UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons German Sword & Miniatures Forum Damascus Sword on Ebay

Did anybody see this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/WW2-German-Army-EF-Horster-Damascus...QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Somebody got to the seller, it's been pulled already. Interesting looking piece, I'm curious what some of the sword experts out there feel about it.

He had a Buy it now price of like $8900.I cant figure why it has the Waffenampt on the blade.No need to have an acceptance mark on there as it would not have gone through standard procedures as an issued sword,even though its a n Honor prize.

Just for Information: this sabre was shown in July in the WAF.
Regards,

Here's the WAF link, nearly all of the pics posted there are gone now. I didn't see the thread when it was active but I guess there wasn't a mention of the Waffenampt markings because no one commented on it.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231254

I remember the waffenampt pic was shown on WAF but no-one picked up on it - it is a little strange

Jonathan

The waffenampt is absolutely correct as is the blued scabbard, both characteristic of these shooting prize swords.
This example is one of the finest conditioned examples I've seen. It is also one of the rarest because 1938 is the last year they presented them. It was also the only year they featured a Third Reich Hilt.

I would have to agree that it�s the finest example that I�ve seen also. Absolutely correct, the German Army/Wehrmacht Abnahmestempel means that the Heereswaffenamt inspected and passed the item, and that it was government purchase versus one by the officers or men. Part of a morale building process, the army seems to have discontinued at the same time buying swords altogether including the senior grade NCO �officer models�. The reason seems simple enough in that unlike the German Navy, and especially the Luftwaffe. The Army at that time was not focused on ceremonies as much as it was focused on training men for combat. FP

Thanks for the info, sounds like someone picked up a very nice and very rare sword !

Jonathan

What a wonderful sword !!

Thank you for posting this ebay link, Craig.
It goes to show that theres always something waiting to be discovered.

Cheers,
Ibrahim,
Singapore.

No problem

quote:

Originally posted by JONATHAN:
I remember the waffenampt pic was shown on WAF but no-one picked up on it - it is a little strange

Jonathan

Check post #12. The waffenamt is mentioned.


Tony

@ Craig: .

For me it is a pleasure to see some very interesting postings recently. Connected to the reappearance of some regrettable nearly lost (?) members. Anyway these threads do run and what kind of opinions are offered in a polite manner, I appreciate them very much and I can recognize a lot of other members do and think the same way!
And I also have to mention that I appreciate each contribution of one of our (imo) most experienced members Jason Burmeister!

Please, keep on.

Regards,

Jason is 100% right of course. I had one also. Mine was from 1936. Very rare swords, Official Heer presentations.
As you can see, my sword was also in fine condition, right out of the woodwork. Also, as you can see, the blade pattern on the earlier ones was different than the later ones and, as Jason says ,the eagle and swastika did not appear on the earlier ones.
Fine products, usually with triple TM's. by Horster.
I might add that one might think these swords are easily tken apart since they have spanners. Not so. There is a peened pin that runs clear through the hilt and blade preventing this. So--most of us wonder--what smith marks are on those tangs?? If any.

2

3

Craig,
Did you buy the saber? I noticed it was from Oceanside. Based on the sellers moniker, it's location, and the photo, I would surmize it's in your hands now. Is this correct?

PS- I need to swing "buy" your office soon. Are you still in Del Mar?

Tom

I was bidding on it at the $8,600.00 mark and was not done as it had 4 more days to go. I never saw the buy it now, as that would have been no problem. I guess I will have to find out what the price is now. Damast

I do not know who did what here, but I was a bidder also. This situation is like having a fellow grap a dagger or gun out of your hand at a show and buy it while you are negotiating a deal.When I made my bid I made a legallly binding contract and it is improper for the seller to cancel the auction and improper for a third person to interfere with the auction. Am I the only one who feels this way or do our rules of collecting etiquette (if there is such a thing) depend on how much money is involved? Just my opinion, FWIW, JOe S

Joe, when it comes to money, there's few individuals that have etiquettes and most are just very greedy.
Though very sad, it is today's reality and we have to live with it.

Many people would do anything just to make a quick buck.

I did not buy the sword either but if a sword has a "buy it now" option it is fair game to buy it in that way, which stops the auction. I recall the "buy it now" option but I thought that amount was too high. Apparently not so for someone.

