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

Frederick,

It is my opinion that the value of the standard 1933 SA Honor with scalloped fittings and the double oval proofmark without chain and the Chained NSKK High Leader with either chain is approximately the same. However, these daggers are offered so infrequently that it is difficult to set a firm price. Supply and demand affect the market. Having been involved in this hobby as long as you have, this is surely something you�re aware of.

Reference your 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?

1. No, I only have the word of the collector who purchased it.

b) Is this the same dagger, obtained in "the late 90's" that had the "SA dagger clip" so crudly soldered to the back of the cartouche Because if it wasn't, then which dagger is this Huhnlein piece?

2. No, it is not one of the daggers acquired with the altered clip. However it is the type with unique chain by Gahr.

Without checking old notes, I believe the breakdown of known NSKK High Leaders is, three examples with Gahr chains featurinig the wide cartouche with altered clips, five with the Gahr chains unaltered wide cartouche, and four with the �standard� chain.

And if I may Frederick, your thoughts on the �standard� chain itself?

Dave, you make a wonderful point.

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

Houston,

thank you for the kind words. I only hope it is not an exercise in futility.

I find it hard to believe that these NSKK Damascus piece all remained hidden until the 70's,Jeez most daggers and Types were pretty much known as of the mid 60's and Not talking maker variations on standard daggers.Most of the feldernhalle pieces were known as of 1975 with a very few coming to the surface recently.

NO-the fact is that in the 60's the vast majority of collectors knew next to nothing. Collectors today can not even imagine. We had next to nothing in references. Black gripped Army daggers were thought to be Engineer's pieces. The Postschutz dagger was thought to be for the Signal Corps.
Atwood had blown our minds with his mountains of fakes. If you look at his book you can see the fakes-and little if any good information. An example-- One of the special SA presentation daggers by Eickhorn with the double eagle head cross guard and ivory grip was out on a table at the Ohio Gun Collectors Assn. show in Columbus Ohio. The price ? $800.00 The same show--The Arthur Eickhorn special eagle head presentation dagger on another table. About the same price or a bit more. I remember some others. Did we buy them? Did anyone buy them? Hell NO! We SNEERED at them!! We were convinced they were fakes. If you want to know what we thought we knew then you must look at those old books-Pre Johnson and Pre Angolia. Worse than nothing-bad information and lots of it.

If you were not there you don't know-you might think you do but you don't.

Tom wrote ,

quote:

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.

Tom , the SS honor from Heinrich Himmler also has an etching , from Nazi Party Treasurer Franz Schwarz.

The �timelines� part of the discussion I will leave to those who have more institutional background. My attention is still more focused on the first dagger and where it fits into the scheme of things. As they were already posted on the forum as examples for discussion, I took the liberty of enlarging and reposting three of Jason Burmeister�s images of the H�hnlein daggers as a group for comparison purposes. I know that computer enhancements generate artifacts. And that better quality images can clarify misperceptions that arise from the enhancement process - so I�m not trying to represent the computer enhancements as completely accurate. But they were the best I could do with what I had available. The first image shows the three with full length blades.

For the second image, I took the signature from the H�hnlein dagger that Craig Gottleib posted and merged it with the three others. When all of them are looked at together - it seems to me that the four signatures are all different from each other. However there are also some things that are roughly similar. For example the bottom loop of first �H� in H�hnlein is flattened at the bottom for both the top and bottom daggers in the second image. Slightly flattened for the dagger next to the bottom example. But not noticeably flattened for the dagger just below the top one.

And the third image shows a couple of things I did not pick up on as regards the signature of the first (original) H�hnlein dagger that was posted. The different letter �l� and the way the �e� wraps around itself which does not seem to be the same as in the other images. I also saw some other things that seemed to be apparent but they are beyond the scope of the discussion of the H�hnlein signatures themselves. FP

Image two.

Image three.

