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

Jason, There are actually a couple of issues here. From a structural standpoint the solid part would not bend because of its cross section, and the socket itself is a lot an �I� beam. And (properly oriented) �I� beams are designed to minimize deflection from a load.

Nickel is really copper (2/3). And copper and other things were added to silver to harden it. So from a metallurgical standpoint I�d have to try and find some data for the alloy that they probably used. But from what I already know, while it would likely be softer than say (for example) zinc. While zinc would break. With silver you would probably see stress lines where the bending movement took place. And there does not seem to be any of that kind of activity visible in the images. Also, how would the bending take place?? If it was struck by something like a tool or something hard you would likely see a place where it impacted. And if you put it in a vise - it would flatten out the curve and probably make it fit the scabbard better (and could also make it break if the part was over stressed).

And how does the curvature affect the fact that the grip and guards have that diagonal separation in both socket areas?

But, as I think more about it: If you bend the �I� beam area slightly and it does not break. It�s going to change the relationship of the wood grip bottom to the top of the crossguard �I� beam section. And it�s going to have either more curve or less curve. And fit either better or worse. But if the crossguard was bent to make it fit the grip better - it would cause a gap between it and the mouthpiece. Or vice versa? Hmmmmmm..............

It sure would be nice to look inside the crossguard and see if there is any evidence of bending. But from what I�m seeing in the images those components were never put together like that by Eickhorn. Regards, FP

Jason, A few additional thoughts. First a typo correction/clarification, Make that: �and the sides of the socket itself are a lot like an "I" beam. (Or at least one half of an �I� beam.)

And while I think that the simplest argument to make is that if the crossguard is bent to accommodate the mouthpiece it makes for a worse grip fit. And vice versa if it�s bent to accommodate the grip.

One additional factor that might be kept in mind is that if the crossguards are really soft and can be bent more easily they could be replications. They should have a hardness greater than a Brinell 59. That�s because while silver has a relatively low yield point. It increases the potential for damage or deformation. Which is why it is normally alloyed, instead being used as a purer form of the metal. Regards, FP

FP,

Please look back at my pictures.

Image 1 will show the upper grip has a gap on the right side.

Image 2 shows this to be equal on the upper reverse as expected based on shrinkage.

This space can be manipulated a little due to the channel for the tang. If the tang is bent to one side or the other, the gap will even out or enlarge. In this case, the upper guard appears be properly assembled and pretty well centered.

Now, if the lower guard is straightened just a bit so to fit flush with the upper scabbard throat, the grip will be seated properly and fit snuggly to the left and have the comparable gap to the right as does the upper guard due to shrinkage.

I understand your questions regarding the silver showing signs of stress. What I�m suggesting is so minor, unless matched against a throat or another guard it is virtually undetectable.

You ask how this damage could occur. First, it was carried swinging from a man�s hip during the period. Then in most cases, it was shipped home in a crate with other GI souvenirs. Then for the next 30-50 years it lay around in a variety of places occasionally being played with and taken to show and tell by the children of the veteran. One Honor dagger I�m aware of was stored in the veteran�s tool box. Can you imagine the damage when a hammer or wrench was thrown in on top? What if the drawer was over filled and then closed, imagine the damage this would cause. There is so many ways this could have and did occur and with a variety of daggers. I�ve personally examined more then a few Honor daggers with mild bends to the cross guards and assure you, it happened.

In the end, you and I may have to agree to disagree on this point and move on to the next.

Jason, I most respectfully understand your arguments to the contrary. But I must disagree, because the pictures that Craig gave us are the best evidence that the dagger has serious problems. Which go well beyond the various rationalizations presented.

1) There is no way of dancing around the messed up inscription on the blade. It is what it is.

2) And there are the pie shaped gaps on the opposite sides of the grips. Straight across can happen, but at a diagonal?

3) There also is no reasonable way of getting around the fact that the crossguard either fits the grip - or the mouthpiece. But not both at the same time.