It appears to be a nice presentation sword.

I agree that buy it now is fair game, but once a bid is entered for less than buy it now, the buy it now option dissappears, I believe, which is why it only appeared for a short time. Furthermore, when you buy it now, the auction is complete because the buyer is still the high bidder. In this case, the auction was teminated early as I understand it. Joe S

Joe S and Pat,

This was on my watch list and I planned to bid at the last minute. What a waste of time that was. The official ebay reason for ending the auction early :

quote:

The seller ended this listing early because the item is no longer available for sale.

Really? How about the real reason ... someone made the seller an offer he couldn't refuse. And the seller doesn't have to pay a hefty commission to ebay.

Regards,
Dane

A while back there were several threads on eBay tactics like last minute sniping and stuff like that. One tactic suggested was to offer the seller a big amount to end the auction .... thereby scooping the pot.

If eBay lets sellers terminate auctions at will that will continue to happen. Is it worse that sniping at the last minute ?

Dave

Fair? Ebay?-Those two don't make a match. It's dog eat dog especially now that you can't even see who's bidding.

I could not agree more Houston. In the past at least I knew who's toes I might step on and could bid accordingly.
This new 'bidder 1', 'bidder 27', etc., just ****s.

Mark

...like what you do thru a straw is what the **** was blocking out.

Mark

Edited for profanity, insults and flamming.

Tom, Check your email, please

Dave

Who bought the sword?

TOM

who?

-wagner-

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
Fair? Ebay?-Those two don't make a match. It's dog eat dog especially now that you can't even see who's bidding.

Agreed - ebay even makes motel buys look fair and reasonable these days.

You wont get an argument out of me about E-Bay rules, one of which allows a seller to cancel the sale for some very vague reasons, but E-Bay rules are really not the problem in this particular case. Joe S

Am I missing something here? Has nobody worked out that Craig seemed to be relating to a sword on eBay which he (himself) was selling.

Take a look at the images, and also of the photo of him and the customer. You can virtually see that it is the same sword.

Craig is playing games - and the sword might be suspect, but I will leave that issue for our sword experts.

FJS

Come on now. Craig bought the sword from the guy in the picture who had it for sale on Ebay. The sword is NOT suspect. That was a cheap shot Fred-and not a bit of truth to it either.

not a cheap shot.

The sword is without question orignal! Enough with this! As for Craig owning the sword. He does now but as of a few weeks ago he didn't. The seller and I attempted to work out a deal but he wouldn't set a price. He had just obtained it from a veterna source and wasn't sure what he had. In the end, he thougth Ebay was his best bet. I'm not sure how Craig convinced him to end the auction and sell him the sword but he did.

Don't stop posting on here Craig, I like your offerings and feedback.

So this sword is a fake ALSO ???????
COME ONE FRED , is this break down Craig time here or what ?????
This is really getting strange here , your breaking down perfectly good pieces .

OK, here is my view on this. I considered the possibility that the eBay trader called "usmcantiques" might very well be one of Craig's other trading names - especially as he was in the USMC, and I believe that he also trades in that area of collectable item.

It also appears that "usmcantiques" is in the same locality as Craig - although I acknowledge that could just be coincidental.

"usmcantiques" also posted the same images on the WAF site, although most of them have now been withdrawn.

If I am mistaken, and "usmcantiques" is NOT Craig, then I unreservedly apologise for tarnishing that eBayer's name.

Craig is not known for telling people where rare items might be found - especially if he is interested in the item himself. So, as usual, there was some hidden motive in putting that information up at the beginning of this thread.

How is it known that the individual shown with Craig, is in fact the seller of the sword? Is that Mr. "usmcantiques" himself? I do not recall that information appearing in this thread.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion about that sword, and I have mine. I do acknowledge that I base it only from the photographic evidence. I consider that the photos are clear enough to form some reasonable judgement, and I am sticking with mine unless I find convincing evidence to persuade me otherwise.

One feature which I find curious is the presence of the waffen-amt mark on such a de-luxe presentation damascus steel piece. It is not as if this is a standard "vorschrift-massige" ("according to regulations") blade which has been subjected to the ordnance tests.

Here we have something different. Yet it appears that the sword was "tested", and presumably passed as fit for service - and accordingly stamped. Then it is stripped down and the blade taken off for etching and dedicating, and gilding.

