UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons SA & NSKK Dagger Forum NSKK High Leader

FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, AN OLD FRIEND OF MINE, WHO WAS A MAJOR MOTEL BUYER IN THE 1980'S, BOUGHT TWO OF THESE DAGGERS DIRECTLY FROM VETERANS. HE ALSO SHOWED ME PHOTOS OF A THIRD DAGGER, WHICH WAS AMONG THE SOUVENIRS OF A NOTABLE AMERICAN GENERAL OFFICER. THE GENERAL'S SOUVENIRS WERE QUITE IMPRESSIVE AND WERE SHOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL AS A COURTESY WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT OF HAVING THEM OFFERED FOR SALE. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE ITEMS ARE STILL A PART OF THE COLLECTION OF THE FAMILY'S PROUD MILITARY TRADITION.

Brian: Very interesting. I'm sure that Julian got his idea from Fred, or vice versa - I believe they were quite close. Fred can comment if he chooses. The signatures are identical (or within tolerance of a facsimile). Bob and Brian - great information on the daggers.

Julian must have believed in them at one point since he owned the silver chained example pictured on pages 138 and 139 of Tom Johnson's Vol IV.

For clarification, one of the daggers Bob C. is referring to is the same as Notaguru referenced being pictured in Tom Johnson's Vol. V.

No Craig,

I am not shying away from this argument, and nor have I any "closed-mind" opinion regarding these pieces. It is simply that I have satisfied my own intellect as to what these pieces really are - and therefore I will keep it to myself until I am ready to publish. Of course I will be watching this thread, to see if anyone comes up with something to surprise me.

Notaguru - were you really in on getting one of these Huhnlein pieces right out of the woodwork? Can you give names and dates? Can it be verified?

Concerning the late Julian Milestone, yes he and I collaborated closely for a number of years. The subject of his chained Huhnlein NSKK Honor Dagger was the focal point of many a debate between us. In the main he disputed my analysis of the Huhnlein piece, so it is a bit of a surprise that he subsequently changed his view and seems to have concluded that there might be something in what I had to say.

I will say it all again, when I am ready. I just don't want to get dragged off into non-related issues.

FJS

Fred: Don't forget the one that Brian, Jason and I got out of the woodwork also. No, we didn't get it from the living NSKK Officer. Although even if we had, I don't think it would matter much in this debate.

If these daggers are not original than what keeps any and all 3rd reich dagger from being a fraud.A friend of mine bought one from a veteran in the early 90's it was tacked on a wall in the basement above a stove the leather and wood were dried up and shot.It sold on Manions auction in the early 90-91 for 17k.Could probably prove some of this if Manions wants to open their records or someone has a catalog from that era.

Fred:
With all respect, I fail to see where such information as who we got it from (unknown to me) and where are of any value to this topic. Anymore that what the original denominations of bills that the vets widow was paid with does.
I can tell you that it came from a vets widow for a paltry sum by todays standards. There were no lawyers present, no cameramen, nor any historians to record the vets travels. The dagger was the goal.
In hindsight, I wish we had been more diligent. It might have settled this issue. But then, it might not have.

Notaguru,

Thank you for your response. The issue that I have is that when I hear claims of artifacts being salvaged directly from the Vet (or the Vet's family) it is that when I try to follow this up it is all too often not quite directly from the Vet - that there is some intermediary, or middleman, whatever. And the chain of provenance is seen to be broken, or even non-existant.

Of course it is true to say that there are still viable links to veterans, their families, and their souvenirs. I am not disputing any of this, all I am trying to say is that at this period in time if someone claims a provenance link with the earliest individual associated with any item - then I am inclined to follow it through to the earliest point of source.

We are 60+ years from the end of WWII. It is just a matter of time - a few short years - before all those first hand contacts will be gone.

I might be a pain in the butt for insisting in having all these explanations, but future generations will not have that same opportunity - so we have to do it for them now, and for the future unseen (and possibly un-born) students of this subject.

That is what motivates me, I hope you understand.

