UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SA & NSKK Dagger Forum MY NEW SA PUMA DAGGER

Next.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

FIRST OF ALL I MUST APOLOGIZE FOR LISTING MY FIRST POST AS(MY FIRST SA PUMA DAGGER)WHEN IT IS A NSKK WITH A BLACK SCABBARD AND HANGER.I SPOKE TO THE SELLER TODAY AS HE GAVE ME SOME INTERESTING INFO ON IT,WHICH ILL SHARE WITH YOU.HE SAID HE DIDNT THINK(KURPFALZ)WAS A PERSONS NAME BUT WAS A HEADQUARTERS OR DISTRICT AREA FOR THE NSKK.MAYBE ITS A DISTRICT AWARD.HE SAID ITS LISTED IN TOM JOHNSONS BOOK FIRST VOLUME.THEY WERE PRIVATE PURCHASE PIECES AND MAY VARY IN STYLE AND QUALITY ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT.THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING FOR FREDERICK J. STEPHENS BECAUSE HE SAID(KURPFALZ)WAS NOT A GERMAN NAME BUT A HOTEL OR UNIVERSITY.HIS OPINION WAS SOLEY BASED ON THIS,TILTING HIS VIEW AGAINST THE PIECE.(DENNY)IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS(DEUTSCHER)POSTED OF HIS REAL DAGGER,THEY LOOK SIMULAR TO YOURS FRONT AND BACK.I DONT HAVE TOM JOHNSONS BOOK BUT THE SELLER SAID ON PAGE 238 IT STATES(A)THEY WERE COMPLETELY CUSTOMIZED PIECES.(B)THEY WERE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS,MEANING ANY COMBINATION OF STYLES WAS POSSIBLE.I HOPE THIS SHEDS A DIFFERENT LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT.I KNOW THIS LOOKS LIKE IM DEFENDING MY DAGGER,JUST TRYING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. JOE

The subject of this dagger is getting increasingly more intriguing, and I look forward to seeing what my old chum, Tom Wittmann, has to say upon the subject.

I still stand by my statement that "Kurpfalz" is not a "family" name, and therefore the use of this noun seems to be inappropriate. It might as well feature the name "Saarbr�cken", or "Potsdam", or "Schwarzwald". They are all very Germanic, but not one of them is really believable as a family name. And, of course, there is another issue to this.........

When you look at the images of Joe's "Kurpfalz" dagger, there is nothing in those images that could not have been deduced from close study of the "Ernst Kraft" dagger shown in Johnson (vol 1), and therefore it is not something that a reasonably competent engraver could not have achieved.

However, when you study the images provided by Denny J. Roach, and Deutscher, of their respective daggers - then there ar some features in their respective pieces which are closely similar to each other, but not evident on the "Kurpfalz" piece.

Whereas, previously, I had questioned the fact that all these daggers had different trademarks, and in one case (at least) it featured an SA Gruppe mark - thus showing it had been officially issued through the SA clothing counters, I believe I now may have a bona-fide reason to explain that anomaly.

Before I do that, however, does any member have information as to where the "Ernst Kraft" dagger currently is, or indeed the recently sold "Otto Telschow" dagger? I would like to double-check my analysis before I announce my revised opinion - because I think that the "Ernst Kraft" dagger, and the "Telschow" piece might reveal something of fundamental interest.

This is no reflection on Joe's "Kurpfalz" piece, or the dealer who sold it to him - I am well prepared to accept that 30 years down the line current owners of items are honestly and truthfully accepting of the veracity of their items. The problem is, that if some of these pieces are found to be lacking in authenticity, then they cast a doubt against other pieces which may (or may not, as the case may be) completely authentic.

We have no choice but to examine all these pieces in complete detail. It is the only way to get to the truth.

FJS

UPDATE: I JUST RECEIVED MY DAGGER BACK FROM TOM WITTMANN. HE SAID THE ENGRAVING LOOKS TOO BE PERIOD DONE WITH THE GERMATIC STYLE,DEEP ENGRAVING THAT YOU SEE ON LUFT PIECES.HOWEVER THE SCABBARD SEEMS TOO BE REDONE POSTWAR GIVING SUSPECT AS TO WHEN THE ENGRAVING WAS DONE.I DECIDED TO RETURN THE DAGGER TO THE SELLER.TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT I TRADED EVEN FOR A EARLY SS BOKER WHICH ISNT AS CLEAN AS THE NSKK WAS BUT IM VERY HAPPY WITH IT.I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR COMMENTS PRO AND CON,FOR IT GAVE ME A LEARNING EXPERIENCE ON MY FIRST DAGGER.JOE

Well then... welcome to the dark side!

I love these stories with that ending

Welcome to the dark side !

Dave

Another "convert"....

I hate to say this, but Tom Wittmann will give just about any dagger a thumbs up.