It appears to be that the gilding has been done after the blade was tested, as the gilding is in the recessed areas of the waffen-amt. Surely the testing of the blade should be performed after the blade had been completed, and not in the middle of the process?

I must state that I cannot ever recall seeing any other damascus blade Army Sabre that has been waffen-amt marked. Perhaps I have missed seeing it - maybe someone reading this thread has got one that they can show to us?

FJS

I hope Rob NL will have first shot at this sword, after everything he went through lately. It would also be nice to see it on display at the Max, but I am sure it will be sold by then.

Edited for .... spam

I was suprised to see the Waffen amt mark on the sword but collectors who know more about it than I do and who have other such swords in their collections have told me that it is absolutely correct. I asume such is the case because the sword was ordered by the Wehrmacht and had to go through the procurement channels and inspections like everything else ordered by the Wehrmacht. Just a guess. Joe S

Fred-You are totally wrong again. These were official awards by the Heer and that is the reason for the stamps. I have seen SEVERAL of these swords and I owned one as I show above.
I hate to say it but obviously you know nothing about these swords at all.

Just an FYI, Craig and the seller are NOT one and the same.

T

Here are a few pictures of the one I now own. To light machine gun. Not as nice as the one Graig now owns.

hilt

pommel

last

scabbard

waffen amt mark is on spine of blade, pommel,and scabbard drag.

Thanks for your post DAMAST. I would hope this would be the end of the attempts at trashing the treasures of the hobby.

Forgot to say it is dated 1938.

Great stuff!
Is the spanner nut a common feature?

Yes--they all have the spanner. All the ones I have seen are triple marked Horster products. You would think that you could easily take them apart to see if there is a marking from a famous Smith. But--they don't take down--there is a pin that runs clear through the grip and tang--the hilt won't come off-taking the spanner out accomplishes nothing. So--- we will never know what is on the tangs--unless some dodo tears one apart.

Well Fred is NOT off the mark here,I had exactly the same thoughts about the Location and the USMC Connection.

Thanks TOM

**************

Edited for trolling and insults.

I can see where Mr. Stephens might have been confused. I had no idea myself who purchased the sword. Instead of: Hey, guys LOOK at what I just bought!! It was - �Did anybody see this:�

And I�m in agreement that Mr. Stephens is wrong about the German Army acceptance stamp (Abnahmestempel). Acceptance stamps as a group are perhaps more familiar to military/combat arms collectors. But unlike some discussion participants here I don�t think that he was around for the discussion of the (altered) government property Luftwaffe daggers. That were postwar personalized and the Abnahmestempel was discussed at length. However with these swords, they were something that was government purchased for prizes as part of a prewar morale building effort. FP

OK Gentlemen,

I am not too proud to take a hit if I have got something wrong. Like everybody else I am dealing with, I do not know everything - but I am willing to find out more and correct my failings. So let's take it further..........

Firstly, I apologise to "usmcantiques" for confusing him with Craig. Apparently I was not alone in this error.

Am I correct, Houston, in believing that you have had several of these "Ehrenpreis" Swords, and that they all had an Acceptance mark stamped on the pommel cap; spine of the blade, and drag of the scabbard?

Did you also state that all your examples were made by Horster?

Damast, could you please confirm who is the manufacturer on the piece you have just shown, and would you please post a photo or description of the trademark.

Thank you

FJS

Well said Fred "NIL DESPERADO CARBORUNDUM"

Fred--As I said--I have SEEN several and have owned one in the past. The photos I show above are of the one I owned and it came right from the vet's family in my area--and no I don't have a statement from the vet.
I do know at least a couple of collectors who have several and are always looking for them. All of the ones I have seen were by Horster and triple maker marked. I do seem to recall that there may be some early ones by Eickhorn but I am not certain.
I just don't remember if all had the Waffenampt stamps in the same exact places-but I believe all had at least two and probably three. All had one on the scabbard drag and all had blued scabbards.



I have never seen a fake of one of these swords and I have never heard of anyone else who has either.
They are well known by most advanced and/or experienced collectors and highly sought after treasures of the hobby.
I have to say also that IMO to question the authenticity of these treasures is really absurd and detrimental to the hobby.