4) And please look at the scabbard! The overall condition and especially the relatively soft metal fittings. Does it look like it spent 30 or 40, or 50 years in a tool box? Or got run over by a Pz Kpfw II?

From my own personal perspective it�s a parts piece. And as such I think the only thing that might be worth something is the scabbard. IMO the rest at best would be a filler. And a questionable one at that.

I�m sorry that I have to be so blunt. But I�m just not buying the idea that it�s a period Eickhorn factory original.

And you�re right, we may have to agree to disagree and move on until some more information is made available. Or unless some of the issues/facts are still in dispute.

BTW: I found another example of a H�hnlein signature which I will post later. FP

The middle and upper fittings.

Please note the difference in coloration of the middle locket. Ordinarily you would think that they all would be reasonably close in color if made from the same material.

FP,

1. I appreciate the manner in which you�ve approached this.

2. This isn�t the dagger that was in the tool box.

3. The middle locket is a different material. I thought you were aware of that. It is on all known orignals.

4. Though black and white, the period photo tends to support this difference.

5. The pie shaped gaps are diagonally because the lower guard is reversed.

6. Straighten and reverse the grip and the gaps will line up. I�m positive of this.

7. Before you question the blade inscription, may I suggest a very close look at the daggers given to Himmler and Lutze and the inscriptions found on them. If you haven�t had the opportunity to personally examine them, they�re featured in some of the references. It is my �opinion� that Damascus etching was more difficult and perhaps not as predictable.



I look forward to the other images.

Jason, I also appreciate your even handed approach to the discussion. Sometimes lacking on the forums, I think being civil while still having an honest difference of opinion is the best way to approach sometimes controversial topics.

I knew (or was reasonably certain) that this dagger was the not the one you were referring to. I was using perhaps too much hyperbole to try and make my point. That if the scabbard showed no severe signs of stress - it could be reasonably inferred that a dagger residing inside the scabbard would have been as well protected.

The locket has me puzzled. Before it ages/tarnishes one piece of silver looks pretty much like another. It is only as it is exposed to contaminants over time that you might get an idea of what it could be made from. Besides its composition, what puzzles me is why two sources of alloy were used to make the mounts. I can�t see a reason from a manufacturing standpoint why if one alloy is used for the rest - why not the center? Which suggests a contracted out part. But I can�t see anything unique in its construction that would warrant using somebody else(?).

As for the pie shape, if you reverse the crossguards it might make it better. Or it could make it worse. I can visualize twisting a grip to get two wide gaps on one side. But on opposite sides? That was actually what was behind my �flipping� the images. Whereas when I did your dagger it looked like it was supposed. to.

I have what I think is a fair measure of experience with etched blades in general from the 19th century through the Third Reich and beyond. As for Damascus blades, if you also count Imperial era blades into the mix, it has been quite a few ranging in condition from near factory new to barely identifiable as Damascus.

As you state etching Damascus can be tricky for a number of reasons. And unpredictable for example if the concentration of acid is off. Or the temperature, or any of the other things that can affect an etch. That is why any sensible factory manager is not going to give the job of etching to an amateur. To ruin a blade in which a lot of highly skilled effort and money has already been expended.

Having seen quite a few blades in conditions from relatively crisp through advanced stages of decomposition. It is my considered opinion that something very unusual took place which gave the dagger that physical appearance. But what also is almost as unusual (IMO) is the idea of it leaving a factory like Eickhorn in that condition??

I�m sorry, I just don�t see it. And would be looking to somebody trying to imitate the signature in a postwar setting. And the etching process got out of control.

As for any image or images it is not in the area of blades versus documentation. And will be tomorrow. Regards, FP

I had a friend (now deceased) who was a very serious collector of autographs. His main complaint was that especially with those who were famous, or led very busy lives, that they often used: secretaries, personal assistants, staff members, spouses or whomever was available to keep up with the demand for signatures. And that as far as he was concerned they were of little value because they did not come personally from the individual, and might (or might not) be good imitations of the way that the individual signed their name.