Mr. Stephens
Why are you so hung up on the Kurplatz name? It's one of the post 34 SA Gruppen.

Tom Wittman said it "Looks" period done....which actually is a Terrible word to use as it leaves open the question of authenticity and leaves hin free of any Legal issues.Being an "expert" or a Big name I think he is too Vague in his opinions.I had a Piece that was Pictured in his SS Book...even had a Letter of authenticity but when I looked at it it showed very suspicious.

TOM

Riding down the middle of the road is the much safer route.

I fail to see how an engraving is period, but not good when the scabbard appears to be messed with. Strange evaluation to say the least.

It's either black or white (no shade of gray)and in this case it's definitely black (bad). (Pardon the pun you SS guys.....)

I think we sometimes play on words just in case we might be walking into some well known dealers backyard? Tell it like it is. An evaluation like that leads to mass confusion and opens the door for someone to buy that thing again..... Rather disconcerting.

Denny

Jon
Don't think we heard from you before this went to Wittmann. What is your opinion? Just wanted to hear your slant on things....
Denny

Denny,
I feel the style engraving on these daggers appears to be done more for the collecting community then for a SA mann during the period. Looking at deutscher example I just feel the engraved Imperial Japanese chrysanthemun and the Hj diamond/SS Honor ring symbol just seem a little out of place on a SA dagger, one of those WTF kind of things. Anyone of these daggers might appear to be fine if it was the only example, but since there is a group of these daggers, I highly doubt they are period. I just don't like the engraved faux honor crossguards. I have no knowledge of any oakleaf engraved crossguards that are period or have a solid traceable provedence, but there are plenty of documented fakes with this feature. The few engraved crossguards with a solid provedence that I have seen are all done in a very different style and do not have an "oakleaf" design.

I don't know if this has been mention about the Kraft dagger but it is SA gruppen marked He.

Jon
That's what I thought I heard you saying. ALL (even the pictured piece in TJs book), to me, are Post-war engraved by a pretty good engraver skilled in, normally, firearms engraving. I owned one with the exact style of engraving and have proof it's post-war done JUST for collectors such as myself that got snookered into the thing by greed (my excuse anyway) and thinking I'd cut a fat hog when I found it. In all reality, I didn't find it, it found me. Thanks for your input.....
Denny

Hi - this answer is primarily to John Shawcross and to Denny J. (although - of course - everyone else is entitled to put in their two cents worth).

First issue - to John S. - My concern with the name "Kurpfalz" is simple - if you own a dagger you do not put your home town name on it, there could be a 100 guys from your town all obtaining daggers - so the town/district name is highly improbable. Therefore the name that you apply is most usualy your family name.

John, you also pointed out that the Ernst Kraft Dagger bore the He (Hesse) SA Gruppe mark, and that is also very interesting, because Deutscher's dagger also bears a group mark.........and I must confess that this issue concerned me for some time. However, I think I may have the answser. These pieces are not Honour Daggers, or "!Geschenck Dolche" as some of my German colleagues claim - they are quite simply early period daggers which have been engraved by a professional engraver who has been making his living by decorating daggers for those who could afford it.

This brings us back to the circumstance of the "Kurpfalz" dagger. I regret to say that I do not think that the "Kurpfalz" engraving is authentic - it is quite distinctive from the other pieces and therefore I submit that it is from a different source and quite probably a falsification. However, the main issue here is the pointlessness of using the word "Kurpfalz" - it is not a family name - it is a district.

Regarding the dagger displayed by Denny J. Roach (and Denny and I have had a couple of private e-mails on this between ourselves), Denny - I think your dagger was real. Of course this is no real consolation to anyone (not least yourself) but all the information and the way I perceive it suggests that the piece was genuine. Of course - I must state - that because you thought it was wrong you disposed of it as wrong and you you publicised that fact and circumstance. I applaud you for your candour and honest expression. (I can only state that I think that you made an error)

Frederick J. Stephens

Denny--You now say you have "proof" your dagger was altered. I think we would all like to know what that proof is.

The work on these daggers is very good and it also should be mentioned that there are quite a few around that have no name at all. When all is said and done I think it will be a matter of opinion as to whether they are period or not or whether some are and some are not----but-if there is real proof-then that is another matter.

Houston
Use that tone with someone besides me, Please. I have irrefutable "proof", but will keep it to myself, Thank you. I repeat, bad.........and that's my opinion. Mine was, without a doubt, BAD......AND as similiar as they are, they all bother me after what I've seen.....
Denny

Fred,

Kurplatz is a documented SA gruppe, not a town or district, but a SA Gruppe. Can you honestly say that a SA mann would not have his SA gruppe engraved on his dagger?