I think Fred had some reasonable questions. Cream will always rise to the top. If one has good stuff he should not worry about posting it. The same argument could be made about having your collectable in someones book.

The thing is Dale that many of the owners don't want the details of the rare pieces published in a book or elsewhere. They don't mind if collectors know--but it's those others.
Also--You have seen what happens when you post something rare like this sword. All the naysayers who really know nothing about it, but love to be naysayers whether they do or not, suddenly rise to the surface, trying to make a kill. And IMO they do great damage to the hobby.

Alcoso is the maker on mine. Photo to follow tonight. Regards:

No Picture ,but this is what it looks like. The reverse ricasso is stamped with the early Alcoso trademark being the �scales trademark� with the firm�s name appearing in a block arch. The firm�s initials �A. C. S.� are interspersed in the scales. Finally, the firm�s location is below �Solingen�.

All three companies had contracts with the army, although the �plain jane� Offiziers�bel f�r Unteroffizier mit Portepee is what is almost always seen versus a prize sword. And I like Dales�s point of view that if what you have is good you shouldn�t worry about posting it. If an item is marginal or has problems then I can see a problem for sellers. But not for buyers. Who need to know ahead of time if they are using their money wisely.

And I think that this thread proves the point. If I was to venture onto some of Houston�s collecting home turf I would seek his advice because hunting pieces (for example) are not my forte. But I would imagine that if he were to venture into some of the areas where I collect he is not going to have the same in depth knowledge.

My point being that if either of us were to ask questions about an area where we lack expertise it is not destroying the hobby. It is building it. Because there are hundreds of readers at all levels looking at this thread. And if they find something like this sword they are going to know what to do. Because they have seen a good example and know exactly what it looks like. FP

FP---So, as an expert in the sword field, you are saying this type hilt is for an NCO?????? Excuse me, but if so, that is not correct.
And as usual you avoid the FACT that there were NOT just questions here!!!!!! There were strong inferences it was a fake!--and THAT is my objection-not questions.

Houston, Like anybody else I have my good days and I have my bad days. But I don�t think that I�m in error. What I said was: �although the �plain jane� Offiziers�bel f�r Unteroffizier mit Portepee is what is almost always seen versus a prize sword.�

Which broken down means: 1) plain jane = unadorned (the so-called �Ordnance� saber) 2) Offiziers�bel = Officers Saber. And the rest: �f�r Unteroffizier mit Portepee� means the model for Senior Grade NCO�s. Meaning that the �plain jane� Senior Grade NCO version of the Officer�s model sword is relatively common. Versus the highly embellished same basic model prize swords which are not. If they were authorized the knot they could wear the sword. And I�ve seen some high quality lion heads that were private purchases for ranking NCO�s.

But I would agree that I thought Mr. Stephens probably came on a little strong. Although I�m sure that you can understand that even collectors with many years of experience could possibly misinterpret the significance of the acceptance stamps. Which judging from his statements is what threw him off. And it would not be the first time that something like that caused some confusion. Regards, FP

The person on my sword was a hauptmann in 1938.
In 1943 he was a Major with Knights cross when he was commander of the III Grenadier Regiment 53. Etch on one side (Hauptmann Karl Pilat Inf. Rgt. 53 Ehrenpreisfchiessen 1938 mit L.M.G.) Maybe a little wrong spelling. In 1940 Inf Rgt. 53 became Grenadier Rgt. 53.
Regards: Damast

Ahhh Well. The fact is that even the lowest ranking NCO could buy and wear a fancy sword, lionhead, panther head or whatever with knot, sometimes a bayonet knot sometimes the so called Officer knot ( often worn by both Officers and NCO's). Also some Generals were known to carry the plainest of swords. EM's with no rank seen to only wear the plain nickel plated private purchase sword or the Ordnance sword.