FJS

It is indeed a noble effort, Fred. However, Brian is correct - in these cases, the dagger is the goal, and not history. There is usually too much money riding on the deal to get caught up with making a big promotion about the piece. We don't have the luxury of being academic. Surely, we try to get what we can, there is no harm in that. Often times however, such activities result in not getting a piece, even for a "fair" price. Any other experienced buyer will echo my sentiment. And in this particular case, where the authenticity of these daggers, as a class, is all but indisputable, I say why take the risk? And generally, the bigger dealers often rely on a network of intermediaries. At least 80% of my "out of the woodwork" purchases have been through an intermediary. Of the 4 SS Honor Daggers I have been the "first" to own, only one was purchased by me directly from the family. So in summary, the presence of an "intermediary" is really not a smoking gun. Rather, it's typical, and par for the course in the real world.

I would seriously like to enter into an honest debate with anyone who believes the NSKK High Leader is the product of a conspiracy to commit fraud. It will come as no surprise to anyone here that I find the argument for the falsehood of the NSKK High Leader lacking in several respects, but that's okay. I say let the chips fall where they may. There are enough of these pieces out there, and therefore too much is at stake to let the shadow you have cast over these pieces remain unanswered. Again, I encourage none of the name-calling and slander from earlier threads. This conversation can be above board, and among gentlemen. Still, the choice is yours and nobody will ridicule or second guess you, or call you afraid, if you choose not to argue your case.

Fred:
I understand your position completely, just I have no verifiable facts. This particular dagger was purchased nearly thirty years ago. None of us saw the expolsion of interest or value that was to develop. I have the same problem with the 'Wire Wrapped Army Dagger I picked up in '82. I researched it as best as I could at the time but even my letter from the dagger manufacturer isn't enough to some of today's skeptics. I'm sure that any research I did on the NSKK Honor Dagger would meet with the same fate.

Rather than use a single item to try and build a case for this or that. I�m a hugh fan of side by side comparisons. Both as a learning tool, and to see if there are any diffenrces. What are the chances for some closeup images of the other two daggers - either mentioned, or already posted? FP

BE IT A RZM SA OR THE NSKK HIGH LEADER DAGGER, FEW COLLECTORS OR PICKERS UNTIL RECENTLY CARED TO RECORD ANY OF THE HISTORY OF THE PIECE. CRAIG IS CORRECT IN THAT THE OBJECT OF COLLECTING WAS ALWAYS THE ARTIFACT. ENOUGH OF THESE DAGGERS HAVE A HISTORY OF BEING VET AQUIRED TO SATISFY ANY DOUBTS I MIGHT HAVE. I HOPE THE PRESENT OWNERS OF THESE DAGGERS ALL BELIUEVE THEM TO BE A FRAUD AS THEY WIL FLOOD THE MARKET AND POSSIBLY I CAN GET A BUY ON ONE.
BOB

I was not into photography at the time of having that dagger. Had it come my way 6 years later I would have had it on the cover of one of my calendars. I'm looking for my 8"x10" B&W that Tom Johnson used. It may take a while as I just moved and everything is still in boxes.

I'm not sure but I think there's one in the Dowd Collection at Ft. Bragg, NC. If it is, it's been there since the 50's.

Brian, the Dowd collection has a SS Honor but I'm not sure they have a NSKK.

The Dowd Collection at Fort Bragg is no longer on display. I got a behind the scenes look at it and it contains a great SS Honor Dagger and also a presented SA dagger that is in one of Tom Johnson's books. No NSKK Honor dagger.


Dave

The High Leader NSKK Dagger with damascus blade has been known to be in collections as long as I have been in this hobby (50 years). What has probably given rise to doubters was the introduction of a standard NSKK Dagger with the "supposed signature" of Huhnlein on the reverse of the standard blade as it was seen on the damascus pieces. As I remember, these appears in the early 1970s, usually on an RZM marked blade.
Another feature of the originals that led to some questioning was the crappy middle scabbard band-unique to the Huhnlein NSKK Honor, but that was the way they came.
JMO,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Ron: That is exactly what spawned the "doubt" in Fred's mind - the appearance of both the original and the fake, published for the first time, in the book. Fred had been unaware of extant examples that predated the book, and so it captured his attention and he developed his theory.

