war and the other comments you made. Is this personal? It seems so.

Why is it fake? postwar? Why.... that's a fair question. Actually glad you asked Houston.
This is actually an informative tread with good participation. And I agree is when someone say FAKE OR POSTWAR he should be able to get into the details to state his case. Cause we all know the "Devil's in the Details."

Holler was an interesting maker of 2nd Navy daggers. There were certain features that are found on Holler manufactured 2nd Navy daggers that were almost always "clear and present" on Navy daggers made by this firm during the 3rd Reich.
Holler never changed their etch. So each etch must be the same. They did however have a slight variation of their company logo.
On the base of etch on the logo side of the "field" of the blade is this series of circles type design...found on all period produced Holler blades that I have seen.





Now take a look at photo 5 on "suspect" dagger and you will see it is missing this design.

-serge-

On all Holler's with hammered scabbards that I have examined, be it "early" or "late", the scabbard "ball" is always finished with a fine and lighter hammering as in these two examples.



On photo #8 on "suspect" dagger this is not evident.

On scabbards of both "hammered" and "engraved" for Holler used "flush mounted headless" screws.



photo #10 of "suspect" dagger showns "dome head" screws. And scabbard bands are not "Holler" either.


Image from Tom Wittmann's Navy book, page 279.

Holler grip wire is the "springy" wire type. No longer avalable (I believe) in the "after-market."



Photo #12 of "subject dagger showns No "Holler Springy-wire"


Image taken from Tom Wittmann's Naval book, page 278.

On "suspect" dagger Photo #14 & 17, Pommel eagle details and sholders are wrong for "Holler". And the whole thing looks ( to me ) like it was made by some kid in "Metal Shop".

There are a couple other things that IMO are not right with this ..... but I've had enough.

If buyer should send the subject dagger to Tom Wittmann for a COA and he says "It's Good"...then I shall "stand corrected".

Is it personal? Yes! Personally I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT. I see nothing but a piece of JUNK!

Are those words too harsh? I don't use it often. However I can't even call this a "Parts Piece" because I don't see any GOOD parts!

But that me and MY OPINION. Others may have differing points of view and I welcome it. -No offence taken-

Regards,

-serge-

An observation I've made on the repro Hollers is that the seams around the sides of the hammered scabbards are smooth. The period ones I have seen are always hammered all the way around, including the sides. The one in question does appear to have smooth, un-hammered sides?

Serge put an end to to that argument. As a new collector I want to thank you for calling out some of these dealers on their suspect pieces. Also for a very educational and objective review of that piece. It seems that things that happened before I joined this forum have clouded some individuals objectivity and I repeatedly see the "you're making it personal" comment. As far as I can tell there was nothing personal in this thread. The sharing of your knowledge is very appreciated.

I'm not much of an expert into KM daggers but I have found this thread extremelly informative.

Well done Serge !

I think that we should really find a way to keep these threads from dissapearing after a while.
We have lost so many great informations in the past and it is just a shame that this info is no more available for the new collectors entering the hobby.
There's got to be a way.

Call Gustavo, he's a computer wizard.

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