Back on August 14th Mikee referred to Hamilton's book with the observation that in his opinion the award plaque version was a better rendition of H�hnlein�s signature than the daggers. It would seem that in addition to the award plaque, that information has been corroborated in period documentation.

I just came across a very limited edition 1938 book �10. DREITAGE MITTELGEBIRGSFAHRT 1938� that was not intended for the general public. Dedicated to a Luftwaffe Major General who was in charge of motor transport for the Luftwaffe. The H�hnlein signature in the book more closely matches the award plaque with the down turned end of the signature. With two very high ranking officials who had to knew each other personally. Being in essentially the same business with the NSKK training military personnel. I would submit the argument that the book went from H�hnlein�s hand to that of the General. And that he signed it personally instead of some assistant. Which (IMO) has not inconsequential implications as to what the signature should look like.

I can�t repost the images here because they are quite prominently copywrited by the owner. But can post a link to the web site. And would recommend to anyone who is truly interested in the NSKK that purchasing the book might be considered a worthwhile addition to their collection. FP

NSKK Book (1938)

I think its time here to set a few things straight.
There is obviously a difference of opinion here that is not going to go away. Various and sundry arguments one way or the other are not going to change anyone's mind and there seems to be a trend here for some to have an agenda to destroy some of the major treasures of the hobby with what they and others would think are logical arguments. However, those in the hobby for a time might well counter that, in reality, the Germans were not near as regimented as we would be led to believe and many times not all that logical and or methodical, especially in the production of edged weapons. MANY mistakes in the production of edged weapons were made, and they did not bother to correct them. MANY examples have been given here before in other threads.
So--Who to believe?? I would just like to add my final post on this thread, that I hope, based on my 50+ years of experience, and 50+ years of love of the hobby will help the unsure to decide.
First I would like to say that I know personally most of what I consider the leading major collectors and dealers in the US and many of those abroad and in Canada. There is no doubt that they consider the NSKK High Leader, with the signature, to be one of the historic treasures of the hobby, and 100% original.
Having said that, let's talk about the true WWII German dagger/edged weapon experts in the US. There really are not that many, at least those who can,--as soon as you mention a particular piece, off the top of their head, in most cases, name all the characteristics of the original, according to maker, and the time period it was made-early to late--and based on MANY in-hand, extensive examinations of those pieces.
So, who are these true experts?--and how did they get that way? Well, you know some of them quite well. They are high profile authors, collectors and dealers who, over a period of many years, have studied these pieces right down to the last screw.
But, here is the thing-- just wanting to do that is not enough. You must have access to these pieces-and the ability to "take them down" to inspect them. This is the key. When it comes to the major rarities it is only the VERY few who have the contacts to do this. You can't, with any hope of success, just walk up to say-- Tom Wittmann and say -hey I wanna take your SA high leader apart and look at it for about an hour.----You know what he's gonna tell you---UNLESS-You are among a VERY few.
OK--So I want to tell you that I have known Jason for many years, and he is low key, but he is one of those experts who can, and has, done just that.
Jason has had unlimited access to extensive examination of all the pieces in the Waitts collection, which was one of the largest and finest collections ever assembled--and that's not all-I would not hesitate to say that he has no doubt examined in hand the vast majority of all the SA/NSKK honor daggers known to exist in collections today at one time or another.
So, It's up to you. Do you believe Jason and the vast majority of the major, experienced, and advanced collectors and dealers in the world? or someone else?
I hope you will choose correctly, as, IMO, I have. Let's not destroy the NSKK High Leader w/ signature. Hopefully, it will always be thought of as one as of the original treasures of the hobby-- by the vast majority.

At some point, it would be good to establish what we know for certain vs what is conjecture. AND, it should be laid out in bullet points, not long paragraphs.