Fred, what proof do you have that Denny's dagger was real? What proof can you offer that
any of these daggers could actually be period? These daggers are against SA regulation, it was prohibted to modify the outer appearence of the SA dagger.

quote:

Kurplatz is a documented SA gruppe, not a town or district, but a SA Gruppe. Can you honestly say that a SA mann would not have his SA gruppe engraved on his dagger?

Fred, what proof do you have that Denny's dagger was real? What proof can you offer that
any of these daggers could actually be period? These daggers are against SA regulation, it was prohibted to modify the outer appearence of the SA dagger.

To reply to Jon, firstly;
Yes, SA Gruppe Kurpfalz existed (it occupied part of what we know as the Saarland on the French border) - but what is the point of such an engraving?

Although I believe that it was forbidden to alter the exterior appearance of the SA Dagger, I have never seen any official order stating that this was so.......so have you seen such an order?

By the same rule of thumb, it would therefore appear forbidden to mark up a dagger with the owner's personal name and number - but there have been enough of these coming out of the woodwork to convince me that they are genuine.

My feeling is that Deutcher's Knoblauch piece, the Ernst Kraft piece in Johnson, and the recently seen Otto Telschow piece are all authentic, and probably pre-date any order forbidding the exterior decoration of the daggers. (Supposing such an Order is found, and is seen to be dated say, 1938, well that gives a good four years for "unofficially" decorated daggers to come into existence).

So, going back to Kurpfalz, my distrust of this is simply that it does not identify the dagger to the original owner. No family name, no Standarte identification, no number - just the word Kurpfalz. It is, in my opinion, improbable. It might as well state "Donau", or "Sudetenland" or "Berlin-Brandenberg" - it doesn't make any sense, whereas an owner's name would make sense.

Referring to Denny's dagger, the style of the engraving on that piece, and also on Deutscher's piece as well as the Ernst Kraft piece and the Telschow piece all seem to have a lot in common with each other - and one of those factors is the engraving on the upper side of the top guard. They are engraved with a very precise diamond pattern - a diamond that is equalateral in form with a distinct "ring" in the middle. So my gut feeling is that Denny's piece was probably fully authentic - assuming that the other pieces are fully authentic.

The Kurpfalz piece has a similar engraving, except that it is much co****r, the diamonds are rhomboid in shape and not all the same size, and with a simple dimple in the middle. I think that the style has has been copied (probably based on the photo in Johnson, but the skill of the engraver is much less professionally executed than on the other pieces. So it is the combination of poor engraving skills, plus improbable name, that makes me doubt the Kurpfalz piece.
FJS

Denny-you said you had proof-I asked what the proof was-there was no "tone" and no offense intended. Now you say you don't want to share the information. I don't understand that and you certainly don't have to explain. But--information is what the forum is about--or so I thought.

The "engraved", and I use the term loosely, SA I gave away as it is bad, can be retrieved from a friend, BUT I stand on my statement that it was/is Bad. (The engraving was and is absolutely beautiful.) I won't be getting it back even though it was not cheap when I bought it. I couldn't sell it, feeling as I do, so I'll just eat it, like I have (and rightly so), and go on with my life.

Sometimes the "tone" can be heard plainly by a reader of posts on this medium. Guess I'm as guilty as the next man..

SOMEONE has gone to great expense to engrave and put together some of these things in an all-out quest to make a wad of money. Beware. Seems to me that TOO many "odd and rare" items are bobbing up. There are undoubtedly originals, but they are so rare that the majority of people will never see one in their lives. To see 5-6 with the same overall characteristics, doesn't make sense, not to me anyway especially in light of what I've seen by a thorough examination of mine. I tried to believe in it for years, but Alas, I could not. I don't care who owns them. The ones I've seen bear the same characteristics although I'm sure the stories behind each are different and I don't trust'em.

Sometimes it seems better to "stimulate" the curiosity than to spill the beans. Some people will never believe facts (or read their own twists into them) while others will take a hint and dig into the nitty gritty and find the info by themselves.

My SA was bad and still is. This reminds me of my a bunch of things I encountered during my work career. There are Administrative changes and Engineering changes that can be applied to a known problem.

MY former SA had been through the engineering process when someone dumbied it up and now I see that administrative changes could make it Okee dokee. (Reminds me of what happens when many fake items are sold and one day take their place amoung real items and everyone accepts them at face value.) JUST not so.

Don't mean to interject a tone in this either.
Denny

AAAWWWWWWWWWWWW--Ca'mon Denny -Give it up-show us the proof--As you can see we're too igor'ant to find it by ourselves.

quote:

Although I believe that it was forbidden to alter the exterior appearance of the SA Dagger, I have never seen any official order stating that this was so.......so have you seen such an order?