Interesting, but what does that mean? If they were all fakes they probably would be all the same. If they were all original one would also think the same thing.
IMO that leads me to believe they are more likely period and for some reason a different template was used each time. They probably were not presented at the same time. This IMO seems more likely than different templates being used each time a fake signature was added. But, I'm sure that others , who seem to want these to be fake, will go with a different opinion. But, will we ever know for sure? Probably not--unless we believe the old accounts of these pieces being found many years ago in the hands of vets and bought for next to nothing. I choose to believe the latter as, IMO, it seems more likely to be correct.

Houston, �but what does that mean? If they were all fakes they probably would be all the same. If they were all original one would also think the same thing.�

In my humble opinion I don�t think that there is enough information yet to form conclusions - other than some fairly obvious ones. Better conclusions will require a better look.

1) Fakes might be the same, but they all could be different as well. It would depend on who was doing the faking, and there could be more than one faker.

2) And when. If daggers were faked piecemeal as the daggers to be altered were purchased. That could be another reason for them to be different.

3) I might have a problem with �different templates�. Assuming that Eickhorn was the source of these daggers - I would think that the etching master templates would all be the same. They didn�t change the master templates for the motto. Why change a signature master template?

As for the �vet� issue IMO it�s a mixed bag. I�ve seen too many third party purchases where the seller swore it was straight from the hands of the �vet�. And I knew that the item (or items) were completely bogus.

And I would offer another possibility. Once upon a time there were one or two (or more?) signature blades that were legitimate pre 1945 items. And over time these items were copied by counterfeiters - which was not uncommon �in the day� when prices were cheap especially with blades that were of lesser quality. Have we ever seen that happen before?? Absolutely!! Regards, FP

In the Wolf sword thread we could see that an etching was put on the blade by hand ( there was a foto of a guy that was making an etch), could this also have happened here? Would that explain the differences in the etching?

Greetings ,Rob.

quote:

Atwood had blown our minds with his mountains of fakes

Just to chime in this Atwood chap really like to mess with the collectors! He must have had a lot of time on his hands to fabricate so many fake TR daggers!

quote:

Originally posted by Rob NL:
In the Wolf sword thread we could see that an etching was put on the blade by hand ( there was a foto of a guy that was making an etch), could this also have happened here? Would that explain the differences in the etching?

Greetings ,Rob.

If this signature etching was done as per the Rohm etc I wouldnt expect it to be hand done. Although it would depend on the numbers of the daggers produced with the etch to determine if this was a viable option as opposed to hand preparation. Most often hand preparation is seen in one offs.

A Very interesting discussion indeed. Excellent points brought up.
However with F.P. makining avaiable the side-by-side comparison "signiture etch" photos, ( thanks, I love those) it should be clear to see that there ARE different style signitures on the samples presented.
So if we accept accept etched signiture as original "variations" on this Rare presentation piece by the same company (Eickhorn), than should we not also accept it by other presentations say a Rohm's by various makers?
Or, if the rule that All Rohms and Himmlers have to be alike but a NSKK Huhnlein can vary... well please show me how? I'm no expert here. Just need for it to make sense to me.
That being said I do well realize that there are some things that don't make sense in our hobby. But there still has to be a reason.
Thanks,

-wagner-

Just saw John Pepera post about Bob Waitts and his collection,Did he have a Hunlein dagger in his collection?

Craig also provided an image from an NSKK award plaque. I�m assuming that it is the �official� H�hnlein signature - versus the purported handwritten one. Looking at the ends of both. The end of the ink version is upturned. But the end of the award plaque version is down and the signature also has a downward sweep. And there are some other dissimilarities between it and some of the etches.

Also, creating an original signature, and then recreating the entire signature time after time after time, is not only not cost effective. It can lead to errors. For mass production the wax master patterns used a silk screen type of process. And one or a hundred (or more) virtually identical acid resist masks could be made. With only a cleanup process needed after they were applied to the blades. And the screens were not particularly high tech or high cost - but did require some experience in making them. Which Eickhorn had in abundance.

And survival rate. Jason Burmeister reported 12 of these daggers. Logic would dictate that is only a portion of those that survived the war. While we may never know how many were supposed to have been made. 12 known daggers indicates that there should have been considerably more manufactured. That just by itself argues against a one at a time manufacturing process - strongly suggesting that they should have been produced in reasonably large numbers by mass production methods. FP

Bob did have a chained example in his collection. It featured the 800 silver Gahr style chain.