Dave

I have a great deal of respect for Houston Coates. And especially his institutional knowledge which goes back long before I ever entered the dagger collecting scene. But I most respectfully think he is wrong. It is not a �black� vs. �white� or �old guard� vs. �new guard� situation.

It was Craig Gottleib who started the "Grip Color Theory" thread. Which was very long and hotly contested by especially some of the "old guard". In the end Craig was proven right. And there were some losers. The losers were the guys who paid exorbitant prices for "special order" orange (or whatever) color cast phenolic resin grips. The winners were all the guys who were next in line because they knew that the color change was just a natural phenomena. And those that followed them.

When the discussion regarding the supposed "private purchase"/personalized Luftwaffe daggers with the government acceptance markings surfaced. That also was hotly debated. Guys were paying sometimes significant additional dollars for daggers with coats of arms, initials, and names on them. The losers were all the guys who had already paid the extra dollars for the daggers - that in actuality were worth quite a bit less because they had been postwar altered.

And there are many, many, discussions where the "old guard" provides invaluable information to help both new and old collectors to make the right choices.

The two discussions mentioned above did not destroy the hobby. It�s true some guys got hurt. But the next guy in line did not because he knew better. And following generations of collectors will also benefit because they won't be paying extra money for �special orders� that don�t exist. Or for faked personalized daggers to put in their collections.

It�s not about choosing sides. It�s about establishing a baseline for those who are actively collecting now. And for those who will follow us.

Dave suggested establishing a baseline for what is known for certain. And what is conjecture concerning the NSKK daggers. I think that is an excellent suggestion and a good place to start. FP

We need to cut through this blizzard of .... words and state what is provable and what is opinion.

A graet help woud be posting the "in wear" picture even it means getting the owner's OK.

Dave

Sorry .............

I have another copyrighted example, but here is H�hnlein himself with a dual purpose belt clip. The image is an enlargement of the one Craig posted with the award plaque. FP

FP--You are a sharp fellow-but IMO you like to twist things around and change the subject when things don't quite go your way.
What I said was clear-
What Jason said was clear. Jason stated what is known about these daggers.
You choose not to believe. You are saying the majority of the advanced collectors and dealers in this world including Jason are wrong-Not just me( and I don't include myself in that group), but I agree with them----- and only you are right-- And you continue to crusade trying to make many of the treasures of the hobby worthless-for your own satisfaction it would seem. Can you ever be wrong? Are all these other people just too slow to see the truth as you see it? I think not!

I will try and keep this short:

Houston, My goal is not to tear down things. When I wrote the �SS Chain Link Manufacturer� thread (the Type �X�) I was not: �trying to make many of the treasures of the hobby worthless�. It was a research project which I shared because I have a genuine interest in the hobby. If I have a regret, it was that I didn�t start it earlier so that it might have been available in time for Tom Wittmann�s book (if he had wanted to include the information).

Had this thread not developed as it has. Originally I wanted to look into the chains and connectors because there seems to be some controversy about the daggers. And I was curious how it might all fit together.

I have no ax to grind with Jason - who has been a gentleman which I very much appreciate. It was Craig�s dagger that I first had a problem with as soon as I got a good look at it. And it was as I looked into the topic as a whole that I began to ask questions. There is no �crusade� - I�m trying to get the truth of the matter. But if I�m forced to make a choice between accepted traditional belief and what I can see with my eyes. No disrespect intended to anyone, unless there is some kind of verifiable proof to the contrary, I�m probably going to go with what I can see.

If in the course of events I�m proven to be wrong you will see me come forward and admit it as I have in the past. If not, then lets hope that this can considered a disagreement between gentlemen and let it go at that. FP

PS: With all of the reader interest surrounding the topic - does anyone have some pictures that they can post?

