UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Miscellaneous Dagger Forum Carl Krebs "Fat Man" RAD Hewer

After seeing all this I have come to a conclustion what I believe "may" have happened to these mysterious "Fat Man" hewers.
As Fred mentioned, that they indeed were a war-time production item for a pattern that was for some reason not released from the factory but for perhaps a very few examples. We have the statement from Herr Krebs given to Angolia that they were period produced.
Also the fact that Ron has seen a whole box of Krebs produced mint edged weapons taken out of the factory by the veteran.
I don't believe the "fat Man" would qualify as a "Field Day" GI piece.
To me- not seeing that trademark on another 3rd reich edged weapon is not a "first". Many collectrors used to think that the Early simple single oval Eickhorn logo was not "period". And some believe it's not "correct" today. Although it has been proven by many examples out of the "woodwork".
Also why make a special stamping die of an unknown style of logo for an unknown (variation) blade style?
I venture to say that Jim Atwood found a stash of these in the factory and he released these along with everything else. And because of Atwood's reputation for Parts/repro pieces this hewer was perhaps "the baby thrown out with the bath water", and it is indeed a period produced item.


And finally Ron, what happened to the photos of your Hewer that were on the old link just yesterday? Did you remove them?
...OR is that the actions of that voracious BIG GDC termite that the GDC owner/s can't seem to catch and do away with for 3 years now?

Regards,
-serge-

Sorry Fred--but I can't supply a photo of the 60's repro/parts leader hewer by Krebs that came out in the 60's with the same TM as the Fat Man. I have seen several but not of late. Many of these were "converted" and now are gone since most/all of the parts were original except the blade and there were many left over original blades that were located a bit later and offered for sale ( and some may still be available ).
Most serious collectors who were collecting daggers in the 60's are aware of these thin bladed parts pieces though and even you make mention of it in your R/R book, volume 2, page 94.
I am not certain what the Fat Man really is although there is no doubt a lot of them are poorly made with no scabbard and in all probability are fake/parts.
The others ones though, with scabbard and well made, such as the one Ron has, is IMO a good looking, interesting and attractive piece and if I found a minty one at a good price there is no doubt I would keep it , whatever it is, as this type is quite rare.
But, IMO-it will always remain questionable, as it has for all these years, unless further information is located. Reference this subject -opinions IMO are not worth that much-everyone has one. As this time I would say the correct answer is that -sorry--we just don't know.
I'll add another tidbit--Many years ago when I visited the Infantry Museum at Ft. Benning, Ga. I was shocked to see one of the quality Fat Man hewers on display listed as donated by a vet. This of course is further information leading one to believe the quality ones are period--but no real proof. I would need to see a period, non RAD piece with that same TM to convince me--and I'm sure many others feel the same.

No, I did nothing to the photos, but my photo server was, evidently, down for some time.
As to the piece, it sold on this site at the same time the discussion was going on long ago to one of the members on this site.
The one in my collection is in the bank currently, and, as with the extended weekend, I can't get to it.
I have several RAD Hewer variations in the bank and don't remember how many, but a MINT RAD Fatman is one of these. I have had it for years and it came from the late 1950s or early 1960s and is not one of the no scabbard varieties, which I believe are left overs from the factory post war sold.
JMO,
Ron Weinand

Houston,

I agree that there will always be a question mark over the "Fat Man" hewer - and the existence of post-war Atwood examples (without the notch in the blade under the guard) has served only to muddy the waters.

I think it is a case of some of Atwood's bad apples destroying the reputation of all pieces. I will look to see if I can find an example of a Third Reich period blade with that specific form of the Krebs trade mark punched into the blade. Likewise, I am keen to see any post-war manufactured that bears the same trademark.

I still believe that my example, and others like it, are authentic and that they are probably from the early period. Has anybody got a Krebs catalogue from the early period, which might show the company trademark without the more usual oval surround?

fjs

Fred. Tom J. references a krebs catalog in one of his early books. Not sure which but I can look. I was tracking the numbered ricassos in early 2000 and 2001 but no one seemed to care ao I quit doing that, thats when I noted the krebs catalog used a reference by Tom. I'm thinking he owned it???
Bret Van Sant

OK Fred. So now you are saying the ones without the notch are bad. May I ask why you think so? Are they, except for that feature, exactly the same as the ones with the notch?

Houston,

No - I am not saying that the “Fat Man” without the notch is a fake. What I stated was that the examples Atwood presented serve only to confuse things - and that Atwood’s general business in reproductions (as well as his “parts” daggers and also his finds of authentic left over stock) has tended to cloud the issue and tarnish the reputation of some pieces that are "different".

Now I haven’t handled an example of the “Fat Man” without the notch in the blade, and until I do so I am unable to make any precise comment. The image that cog-hammer presented earlier on is not detailed enough to allow any definitive statement. What I would like to see are close-up detail views of that piece, and specifically good detail of the trademark. It is not out of the question that Krebs might have had two versions of the "Fat Man" blade, although I personally think that this is unlikely.

Frederick J. Stephens