Houston: I guess I got a reply in 2 seconds before you. Regards: Damast

This is the first I have heard of Waffenamts on a sword OTher than the common ordnance issue sabers, with the exception of the acceptance stamps sometimes seen on Luftwaffe swords. The point being, that due to the scarcity of the item, many people who have collected swords for many years would logically question those markings. I now know from conversations with knowledgeable and HONEST collectors (and from following this thread), that the Waffen amt stamps are correct for this sword. However, one cannot blame a person for questioning it. I dont recall seeing mention of the stamps in any of the major reference books , although I might have missed it or forgotten it. I do, however, know that there is a difference between questioning something and calling it a fake.One could raise a question about the waffen amts without stating or suggesting the sword is a fake.
What I find to be most disturbing is the growing lack of civility amoung collectors and the acceptance, without protest, of how this whole thing got started by the auction being ended early. Just my opinion,FWIW Joe S

I made a mistake on my reply it was in 1943 Inf Rgt. 53 became Grenadier Rgt. 53. RegardsAMAST

Houston, Not on duty. I think that what we are having here is a �failure to communicate� and you�re not following what I am saying. Junior grade NCO�s were not issued the government owned Officer�s model saber. But senior NCO grades were. And a lower rank wearing a non authorized sword on duty was going to have some unpleasant consequences. Some of those studio posed pictures mean zip because the blades depicted in a number of them were very likely props. But I would agree that like in many armies the Generals could do what they wanted to do.

PS: Mounted lower ranks could carry the traditional plain �P� guard because of their service branch. Regards, FP

Interesting. Do you have the regulations for all that? If so I'm sure we would like to see them.

Houston, If you mean do I have a 1935 set of German Army regulations sitting on my shelf? The answer is no. If you require that standard of proof it is going to have to come from someone who has that kind of documentation. Not that documentation would necessarily make a difference. When documentation became �inconvenient� for the Schnaufer dagger discussion for example - the argument was made that nobody followed regulations anyway.

But if you are willing to accept a lesser standard of proof. Then there is physical evidence and other references which could be used. In terms of TO the German Army was significantly larger than the Luftwaffe (which was split into personnel with flight and non-flight status). The population of Luftwaffe government property daggers and swords is fairly large. The population of government property German Army Offiziers�bel relatively small. Different branches of service - but it shows that not nearly as many government property swords were manufactured per capita for the Army - which had significantly greater numbers of NCO�s.

Next is German military rank structure. I am by no means an expert on the topic which is fairly complex, but do I think have a limited understanding of how it fits together. If you don�t have at least some kind of understanding of the ranks it can be difficult to follow - with the key phrase here being �mit Portepee�. �mit Portepee� being covered in many books, and I think some online sources as well.

As for German sources. If you believe that the German Army during the early years of the Third Reich did not follow the traditions of the Imperial German Army - this is not going to work for you. But for the basic source material information it originated from German War Ministry publications: �Die Seitengewehre der Truppen zu Fuss and zu Pherde und die Lanzen� which outlines who could carry what. A book that you might have on your shelf is John Angolia�s �Edged Weaponry of the Third Reich�. Which in the police section also covers who could carry what. Not exactly the same - but the police tended to follow the military pattern. Regards, FP

I'm thinking that the Cavalry and Mounted Artillery personnel of all ranks in the early days of the Third Reich ( 33-35) may have worn the Ordnance sword--when they really rode horses. It's also hard for me to believe that all the swords worn by lower NCO's in posed photos are props.

Houston, This is a piece of my �home turf�. And I would imagine - No, I KNOW!! - that if I was trying to work my way through areas that are your �home turf� I could not do nearly as well.

The piece of the puzzle that you might be missing is this. Here is the actual WW II version of the saddle mounted saber which was carried by enlisted men on horseback. This particular example is straight wing Reich Eagle marked like, but not the same, as the Offiziers�bel (�Ordnance� model). Which was done when it was converted from the physically larger WW I era mounted artillery saber.

The brass hilted Offiziers�bel would have been carried by mounted senior grade NCO�s. And others as the situation dictated.

And after work (off duty) on foot: Mounted enlisted men wore the same (but more diminutive) dress Mannschafts�bel. Which included the Corporals and other junior grade NCO�s and troopers if they were assigned to mounted units. Without seeing a particular picture I don�t know that they were necessarily props. But normally you can�t tell coloration between brass and nickel plating if there is nothing to contrast it with. Regards, FP

Can you show that eagle stamp?

Does it look like this??

No, it�s not the same kind of marking. The image posted just above is a Waffenamt/Acceptance stamp which was applied to new manufacture items coming from a factory. The example pictured is a variant that gun collectors would call the "droop wing" version with down swept feathers (a topic all by itself).