Fred--Problems with one dagger is one thing-problems with them all is another. It is not credible to me to condemn all because of preceived problems with one--especially when that group has long been accepted by the majority of the experienced community.
It's like saying all chained SS daggers are fake because you don't like some--and that they all should be alike-and we certainly know that they are not.
It is my perception of what you have said that you maintain that at least the vast majority of all the NSKK high leaders with signature are fake. This is, IMO, and IMO in the majority of the experienced collectors opinions , absurd. And it's just not OK to do it--there is a major impact on the hobby.
If you are just talking about one dagger then --it does not seem that way--perhaps you should clarify.
When an entire group of daggers is condemned, even by a minority, in a very public way, there is a long time negative effect on those daggers.
In this case, I don't think it is justified or a good thing for the hobby and I believe that is the majority opinion. I don't own one and I never have but I just can't stand by and let that kind of thing happen without strong opposition. It's not personal.
In my opinion it's one reason why Jason stopped posting quite a while ago. He is a true expert and many refuse to listen. So--why bother? This may have happened again--and we just got him to come back-- A very bad thing.
Also-the economic impact on the hobby and the collectors who own these daggers should, IMO, be considered when making such blanket statements. These statements never seem to go away. Consider if you can-that you are wrong. Look what you have done to the collectors who own these daggers. What if in the end--they just become questionable because of all this but are 100% real. Was this a good thing? Will it ever have anything but a negative effect? Will some or many always shy away from these pieces. I think you know the answers. Not a good or positive thing at all IMO.

I will again try to be brief:

Houston, I was not the one who started the thread. If Craig had chosen to present �the best of the best� we might not even be having this discussion. I specifically asked for more images so that I could try and get a sense of what a better example of a H�hnlein dagger should look like. When that did not happen, I had to use what was available, which eventually led me into other areas and I ended up looking at other kinds of artifacts and documentation.

As far as economic impact is concerned - that coin has two sides. I have related more than once on these forums a true story of what happened to me during my first year of marriage. In a not inexpensive three sword, one dagger deal from a major collection. Two of the swords were bad which could have ended my collecting career. I am not saying that this is the same situation here! Only pointing out that it is not just a one sided matter.

Right now I don�t know exactly what to think, which is why I�m still looking for information. That is also why I repeated Dave�s request for some photos of the daggers in wear. But at this instant in time there is not much more to take it further - at least as far as period information is concerned. FP

Houston,

I will speak up because I need to know the answer to this:
Are you saying that because the majority of collectors, dealers, and other knowledgeable individuals accept without question the "pedigree" of the NSKK Huhnlein High Leader Honour Daggers; then because of this no other person should challenge that perception of authenticity?

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you.

There is sufficient failing within these so-called "Huhnlein Honour pieces" that I think that the provenance of them can be challenged - and I will reveal it all when I publish my own account in full.

I think that it is worth pointing out that the reason this current thread exists, is because Craig Gottlieb - still smarting from his defeat over the Wolf Sword - thought he could drag me out for a re-match with these Huhnlein pieces.

Take a look at the start of this thread, Craig submits half-a-dozen or so images, and then challenges me (by name) to speak up against the item. Well, I chose not to do it. Not because I am reticent about facing such a challenge; but because I choose not to waste my time on such a loser who actually has no real evidence to present for his case.

I have been enthralled by other people on this thread, who have independently produced their own incisive questions about the imagery of the Huhnlein dedication. They too, it appears, seem to have formed a realistic basis for their questions. Their observations should not be dismissed out-of-hand, because the arguments they make are very well formed.

Every collector who gets involved in this subject needs to understand and learn all about what it is he is collecting - because this hobby is all about people who wish to know how to appreciate their possessions - rather than those who solely want to know how they can profit through teir "collection" without having to understand the subject matter.

Harsh words, perhaps, but oh so true. I am sure that you could, from experience, acknowledge similar sentiments?

