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

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