In regards to the signatures, I suggest finding every document, plaque etc. from the period that may bear a signature or a facsimile. I�m pretty sure you�ll find differences. An easier project is to study your own signature. How often is it identical? A final point to consider is that the process is being applied to Damascus.

Differences yes, but that is precisely the reason that master patterns are created. So that there is some consistency from one to the next. As for Damascus, I can see all sorts of problems with acid undercutting hard steel while going more easily through softer steel. But that is not a reflection upon the design being etched. Only in how diffused the edges (or bottoms) will be. FP

Observation on my part and not saying the etch is period or not. But if I were to compare the Adolf Huehnlein signature's shown in Charles Hamilton's book on pages 287/288 to the similarities and or differences of the signature on the blades shown.
I would surmise that the signature's on the blades are not very good rendition's of the true signature as per Hamilton's book and that the signature on the award plaque a much better rendition. IMO

Thanks for the interesting thread!

Guys

Sadly I think the subject at hand was Purposely brought up too try and Pull Fred Stephhens into a fight of some sort,This is an un-winable argument because there are people who have No money invested who think one way and others who have LOTS tied up who think the other way,maybe its best just to Agree to disagree and walk away from this.

FP--All the points you make saying all the signatures should be the same for the real also applies to the fake. One would think they all would be the same either way--but they are not--So-IMO-there is no answer here. It is not really logical to go one way or the other.

Houston, First - Part of me is inclined to agree with Tom that some folks who for whatever reason were encouraged to enter this discussion. Now find themselves in a type of discussion that they had not anticipated when it started. And that where opinions (versus facts) are involved it will be difficult if not impossible to to find a common ground.

As regards your statement: �All the points you make saying all the signatures should be the same for the real also applies to the fake.� I�m going to have to respectfully disagree. If we take 20 modern reproductions from a factory and line them up they are probably all going to look alike.

But (at least as far as I know) there is no �Counterfeit Central� that altered in one fell swoop all of the conversions of original (and parts/fake/etc.) SS daggers to create counterfeit Himmler presentation daggers. It happened over time from multiple sources. And over time from (quite possibly) multiple sources with different or no tooling (specialized equipment) you are going to see different results from one item to the next.

My point being that especially with the Eickhorn company they were not amateurs and about as good as it gets in producing quality items. And the quality control for the signatures on all four blades - but most especially the one that started the thread - is NOT good. They all appear to be hand done, the etching depth is not consistent, and with the original one posted the acid went crazy and messed up the blade. How do you defend that example as an Eickhorn product??

I have voiced what I feel are valid opinions mixed in with facts. I have no ill will towards those who joined in, and as Tom suggested am prepared to walk away from the discussion. As we all know there were two other recent discussions - one of which ended a little prematurely. So at some point, when everyone has provided whatever input they may wish to get across, I would imagine that this discussion could also be allowed to taper off or be ended. And if it�s not over yet, that also is OK.

PS: Please permit me to make a correction and strike �diffused� and make it: �Only in how uneven the edges (or bottoms) will be.� which I think would probably have been a better choice of words. Regards, FP

FP-You seem to ignore the fact that the fakers would have kept the template just as Eickhorn would.
The signature? Did you ever see a signature written with a fountain pen with a medium point?
Quite often the ink runs a bit making the signature a bit smudgy. No ball points or pilot pens those days. TW likes to sign his books with one of those old style pens--and there are smudges.
So--you blame the etch--could it be the pen?
Also you continue to disbelieve those who testified that these were found over the years by motel buyers and bought in bad condition for next to nothing.
I talked to a VERY experienced dealer today and he confirmed that. I know this dealer VERY well and I know the motel buyer also--VERY well. These guys are old school and they don't do internet and they don't like their names mentioned here. They will tell you in private though--and I believe them. They don't have any for sale and they don't own any. As far as I'm concerned --that's the end of the story. Believe it or not-there is no real proof-just opinion. You gotta believe someone--or just sell everything. Buy a reference book today.