Frederick J. Stephens

My point is this--I know at least two people who have obtained these daggers directly from Vets--and they did not pay much at all for them.
Jason knows people too and so do a lot of others. Most of these people are not going to come forward and say this because they don't care about what they call the "dot.com" people or what you think and they know from the past you won't believe and NO they don't have any signed statements from the vets--and if they did some here would not believe anyway. For many things there is just NO PROOF some will accept and no one's word either. We have tried to tell this because we know it is the truth-we were there-we saw it-- but some of you choose to not believe us. OK- So why? should we bother to tell anything that we know? YOU ( and you know who you are) won't believe--and that's why many don't. If some of you would knock off all the disbelief--MANY CREDIBLE people would choose to tell you something. Just look at how many have left who REALLY KNOW something.
So--I say LISTEN to Jason--if he ever comes back-you could learn something and he is not going to tell you any lies.

Dave, I promise to try and keep this short.

Houston, thank you for your posts.

FP, thank you for all of your contributions. I must admit it has been frustrating, but you have invested a great deal of time and effort in your posts and I respect that.

I�ve not been posting due to time constraints.

If we accept Mr. Stephens position as stated �yes I do believe that there are NSKK Honor Daggers of this form (as well as the later version with the NSKK Eagle forming the lower crossguard)� �So a dagger of some pattern clearly exists.� Mr. Stephens further states �I also have a photo of Hunlein wearing an example which has the wide cartouche�.

My perception is that Mr. Stephens issue is with the Hunlein signature and both the Gahr and �standard� chains and it is further his position that the examples with these features are post war converted SA Honor daggers. Mr. Stephens, please correct me if I'm wrong on these points.

If we accept this theory, then all known NSKK High Leaders are post war. The question then is, where are all the examples matching Mr. Stephens�s criteria? There isn�t any.

Please stop and consider all of the rare and one of kind daggers that have surfaced. Yet, not one single dagger matching Mr. Stephens�s criteria has been found?

Obviously, I and the individuals whom I respect disagree with Mr. Stephens.

Note, I have posted some quotes I attribute to Mr. Stephens received through private email. If he objects, please remove them.

This is a general information question to the expert or experts who have the most experience with the honor daggers. It is about the chains. And first let me make it clear that I am not questioning their conclusions, but am asking how they arrived at them. I don�t have a problem with the idea that Eickhorn subcontracted the conventional 1936 NSKK chains to the Assmann company. Assmann had the tooling and the expertise and would be a logical choice for stamped products like chain links. In fact I would not be surprised if they were subcontractors for a number of items that might not have their name on them.

My question is with the Otto Gahr silver chains. On the first dagger in the thread I can see a �250� (?) mark. Or maybe it�s an �850� (85%) alloy mark? But I can�t see a discernible Gahr marking. And other items attributed to Gahr usually had the 800 (80%) alloy mark. While with still other items like standards, they had the Otto Gahr name deeply struck. Again I am not questioning that Gahr could not have made them. And this question is from a manufacturing standpoint. But I can�t see why Assmann could not have made the silver chains as well? And from the image presented it�s not clear to me what was stamped. What piece of the puzzle am I missing? FP

1

2

3

Thank you Jason, Between the three images I can see the Gahr/Munich and 800 markings more clearly. Especially in the second image it looks cast instead of stamped. Is that your sense of it also? And may be why it was not sent out to Assmann? Regards, FP

FP,

My original thought was stamped because of the apparent double strike to the 800 clearly visible in image 1. However, after studying them, I�m not sure. All points are nearly identical from a position and spacing perspective and the 800 appears double struck to some degree in all of them.

Assmann made the "standard" chains found on the other examples.

Jason, I think that we may be referring to two different things. The �Type I� SS chain link had the Kulturzeichen stamped on the back as a part of the manufacturing process. They were all in the same place. The �Type II� chain link Kulturzeichen is all over the landscape, and was obviously post manufacture. I will look at them again. But my initial sense of the stampings on the NSKK chain links is that they are post manufacture as well.

What I was referring to was the process by which the connector was made. It�s hard to tell for sure from images. But my sense here is that the part was cast. Which seems to be more typical of what Gahr might do versus Assmann which I think relied more on metal stamping.