The earliest and easy order to trace pertaining to the exterior of an SA dagger is "OSAF I Nr. 3707" date in early March 34. The spirit of this order is also repeated numerous times by the Soligen Chamber of Commerce & OSAF, they went so far as to complain about the lack of a standard for the grip wood and scabbard colors.

quote:

By the same rule of thumb, it would therefore appear forbidden to mark up a dagger with the owner's personal name and number - but there have been enough of these coming out of the woodwork to convince me that they are genuine.

The pratice of marking the reverse crossguard with the owners unit, name or serial number does not alter the exterior appearence of the dagger while in wear. There is an SS order that required that SS R�hm dagger be marked with the owners SS number. I haven't been able to find an SA order relating to the marking of SA daggers but I believe that was more of an issue at the brigade level then an issue for the OSAF. There is a vague OSAF order pertaining to the use of Sturm funds for loans to purchase daggers for some SA men that implies the marking of these daggers, but the order is a unclear as to how the daggers where to be marked.

quote:

So, going back to Kurpfalz, my distrust of this is simply that it does not identify the dagger to the original owner. No family name, no Standarte identification, no number - just the word Kurpfalz. It is, in my opinion, improbable. It might as well state "Donau", or "Sudetenland" or "Berlin-Brandenberg" - it doesn't make any sense, whereas an owner's name would make sense.

This is really a non issue for me because I don't believe the dagger is real. There are several period daggers that are unit marked with no direct tie to who the owner was. I can't accept a piece that I know is period with only a unit marking, then discount a piece that has SA gruppe name because I don't feel it's personal enough.


I'll post more later tonight.

Houston
I've had a change of heart, so to speak. I'd retrieve it from the present owner and sell it you (w/no returns of course) if you want a "genuine, real dilly" of an engraved SA. I'd give the money to the present owner and keep nothing for myself since I'm intent upon eating the original cost. NOW that sounds like a deal you can't pass up. What would you estimate one of these rarities to be worth and we can start from there. I'll give you a hefty discount, too if you'll come across with a nice estimate of value for this beauty.

Let's make a deal......... I'll throw in shipping.....and insurance.
Denny

I'll give you $20 more than Houston will.

Dave

Let's wait and see what his offer is.....but $20 on a big ticket item like this? Guaranteed original (Not my guarantee) and Zero returns...

Denny,

This is the first thread I have ever seen where someone is arguing that his dagger was not any good. Actually, it is refreshing to see someone not so emotionally invested in a piece and willing to take a hit on a dagger.

I am curious as to what the dagger will go for. Maybe we can auction it off here on GDC to the highest bidder, or better yet - how about a raffle to help Craig out.

Denny--Just because I was interested in knowing what the proof is that these daggers are post war altered does not mean that I was interested in paying big big bucks for one. The fact is that I (and I'm sure others have too) have admired some of these pieces I have seen over the years and would have bought one--but the prices were too high for any sort of investment. Why?--not because they were ever proven to be fake -but because there are so many who think they are or that they might be.The sad fact is that there are a lot of things like this.

I have always wondered if these daggers were real or fake-along with most other collectors---and its interesting and curious that you won't clear up this old question with your proof.

So--now you are offering to sell-but are you serious? A couple of years ago I saw one at a show a guy was walking around with-I had doubts and no certainty that it was original-but it was nice so I offered him $800.00. Some may think that's high-some may think its low. If fake or at least very questionable and rejected by many-that's a fair offer I think. He considered it but would'nt sell. I make you the same serious offer--but-if you accept do I get the proof that it is fake along with it? If so I will publish that proof right here on this forum. --and there is no "tone"-no offense of any kind intended. I would like to have the dagger-I like it-even if it is post war altered--and if I ever sell it I promise I won't claim it is period engraved---and the offer still stands even if you won't give up the proof I await your answer.

But shucks--I know whats gonna happen-some schwinniehunt is gonna offer $825.

Houston
It will not be sold. I was just funning. I wouldn't knowingly sell a chunk of dung like that for any amount.

All jokes aside, I take it you don't wish to make an offer on it? Why not make an offer, then I'll take Dave's offer of $20 more and sell it to him?

He wants it more than you by $20....I'll send you the $20......rest goes to the present owner.....
Denny

Denny,

First you have to tell us about the "proof"

Dave

Dave
That represents a change from your offer to beat Houston by $20......
Denny

Denny-I did make an offer in the above post--$800.00--and I do mean it. I want it-you hate it-so---???????

Houston
Do we proceed then? Do you want it or do you want Dave to have it with his $20 bump? If you REALLY want it, I'll get it and start the process....... I know I said it wasn't for sale, but Just to accomodate you....or Dave.....
Denny

Yes Denny--I do want it. I am not kidding. As soon as you get it let me know and I will send the money. No joke. I mean it. Consider it sold. Thanks [email protected]

SOLD American. This could not really become addictive, to me anyway. Hope you enjoy it more than I.
Denny