Fred Prinz: I doubt very much that "comparisons" will be made on the forum. I assume that those who own these pieces really don't have the time or inclination to post "comparisons" for our study. After the treatment that a small vocal minority gave to the Wolf Sword, I can understand their position.

Given all the collector interest which started this topic. Now that things had quieted down a little, perhaps some other examples can be posted? I had hoped for the additional examples to compare (and possibly explain) something that seems quite apparent with the first example. Can anyone provide an explanation for the diffused appearance of the H�hnlein signature as illustrated below? FP

The business of the Huhnlein dagger appears to be gathering momentum, but I am electing not to get dragged too far into this - after all, I do not want to give away some of the surprises that will be revealed when I publish.

Craig, you are correct! The money and the item are the most important factors. The provenance and history is a mere incidental, and often inconvenient to accommodate. I wonder why anyone bothers to mention that any item is original? Why don't we just accept it at face value? It makes it so much easier, and nobody has to worry about the burden of "proof".

Unfortunately, I am one of those people who likes to go that little bit further just to ensure that something really is what it is claimed to be. Now the NSKK Huhnlein Honour Dagger presents a number of problems - because I would like to see clear and unmistakable "evidence" to support "authenticity". Not least because of the people who claim that they got them "straight out of the woodwork". Normally I would accept such claims as truthful - but here we have an item which doesn't seem to be quite right. It is not as straightforward as it seems. Claims that these items have "come straight from the Vet" are meaningless, unless of course verifiable provenance linking that "veteran" physically exists. Hearsay and rumour do not count as "provenance".

I do not like to challenge claimants tales of how they got something, because that is directly challenging their truthfulness. All too often I find that they didn't actually get it "direct" by themselves, there is invariably some other middleman who wasn't mentioned at first. Or the seller is someone who has come to a motel-buyer - there is no real evidence that the seller is who he says he is, or his account of how he obtained the item. So the chain of provenance is stretched a little further - perhaps to breaking point. I am not stating that some great purchases and highly rare daggers did not turn up at "motel-buys" - for that most certainly did happen. And they would no doubt be obtained for an extremely good price.

What I am stating is that the NSKK Huhnlein is a highly contentious dagger, and I will make my revelations clear when I publish. I will reveal my explanation why there are two types of chain, and the "Gahr-manufactured" pieces etc., and I will take the flak when outrage tries to shout me down. However, when dealing with something as debatable as the Huhnlein Honour Dagger, then claims that it was bought for $75, or $150 etc., are not sufficient evidence. They have to be proven to be - i) true, and ii) linked positively to the knife concerned (because these pieces haven't been "changing hands for $75 or $150" in the past 30 tears to my knowledge - oh no! The price was always much higher.)

Now here is a little curious coincident for viewers of this thread to consider, because questions concerning the Huhnlein piece were in circulation some years before its appearance in the TJ book. In fact the real mystery started in 1974.

In 1973 I received for examination an SA dagger by Pack, and which had a signature etched on the reverse of the blade - the signature appeared to read as the name "Huhnlein". The etching also included a rendition of the SA rune emblem - set completely within a circle. It was quite obvious that this etching was far more recent than the etching which formed the E. Pack trademark, or the obverse "Alles fur Deutschland" legend. It was clear that this was a tampered blade - the Huhnlein etching was fresh and new.

At that time Jack Angolia was completing his second volume of daggers for Bender - to be titled "Edged Weaponry of the Third Reich". Jack wanted to include a small section on reproductions in this new work, and asked if I could send him some photos. I submitted a small selection, included in which was the SA with the "Huhnlein" signature.

Jack's new work appeared in 1974, and I duly received my copy. Sure enough, there on page 209, appears my photo of the piece - but there is another surprise in the book. Elsewhere, on page 146 of the book there is an illustration of a close-up section of the reverse of a damascus bladed "NSKK Honour Dagger" - and it shows the same, identical "Huhnlein signature" as on the piece that I had submitted!

Now this is a remarkable situation, in fact it is a unique situation. Knowledge of these so-called "Huhnlein Daggers" was unknown until the 1974 publication of Jack's book. They do not appear in any other reference work prior to that time, and there seems to be no known pre-war reference to them - yet in an instant Jack Angolia publishes a work in which an "original example" and a "fake example" appear together, simultaneously, for the first time! This needs to be explained before it can be understood.