What made the �Type X� SS thread fairly interesting (at least IMO) was that it showed a logical progression of how the chains were made in sequence. There seems to be some kind of a progression here with the connectors. But I�m wondering if a vendor/process switch may also be a factor? Regards, FP

I have followed the thread with great interest. Saying that I know little about dadders, but have always thought how beautiful these pieces are and would love to own one. Having said this, my spear is the struck art, medals and the like. Fine silver is also a collectable for me. What I do find concerning is the silver marks and maker marks shown. I would offer these are cast in the piece. This is something I would find HIGHLY SUSPECT in a piece of silver. Three examples, leaves me with very bad vibrations.

I also have followed the thread with great interest. All three examples look cast to me also. The first looking the best, however in the 2nd and especially the 3rd example you can clearly see cast marks. If this is true and that is what it looks like to me.....well I don't know what to say except...
"Oh Lucy! You got a lot of splanin to do."

But then I'm sure there must be a reasonable explaination.

-wagner-

It is not just the poor quality of the Gahr marking - which I consider seems to be cast as part of the whole device - the quality of the item itself appears to be nowhere near the quality of the Gahr products that I have previously encountered.

However, there appears to be a more notable failing evident on this portion - and that is the supposed "hallmark". The silver mark should be a Crescent Moon, and a Crown - and they are of a very precise design. The "hallmark" shown on Jason's photos (above - the top image is the clearest) appear to be completely spurious and absolutely nothing like the official hallmark.

I have checked this with contacts in the jewellery trade, both here in the UK and in Germany, and all confirm their opinion that the hallmarking is false.

So I am very sorry, but fake hallmarking suggests to me that the piece has been tampered with in some way. So my view that these Huhnlein pieces are questionable is perhaps not so outrageous, after all.

Is this the silver "hallmark" you were refering to Fred?





Images taken from German War Booty by Thomas Johnson, page 151.

-wagner-

I think that we have to give them the benefit of a doubt while more information is collected. While I have some experience in metal stamping, and larger scale casting operations, these are smaller parts which brings into play other factors. I have a brother who does commercial precision investment casting and will get some input from him. Although as I said initially my sense of the parts themselves is that they were cast. The double strike of the �800� on #2 and the misalignment and possible overstrike on #1 suggest hand stamping. The other markings I�m not as sure of, and while require some more thought, and possibly some outside input. As for the Gahr markings they are not the same as on the Birthday swords. But that is not conclusive in itself unless it can be confirmed that Gahr never ever used the same mark. And even then it could be a gray area, unless it's discovered that the mark was used somewhere else.

We also don�t want to forget the first example which is more or less in an uncleaned condition (although it could have been cleaned in the past). Some of the irregularities we see could be the effect of aging/corrosion which can have unpredictable results. And might require further study. And it could also be that the wide connector links were �product improvements� because the other style was found wanting for some reason. Or a replacement component. What I think might be critical here is how well the links front and back match up to the connectors in terms of wear, manufacture, and age.

When I first started to look into the �Type X� SS chains there was the possibility that some might have thought them to be fakes because almost no one had seen them before. That was not the case - but it was only after a more through investigation that any doubts or fears could be put to rest. FP

Wagner,

Thanks for locating those images - I was rooting through my own material, trying to find something similar - but you have done it better for me, especially as it comes from a respected, published source.

I will try and combine two of the images, to save viewers the problem of scrolling back and forth over the two pages.

Thanks again for your help.

FJS

Thank you Fred for clearly placing the two stamps together. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT, "CHALK AND CHESSE". This is what a silver researcher loves to see. A definite copy.No a fake mark.

I have a request of Mr. Stephens. If all the examples I've and others have shown are copies/reproductions/altered, then please show us one original.