I was asked to provide photos to a colleague so that they could be posted here. Instead I chose to post them myself and enter this discussion. Mr. Stephens and I have corresponded via email from the beginning and I believe this will continue...

I don�t find it a useless debate. If Craig had personal motivations, they don�t concern me and I was not aware of them.

As for what I personally anticipated when entering this discussion, this is exactly what was expected.

It is interesting the question of fact versus opinion has been raised. As Mr. Stephens and I have discussed, for one to make an authoritative statement, one must be in a position to do so. Since I have publicly clarified my experience and Mr. Stephens has done so in an email to me, I would like to ask the active participants to share their experience in hope of separating opinion from an authoritative statement.

How many of the NSKK High Leaders have you examined?

How many Eickhorn Honor daggers total have you examined?

Some statements that need clarification:

�Most of the feldernhalle pieces were known as of 1975 with a very few coming to the surface recently.� What was the basis for this?

The FHH daggers known to the collecting community have an establish pedigree based on the internal numbers and most weren�t known as of 1975.

What is the highest numbered FHH you�ve examined?

�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� What was the basis for this?

�the Eickhorn company they were not amateurs and about as good as it gets in producing quality items.� What was the basis for this?

It is widely known Eickhorn quality specifically with political daggers and the fitting of grips and the blade shoulders is lacking when compared to some other makers. Since a question has been raised about the grip fit on the first dagger posted here, it might be worth mentioning that each grip is custom fit to the hand finished cross guards. If reassembled improperly as is the case here in my opinion, you�ll have a fit as seen and noted.

A question was asked did Hunlein wear a dagger with his own signature. Goring�s sword with leather trim dyed to match his boots was a standard Luft General with his name on it, so it is entirely possible. However, Hunlein was most likely given a dagger from Schwarz like given to Himmler and Lutze.

The purpose of this isn�t to offend or express ill will. It is an attempt to qualify statements. To make such statements and for them to have merit, the individual responsible must have the ability to substantiate them. If unable to do so, then they are just opinions as defined �the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment�.

It has been stated that there has been valid opinions mixed with facts. A valid opinion is nothing more then an opinion as defined above. The only fact is that these daggers did exist during the period as documented in the one photograph.

When this thread was first started, it was stated by Craig that Mr. Stephens asserted that these are post war fantasy pieces. I would ask Mr. Stephens to clarify this.

It would seem that the topic is still active. RE: �FP-You seem to ignore the fact that the fakers would have kept the template just as Eickhorn would.� Houston - No offense intended, but that is pure speculation. How do we know 20 or 30 or 40 years ago what every counterfeiter who was active would do? Even you said back then nobody knew anything. Look at some of the items that got into the books in that period. Some of them are pure unadulterated fakes from guys that were clueless with only minimal (if any) knowledge.

And I did offer this comment earlier: �another possibility. Once upon a time there were one or two (or more?) signature blades that were legitimate pre 1945 items. And over time these items were copied by counterfeiters....�. Assuming that speculation is a fact, that does not mean that they had to be good copies. We�ve had guys troll this site to pick up information so that they could make better fakes. Even after they got the information they wanted - sometimes they would still make mistakes. And fakes copied from books and other sources have been around as long as I can remember.

As far as etching and the Eickhorn company is concerned we see some very precise etching on bayonets which were not particularly high ticket items. By comparison - cleaning up a signature mask would be child�s play. And these were not your �average� blades, they were honor daggers. And the dagger from Craig was just an example of somebody �having a really bad day� at work???

Regarding Jason�s comment about the following statement: �the Eickhorn company they were not amateurs and about as good as it gets in producing quality items. What was the basis for this?" My basis is Eickhorn and non-Eickhorn daggers, bayonets and swords I�ve owned or still own. Admittedly however, I�ve gotten away from the late zinc types with the cheaper grades of wood (personal preference). As to what I find objectionable with the original dagger Craig posted I think the image below will be more eloquent than words (even with showing only two of the affected areas).