How was the faker of the obviously fraudulent piece able to produce an etching of the signature pattern that appears on the claimed original piece? Examination of the signatures appears to show that they are absolutely identical. Did the faker of the Pack piece have access to this "Huhnlein Honour Dagger" - and from which he could finely copy the signature for his etching template? Or is it the cold, hard fact that the etcher of the Pack dagger, was also the etcher who added the Huhnlein signature to the damascus blade dagger?

Angolia does not show any other photos of this dagger, because the person who supplied him with the photo of the signature supplied no images other than that of the signature. Obviously it was important to have that signature seen, and recognised, and confirmed as authentic. But is it authentic? I know what I think, and I think that I have the evidence that will prove my opinion concerning the Huhnlein Honour Daggers.

Frederick J. Stephens

It would seem that Frederick ( although he has not said so exactly in so many words) is saying that the signature is the thing he has a problem with-not the dagger. The dagger is shown in at least one period photo-So???? Is ANYONE saying that photo is a fake? I don't think so but I could be wrong. Anyway, if not altered, The dagger IS period, PERIOD. No more need for any more Bla Bla about that.
So--It seems to me that it was said long ago that the signature came into doubt in the old days MOSTLY because of the SA runics on the blade with it.In fact I recall that it was clearly stated that this "fraud" would NOT have been noticed except for this. Go ahead and correct me here if I am wrong--but I don't think so. The point of the arrow head did not pierce the circle--this was the big red flag. Again, I think I am correct here. So--If that is the basis for the doubt about the signature?????
I gotta tell you--There ARE period SA items that ALSO have this different rendition of those runes. Oh YES!
So--Does that blow up the idea that the signature is bad?? Hmmm!
So--Even IF the signature is bad -has someone been going around altering original SA honor daggers to make them NSKK ?--Oh horror of horrors--I hope not!! Naaa! I can't buy that one.
OK--Lets talk about the chain top box fitting Vrs. the clip.--The box fitting is shown in wear in the period? unaltered? photo. This we know.
So--why do some have the clip? Well-- the photos I have seen seem to indicate the clip is made of different material or plated differently and presents a different looking color than the rest of the chain.I am not a metal expert -but I know a bit about metals-- This makes me think that at least some of the clips are replacements--I don't know when but it seems they were changed during the period or improved to sort of match the SA versions. Why? Who knows? But fake? I don't think so. Many revisions of edged weapon patterns were made during the period for whatever reason.
So--There are my thoughts--tear them up if you can!

Houston,

The point that I was making is that: In the beginning, it seemed that we had no Huhnlein Honour Daggers. And then in 1974 we have the the Big Bang! and lo! Two Huhnlein Daggers appear simultaneously, one apparently "real", and the other apparently "faked".

I think it fascinating that the common thread found between these two daggers is that the signatures are absolutely identical.

It is not like the Huhnlein signatures found on other artifacts, such as letters, documents, presented photographs, plaques, etc., and that they are all in respects of the signature absolutely similar. NO they are not exactly similar, but it is true to say that they have "generally similar" characteristics.

However, this is not the case with the daggers - in this case they have IDENTICAL similarities, it is as if they were etched from the same original template.

Are you suggesting, Houston, that the identical nature of the Huhnlein signature on the steel blades - when compared to the identical signature on the damascus Honour blade - means that both daggers and etchings are entirely original? Is this what you state?

Because if this is not what you are suggesting, then please explain, because I really would like to know.

FJS

No Fred --I am not saying that--but you seem to be saying that the honor blade signatures seem to be copied from the fakes or are the same as the fakes. Well-it could very well be that the fake was copied from an original honor dagger. That would seem more likely to me than the other way. Destroying original honor SA daggers to make more money seems unlikely. After all, how much more would they have been worth then. In fact I think many collectors would prefer the SA--even today. NSKK? Big deal-Let's go with the nasty SA guys. Right? Also--perhaps those daggers were around in collections before 74 or the vets still had them-- but they had not been seen by many. After all -there are very few known, even today. I remember that we did not see MANY patterns of rare original daggers in the early days. If you look at the very early Radel and Leslie reference book there are many patterns not known or included ,and in fact, that book is good testimony about the volumes of information that we did not have then.
Perhaps--You know what?--if we looked at that particular SA dagger with the SA runics today--we might think something different about it. Maybe not. Was that the only one just like that? or were there others? I know they made some other fakes later that had those runes too. It is hard to say a lot when you don't have those examples in your hand.I know that the arrow point thing means next to nothing. Correct?