A quick search produced the web site listed below and I ask those reading this thread to have a look. It shows a wide variety of silver marks used by different German manufacturers� post 1886. Though, not Third Reich specific, it demonstrates a magnitude of possibilities and should be considered before ruling the mark found on the NSKK High Leader Chain to be fake. I'm sure with additional research; these marks will be found period and used by Gahr.

http://www.925-1000.com/Fgerman_marks_a1884.html

While Mr. Stephens is taking his rest in England at this hour, why don't we do this in the mean time....
Since you have seen or handled most of the known surviving examples of this rare dagger, would it be possible for you to show us an example where the "uniquie connector" has a clear "Gahr" co. stamp and proof "rating" which is not part of what at this point appears to be a part of a complete cast molded piece as these 3 previous examples apear to be?
And if they were all cast, why do you think the honor daggers "finishers" would not file away the casting marks? Perhaps war time conditions?
Or just perhaps you can state from your expereance that this is the way all the known "Gahr" NSKK connectors from Veteran sources appear as?
Also where is the official "Gahr" silver mark on the list you so kindly provided?
I'm sure we will get down to the bottom of this since there is usually a simple explaination for these matters. Not always.
Very intersting thread. Thank you for your participation.

-wagner-

Jason, Thanks for the link to the hallmark web site. Hallmarks are not something that I have any particular knowledge of, although I do find them interesting.

When I look at the sum total of the period examples of the Birthday swords in Tom Wittmann�s �SS� book. On the sword fittings besides the "800" silver content mark, one other factor became apparent. They all have the �King� type of crown which would have been appropriate for the Imperial era. And to the left it looks like a crescent moon - probably shown to its best advantage with the hallmark of "Ludwig Neresheimer" on the list.

I have no idea why both the crown and the moon (as parts of hallmarks) are seen so often on the list. Other than it must have been traditional for some reason. The crown I can easily see as a carry over device from the Imperial era. And the moon as a symbol had a significance which was very popular much earlier in Germany as seen on the �Talisman� types of sword blades. I'm not questioning that is what happened - but the two together?

I did not find the Gahr mark on the list either which seems to be a work in progress. But don�t attach any particular significance to that because of the many known Gahr artifacts which are in existence. And I would agree that more research should be done. Because unless someone already has experience with this alternate marking, a more exhaustive search is needed to try and make a better determination of its source. Regards, FP

In German hallmarking, the Crescent, or Sickled, Moon emblem indicated that the product was silver. I believe that the emblem of a "Sun" was used if the base metal was gold.

To answer your question, Jason, you know from our private e-mails that I acknowledge that an "NSKK Honour Dagger with chains" must exist, because of the photographic evidence of them in wear (two examples, for certain). Yet I am far from convinced that these "Huhnlein" pieces are authentic. The phoney hallmark discredits them immediately.

The grossly poor central mount is also another feature of doubt, and they all seem to have this amateur feature. The upper and lower mounts are well made, so why not the centre mount? The SA Honour Dagger, upgraded to a chained version, has a very nice scalloped central mount to accommodate it's new chains, so why not this NSKK version?

It is my theory that all these "Huhnlein Honour Daggers" started out life as "regular" SA Honour Daggers. The scam has been to convert them by adding the chains and central mount together with the Huhnlein "signature" on the blade. Potentially this would double the value of the dagger.

All the examples I have seen, whether being the wide cartouch with Gahr marking or the "regular" spring clip, seem to have fake chains with no NSKK markings (the chain was a protected design for the organisation - hence the "musterschutz" stamping that normally appears on the reverse of the chains).

I am sure that there must be an authentic NSKK Honour Dagger with chains out there, somewhere, but it is most certainly not one of these specimens with the fake hallmarkings and/or the inappropriately crude central mount. As for the Huhnlein signature - what is its purpose? It denotes nothing by itself.

You may not like my theory, Jason, but I think that you will have to concede that with the instance of the fake hallmark, then I certainly have a valid point - and my other observations are not far off the mark, either.

FJS

Wagner,

I never implied the Gahr mark would be found on the list. The link was posted to show a small portion of the various marks encountered.