For the enlisted cavalry man�s saber below it�s an armory rework mark - identifying the armory where the work was done. The small marking above with the red arrow is a previously existing Imperial era marking (inverted).

When the saber was overhauled any Imperial unit markings were removed. A new walnut grip installed. And the scabbard was heavily blued. The saber itself is a scaled down version of one that was carried as far back as the Napoleonic Wars. FP

And if further confirmation is needed, there is Klaus Richter�s �Waffen und Ausr�stung der Deutschen Kavallerie� 1935 - 1945. Which has some reasonably decent period photographs showing the combat model of the cavalry saber and other types in use. FP

I know I have to let go, but this whole thread started with a in your face look what I bought..
I was bidding on this thing and not happy with either of the people... I guess I have to stop pouting.

Do not know if it of relevance as I do not understand the interesting discussion in each detail according to my limited knowledge on the english language.
But here is a pic of a very close relative of mine (later lieutenant during war) as a private wearing a sabre as he was with mounted artillery troops. As you can see it is NO studio photograph but worn in public.
Regards

Wotan, That is perfectly acceptable, and is why the private purchase Mannschafts�bel is listed in period sales catalogs. In a holdover from Imperial era traditions infantry wore bayonets off duty, and mounted soldiers carried swords.

Very nice photograph! Regards, FP

The shooting prize sword was sold to another dealer at the MAX.At least I could look at it when this dealer had it.

anyone know when the Max show Gazette is printed?

After shooting my mouth off about this sword (based on the photographic images), I finally got to look at it on Helmut Weitze's table at the MAX (I don't know if he owns it, or is fronting it for someone else)- but guess what! All my opinions seem to be validated.

There are numerable questionable features on this sword - and they need to be explained. So far from my indulgence in "trashing the treasures of this hobby" - as I was so glibly dismissed by another worthy peer - I think that we need to look more closely at them; because once one faked up item is accepted, then it becomes so much easier to work more faked up pieces through the system.
I stand by my original comments - things are not right with this sword.

FJS

and just what questionable features are you talking about here?

Who has this sword?
I didnt see it at the MAX.

On these swords is the Blade peened over on top the hilt or does it have a Threaded tang with a Spanner nut.

Sorry I just noticed the pic of the spanner nut on top.

I find this whole discussion rather funny. Frankly, my best aquisition at the MAX show was Fred Stephens' wrist watch, which I wore on Halloween with my short-sleeve powder blue leisure suit. Thanks, Fred!

I was standing there when the 'presentation" was made and I can attest to the fact that Craig unquestionably received a 100% original Frederick J Stephens wristwatch.
A blue leisure suit Craig? And the authorities let you walk around in it??
Jim

Craig,

I am delighted you are so pleased with the wrist watch - I am sure that you will consider it to be a lucky talisman and a future family heirloom.

Next time we meet up please bring it along - and I will explain to you what it means when: the large hand is on one number; and the smaller hand is on another one.

FJS

Marine Pics

Craig Got any of you in the Dress Blues? and the Baby Blue Leisure suit.

Right, Gentlemen,

I have been off-line for some time - but can now offer some further information:

Here are some images of the sword under discussion. The details which I will explain below are those that I have detected purely from the images of the sword that were available on the Internet. That I was also able to examine the same sword at the MAX allowed me to confirm for certain that my observations were correct - therefore I will explain why I find some features on this to be questionable.

First Image: This is a view of the top of the hilt, the locking nut and acceptance mark being clearly visible. Take a look at the engraving of the �acorn� to the right side - note that the engraving is not quite as precise as it ought to be - well not in my opinion, and after all this is a prestigeous �Honour Prize� Sword, and yet sloppy engraving like this is accepted as normal? I think not! In fact I defy any notable collector/dealer to stand up and state that this is perfectly normal, quality engraving.

Photo Group 2:
There is quite a lot to be seen here. Firstly, images of the inscription 1, and 1a. The inscription is unnaturally letterspaced, and it has been formed freehand, apparently not via a master template. The artist has attempted to make the main line of the inscription fill the entire length of the panel - and therefore has spread the lettering accordingly. This is indicative of someone who is not familiar with penning calligraphic inscriptions and therefore spaces the individual letters too wide.

Image 1a is of the second line - the word Ehrenpreis. The letter spacing is even more accentuated here.