It seems to me that there is not one, but two issues under discussion. One issue is about the legitimate existence of the H�hnlein daggers as a group.

The other is about the H�hnlein dagger that was posted to start this thread.

1) Why does the signature area have that washed out appearance?

2) It was admitted right up front that the grip did not fit. But we are not talking about some slight amount of shrinkage which can sometimes happen. Beside the fact that it doesn't fit properly in multiple areas. There is also an offset.

3) And that does not explain in three of the images (especially the second one) why the crosssguard to mouthpiece fit is also off.

Quite frankly, from what I see in the images posted it looks more like an altered parts dagger than a period original. FP

Interesting topic..
Is there just the one period photo of the dagger in wear? ,, could a member please post this photo? Thanks, G.

Funny this topic is brought up as I was discussing this with a Friend who is a Major Damascus expert (at least I consider him one)We were talking about these very daggers and he stated all Blades were basicially identical and true WW2 production damascus BUT The Name is etched in instead of being raised..My theory is actual real blades,Eickhorn make and were Added to in the mid 50'or 60's with the hunlein inscriptions probably by Atwood as he would have had them finished with proper mounts and chains.As for Julien Milestone just because he had one does not make it true,who knows he may have paid $100 for it just as a "filler" or maybe he liked the way it looked.

Interesting -but -there is NO proof of that. Just because the signature is etched-that makes it fake? That is pure garbage IMO. There is no basis for that idea. Talk about grasping for straws. What is this? There IS a period photo of this type dagger in wear. WHY is this being ignored? WHY do so many of you want these daggers to be fake?
If these were Atwood fakes--WHY bother with the extra signature at additional cost, when, at that time, IMO most collectors cared much less about NSKK stuff and would have much rather had the SA version anyway.
This, IMO, is getting quite absurd.

Just looking at the way Germans did things...........They may have etched for a 1 off piece but if these were made in numbers than the name would have been raised up and gilded.Not saying the daggers are Bad but just the Hunlein inscription.Unless you have a pic of an NSKK guy with Dagger out and pointing at the incription then I would tend to lean towards Not good,not that I am buying any in the near future.

Again these Topics are raised and now with backing from a Name Rarely seen these Days on the site,Mr Burmeister (whom I have nothing but Great admiration for,Not attacking),It seems as if Craig is posting these to Bait Fred Stephens into a Useless debate and for what?There are people who believe what they want to and thats it,their pocket books do their talking.Isn't this type of posting against the Rules of this site?.Baiting an argument...ANYONE

And by the way who are all of these members who asked for these to be posted,I sure as hell didnt.

Soapbox, Book or Dagger? Which one? I prefer the dagger.

Houston,

I will try and stick specifically to the points you made regarding my previous replies.

Yes, it is true that I was initially swayed by the SA rune formation on the back of the blade (why not an NSKK eagle?) and it immediately caused doubts. Perhaps there are some other authentic variants of the SA rune emblem that would make this version seem correct - but I didn't have the same range of research material available to me at that time, it was after all 35 years ago.

It was the clean crispness of the etch, compared to the aged and ingrained appearance of the trademark that also suggested that the etching was a more recent addition.

I am fully aware of the existence of the authentic photo showing an alleged pattern of the broad catch NSKK in wear. I also have another genuine photo showing the same configuration in wear by Huhnlein himself. Are the existing examples of these broad catch daggers presumed to be these same exact daggers in wear? I have my theories and evidence which I will ultimately promote.

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the Huhnlein signature is etched into the blade (intaglio etching), and not raised from the surface like the rest of the etching on the blade (trade mark and obverse motto). I have no real explanation for this, other than that the application of the signature to the blade may have been an after thought - although just how long after is a debatable matter!