I also would like a clarification if possible. Does anyone have a 'true copy' or enhanced version of the photograph? FP

FP,

I understand your concern with the fit of the grip but in my �opinion� it is due to the assembly of the dagger. It is also a common occurrence to find these grips have experienced some shrinkage over the years thus accounting for a slight gap between the guards even when properly assembled. Theses grips are virtually unique to early Honor daggers. Most of the examples I�ve examined have been numbered as well. Though these numbers are sometimes very difficult to find and read. These two authoritative statements mostly preclude undetectable grip switches.

Jason, I understand what you are saying, and if we had the dagger in hand I'm sure a much better opinion could be formed. Unfortunately we don�t, and additional pictures do not seem to be an option, so I think that we have to go with what we have available.

Besides blades, I�m also a gun collector (WW II German/Other) and understand I think reasonably well how wood acts. Rifle stocks swelling, shrinking, warping etc. is something that we put up with. But that (the dagger grip) is not the way wood normally shrinks - with wider gaps on one side and narrower at the other (on opposite sides) - affecting both the upper and lower fittings. And there are some other areas which I see which I think are also problematic, which I can illustrate if you wish.

I also found much to my regret that there are some guys out there who renumber parts to make guns match. Some are better than others, but it�s one more problem that we have to put up with. The problem here is that we don�t have pictures showing any internal markings. So I don�t see how we can make assumptions - other than those that we can see with our eyes (?). Regards, FP

For those who dont have the book.

quote:

Originally posted by Frederick J. Stephens:
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....

quote:

Originally posted by Frederick J. Stephens: 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!

Tom,

As stated in my post,

�The purpose of this isn�t to offend or express ill will. It is an attempt to qualify statements. To make such statements and for them to have merit, the individual responsible must have the ability to substantiate them. If unable to do so, then they are just opinions as defined �the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment�

FP,

I agree with you about the shrinkage and numbering. Again, the issue here is assembly. Notice how the grip is resting on the lower guard and not properly seated. In other photos that I will post here of this specific dagger, it appears the dagger has been reassembled with more care but still not completely correct. Please have a close look at them and I think you will see if the grip is properly seated in the lower guard and the top guard is properly installed you�ll achieve grip a fit that will show acceptable and even shrinkage.

1

2

Thank You ibrahim !!!

A VERY INTERESTING observation! But I�m afraid that I�m going to have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Stephens. The signatures are NOT the same!! Look at the bottom of the �H�. No loop! Whereas the reported fake has one.

This just gets more and more interesting as time goes on.

PS: It�s going to take a little time to have a better look at Jason�s images - which I will do when I finish some other things that I have to do. FP

Jason, Here are some reworked images. As in all things digital there may be some artifacts or things that would look different in person. But I think they are accurate enough that some conclusions can be drawn or at least inferred. Although not everyone may interpret them the same.

The first is your dagger showing some shrinkage which not out of line, although I�ve seen other Eickhorn daggers that have a better fit. Given the variables with wood such as seasoning, storage conditions (etc.) not particularly unusual.

The second image shows the same images with the right half flipped. What is apparent here is that the shrinkage on one side is repeated on the other which is what would normally be expected.

This image shows the dagger that started the thread.

And this image also has the right half flipped. There is quite a difference here because the gaps are not the same on both sides of the grip. To have a wide gap on one side, and little or no gap on the other side. Either the wood or the crossguard socket is diagonal - not straight across for both the top and the bottom.

The last image is a closeup of the crossguard to the mouthpiece. And the lower portion of one side of the grip. In this image the grip to the left seems to overhang the crossguard a little, with a perceptible gap on the opposite (right) side. There is also a fairly noticeable shadow (ie: daylight) between the mouthpiece and the crossguard on the right. And possibly a lesser one to the left. It is possible that if the dagger was reversed in the scabbard there might be a better fit. But just looking at it I suspect that it very likely could even be worse. In any case, something is not quite right. But with only these images it�s going to be hard to tell just where the problem (or problems) might be.

The bottom line is that from what I can physically see in the images (at least from my perspective) - it still looks more like a parts piece with a seriously flawed blade than a period original. Regards, FP

FP,

A point I had missed until you pointed it out was the fit of the lower guard to the scabbard throat. Since these guards are softer then nickel, they tend to bend easier. It appears this is the case further explaining the grip fit. Do you agree?