All the other letters of the main line of the inscription (Oberkommando des Heeres) have been separated and grouped according to their order of appearance. The size of the letters in each particular line are exactly to scale with each other.

Grouping 2 relates to the letter �e�, the most common letter in the inscription, and note that each of the �e�s is different. The first example is notably so, being fat and and squat - and base of the stroke is almost flat. There are differences in the individual heights of each of these letters - technically this is known as the �x-height� - as well as in the body construction ofv each letter; and yet each letter has been duplicated at the exact same scale. A professional Lettering Artist would not have allowed so many differences within the same letter group to exist - he was employed to make sure that such inscriptions did not display such varied differencies.

Group 3) The letters �s� - the differences between the two �identical letters� are also obvious.

Groups 4, 5, and 6) This grouping of continuity is interesting :
The group 4 has an interesting feature, all the letters appear to be sloping slightly backwards - to the left as seen by the viewer. The also appear to be slightly higher on the left, with the �Ob� above the base-line, whereas the �er� seems to sit upon the base-line.
Group 5) Appears to show that the letters are now formed in a completely �upright� posture.
Groups 6) All still mostly �upright� - but the letters �r� and �s� seem to show an inclination lean towards the right.
The change of angle of the letters of the inscription is an unprofessional way of forming the inscription.

Group 7) This grouping shows the close proximity of the upper line, with the line beneath it. Technically, both lines of text are too large in their type height - even though the lower line is in a reduced size. The failing is that the top of the lower line almost touches the base of the upper line, and leaves no room for any descender character (gpqy, etc) to fit - especially so if the lower line features an ascender character (bdhifkl, etc).

Based on these observations, I would express my belief that execution of this inscription is not up to the standards of the professional craftsman, and particularly so the pre-war craftsman. The blade and inscription I believe are post-war - and I have reasonable grounds to believe that the entire sword is a post war construction.

Of course, I appreciate that some people may disagree with me, and state that I am being too particular, or finically, And that failings and blemishes in craftsmanship are the norm for German armourer - yet somehow I personally just cannot agree with this line of thought. The craftsmanship may not always be �lazer perfect�, but I can�t believe that it would be so completely and continuously flawed as seen on the example under review

FJS
I have my first image ready to submit, I will follow this with my second image (I hope!).

Here is the sec0nd image, to complement my previous text.

Fred--There is nothing wrong with this sword. Anything you magnify this much will show some flaws. You may not like the "quality" when you magnify this much and you seem to be stuck on this quality issue or require the exact font that YOU say is correct. Everything German is not of the highest quality and this has been shown many many times. The sword was not made for you or for us. I doubt if you will find ANY experienced collector or dealer who will agree with you. That should tell you something but I doubt if it will.
You are WAAAAY out there by yourself when it comes to some of your newer conclusions.

That's OK Houston, I respect your right to your opinion - and no hard feelings that it is different to mine. However, I am not prepared to accept that sloppy workmanship is the norm for German artifacts (you sound just like Craig, when to make that claim). If you want to consider the engraving on the pommel - well take a look at the engraving on the official presentation pistols, you will not find crude "acorns" as on this piece.

My comments about the lettering are equally correct, I know what standards and consistent accuracy can be achieved - because that is the purpose and objective of the professional lettering artist. That the lettering construction falls far short of those standards in this particular case gives the game away.

So I don't mind if you think I am way off with my explanations. I am happy with my knowledge and interpretation, and I am prepared to stand alone regardless of what others may say.

I might not be so way off after all - maybe I am way up front!

Best regards

FJS

I respect everyones opinions on this subject and my most important, but personal, comment is that I would not want to own that sword. I think it would be a tough resell.

Fred makes some excellent points on the supposed importance of the sword and the lack of important detail that the sword has been reduced to a novelty in my eyes.

"Buy the sword, not the story". It really seems to apply here. Anything that was that important (supposedly) was not done with much pride or attention to detail.

Then again, I must emphasize I have gone over to the porcelain side of things and it's only my personal and uneducated opinion.

The ramblings of an old man, if you will.

Mark

I have to agree with Mark here and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I too looked at this sword at the MAX and while I don't have Freds depth of knowledge about etching there's something about it that makes me uneasy. I for one felt that the blue in the panel is "off" as I don't remember seeing that particular shade before.
Jim