I do confirm, however, that the presentation SA Honour Dagger Model 33 style - without chains - given by Schwartz to Lutze, does have an intaglio form inscription, and as far as I can see it is perfectly authentic.

FP has pointed out the blemish in the inscription, an appearance of "diffusion" in the middle of the signature. This has occurred because of a breakdown in the "acid resist". When the blade is being etched (and it sometimes takes 2 or 3 immersions in the acid bath) the portions NOT to be etched are covered with an acid resist - to ensure that only the exposed areas of the design receive the acid. The blade should be checked periodically, to ensure that the acid hasn't broken through the resist and spread outwards, instead of biting straight down.

It would seem that such precise, professional care has not been taken in this case - not quite what you would expect for such a prestigeous award? I also recall that I may have seen this exact item in the possession of an English dealer in the 1990s, because I pointed that failed etching out to him. (If it is not the same item, then there must be two examples with the identical failure).

Finally, it has been suggested that Craig started this thread with the deliberate intention of baiting me, as he certainly mentions me by name at the beginning. Well, I am not going to play ball, I am happy with all my information and I will share it all when I publish.

Thanks to all for your e-mails of support and encouragement. I will reply.

FJS

I will just say this for now then Fred--The NSKK never changed the grip insert either. I would agree-why not the NSKK eagle? But then why the continued use of the SA insert? It would seem that you are saying the couple of daggers seen in wear are not around today.

According to some, the �NSKK High Leaders� are original SA Honor daggers that have been conceived and converted post war to increase profit. An interesting choice when one compares the sales of the two and finds them to be of the same value.

The theory suggested is that the culprit behind the �NSKK High Leader� discovered a group of original SA Honor daggers sometime prior to 1974. So, instead of simply selling them and taking an immediate profit, a decision was made to invest more money and create a dagger unheard of. Of course they couldn�t be sold all at once for fear of flooding the market. Instead they would have to be sold over the next thirty plus years. As of this date, approximately 12 or so of these �allegedly fake daggers� have been released to the unsuspecting market on at least two different continents.

According to the theory, this individual would have been responsible for designing and manufacturing a unique chain and center scabbard band. However, these daggers are also encountered with a standard chain but with the unique scabbard band. Why? If designing and ordering based on a set number of daggers to convert, wouldn�t it make sense to order the same quantity? Instead it appears for an unknown reason, investments in original 36 model daggers were made to salvage the chains. Remember, as of this date we are discussing less then a dozen daggers. Then there is the question of the unique chains that have been crudely converted to incorporate an upper clip. It can be assumed the purpose for this change was to reduce the effort this unique design would necessitate when attaching and removing the dagger. Logic would dictate that this would have been discovered during the period by the individual wearer and not a faker. Since no two conversions are the same, it appears they were accomplished on an individual basis. This lends more credibility to the pieces being of the period.

It also might be interesting to note that at least 2 of the approximate 12 daggers released into the market were originally sold for less then $500.00. Another three were purchased for slightly more, but still substantially less then the value of a standard SA Honor. Of course the doubters insist that you can�t believe any of this because you don�t personally know the individuals that originally purchased these daggers. The suggestion that, though unknown to each other and in completely different parts of the world, all have unknowingly been pawns in this plot to defraud is difficult to imagine. If we are to believe this conspiracy, you must ask what the motivation was.

Now, imagine the surprise when a period photo surfaces decades later clearly showing the dagger in wear, complete with unique center scabbard band and chain that is identical to the one that the faker would have allegedly designed and produced.

Do you see the absurdity in all of this? In my professional view, this theory is so far-fetched that it barely deserves the attention it is getting. The entire concept was to make a profit. In the end this conspiracy is void of profit and therefore motive.

In conclusion, though some would have you believe the NSKK High Leader is pure fantasy, to the overwhelming majority of respected collectors it is an unquestionable original dagger documented in a period photograph.

There seem to be two separate subjects being discussed here:

- Whether the dagger itself existed. This would appear to be verified by the photo mentioned above.

- What the blade looked like. Does anyone have info on that .... that can be traced back?

Dave

I know of a collector who bought one of these daggers for $50.00 from the veterans son back in the 1970s. i personally saw the dagger. He sold in back then to a Bill Rasmussen, who at that time was one of the bigger dealers here in the Detroit area.There is no doubt in my mind that these daggers are 100% period pieces
thanks
Bob

Dave,

The theory I addressed in my above post should have included the assertion that the signature was added as well, but I was concentrating on other points. For the record, I�m convinced that these daggers with signature are period. One of the daggers I�m aware of was first seen with signature and 800 silver chains in the state of Wisconsin in roughly 1965. The collector attempted to purchase it then but was unsuccessful. It wasn�t until the late 90s that this dagger was finally obtained.

Houston,

I agree with you about "Why did the NSKK use the SA runic inset and not their own emblem?" There has to be an answer to this, and I do have some provisional information about it, but I prefer to wait until I have it more thoroughly confirmed.

Regarding the NSKK Eagle as a grip inset, yes, I have seen a couple of these, and I whereas I once gave them the benefit of the doubt, I am no longer convinced that they were authentic. They did not fit well in the grip and that I find questionable. Of course other people will say that poor workmanship and sloppy fitting is normal for the subject. Sorry, I am one of those guys who believes otherwise.

On the issue of the known photographs showing the "NSKK Honour Dagger" with the wide cartouche, I have yet to see any evidence that suggests either of the existing daggers is positively one of those shown in the photographs. What happens when we find another dagger with the same unique (well, semi-unique) features? Maybe there will be some future clues that allow us to advance a little bit further.

Jason, you have made some comment about the relative values of the Huhnlein Honour Dagger and the regular SA Honour Dagger, and I am pleased to benefit from your considerable experience.

Am I correct in believing that you state that an NSKK High Leader Honour Dagger, with chains (and maybe, perhaps, a wide cartouche at the conflusion of the chains), complete with damascus blade, raised and gilded inscription, but a recessed intalglio etch of the "Huhnlein signature" - and that such a piece is worth no more than a regular SA Honour Dagger without chains? Is this what you are stating? Please confirm.

FJS

Good to see you back and posting Jason. We need experienced and advanced collectors like yourself here on GDC to keep things in perspective.

Jason,

A further point to your submission which came in just before placed my own (above). You relate to: "For the record, I�m convinced that these daggers with signature are period. One of the daggers I�m aware of was first seen with signature and 800 silver chains in the state of Wisconsin in roughly 1965. The collector attempted to purchase it then but was unsuccessful. It wasn�t until the late 90s that this dagger was finally obtained."

I have two precise questions - a) can you present evidence of this claimed dagger being seen in Wisconsin in "roughly 1965" - and if so, what is the evidence?
b) Is this the same dagger, obtained in "the late 90's" that had the "SA dagger clip" so crudely soldered to the back of the cartouche?
Because if it wasn't, then which dagger is this Huhnlein piece?

Does this mean that we now have the third example of the wide cartouche.

I look forward to your reply.

FJS

Another small point I wish to make in this discussion:

Just because you had not seen it until the 1970's is not a determinator in itself.

I got a K&M early SS dagger about 5 years ago that challenged the (!) theory about Jacobsb being the only producer of these daggers. Same with a Puma. Others have surfaced since then

Dave

I would have to agree with the idea that timing by itself is not necessarily a factor. After the Berlin Wall came down - legitimate period German militaria showed up which was virtually unknown in the west.

That said, there still seems to be a fair amount of �Sturm und Drang� swirling around regarding this topic. As was also already commented on, it really seems to be two discussions in one. And other than Mr. Stephens. I don�t think anyone has addressed the appearance of the dagger blade with the signature that this discussion was started with.

Period photographs with clearly discernible details cannot be disregarded, and have to be accepted as facts versus opinions. But what is inside the scabbard is going to take more effort to try and ascertain the truth. Especially if the workmanship does not look like that which would be expected from that era.

It was stated that a silver chained example turned up in 1965 with the signature. And before he exited, Craig said he was going to post an example with a non-silver version of the chain. Is the signature on those versions of the dagger any different? Do they look like the example posted below? FP