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

Very interesting discussion.

Re: the Gahr mark-

Does anyone out there in GDC-land have an original piece of non-SS Gahr silver jewelry?

If so, I would think that it would be hallmarked/stamped and could be compared to the image(s) above.

Just for the record, I find it very unusual that Gahr would have replaced the traditionally used Crown of Charlemagne with a generic, 3 pointed ducal crown in their hallmark.

Just Google Images "Gahr Silver" to see several.T Johnson's book GERMAN WAR BOOTY also show several.

As to the silver marks as used in Germany a very good description was given in the site shown by Jason. This clearly states the how and werefores. The crown shown on the silver mark clearly is not correct. The half moon and crown was used throughout the Third Reich perriod, this is illistrated by the Wagner mark on the Silver Luftwaffe honour goblet. As to post 1945, this still is the mark employed. Thus Jaon, I think your input has clearly shown that the silver mark is not correct. To this the fact that it is cast is NOT CORRECT. This marking shows the quality and place of origin. No firm would be able to use a cast method to prove quality. Taking all these points into consideration, one has to question the whole. I show the explanation from the site to clarify the possition. In 1884 a law was enacted making .800 the minimum national standard for silver in Germany. In 1886 the use of individual city marks was abolished and replaced by the national mark (reichsmark) of a crescent moon & crown mark (Halbmond und Krone) representing the entire German state. These marks became compulsory by 1888.
The crown & crescent moon are used in conjunction with a maker's mark and a decimal silver standard mark.
Common silver standards are .800 & .835 __ .830, .900, .925 and .935 purities are also used.

It is just as Christopher says.
Seiler (Yank in UK)

Christopher, Thanks for the ‘mini’ lesson on German silver marks. I’m going to abstract it and add it to my list of things to be remembered. Roger also made what I think was an interesting observation.

The crown used with the crescent moon is a German “King’s” crown versus that of an Emperor. I had assumed based upon Craig’s statements about these daggers, and things that he says that he has had in his possession at one time or another, that he had some expertise with hallmarks. Now I am not so sure that is the case.

When I first saw the marks on the original dagger in the thread they did not look like the markings on the swords. But I thought that maybe they had worn or were polished off? When I got a clear look at it I thought that perhaps it was a modernized version?

If the crown was to be more strictly interpreted it would be that for a Viscount from Belgium. With Viscounts from Spain, Italy, and France as runner ups - because they have a single small lobe between each of the three main upward projections (total 5). There is no crown in Germanic heraldry which matches the one on the dagger connectors. FP

Mr. Ailsby, you are a collector of note of some very fine 3rd Reich items. You have seen more silver proof marks than the majority of us will ever see. My question to you sir is: Have you ever seen a piece of .800 or above silver piece that was cast in anywhere near the confirguration of the above connecting "Garh" links?

-wagner-

As an aside and to show the importance of the Half moon and Crown on the marking scal, this silver belonging to Hermann, was in 1943 passed to the German Navy. The Navy then marked the piece. This was hand enraved. Not wonce, but on some 25 pieces that I have. The expertise to hand engrave on these small pieces, leeds one to think? I return to casting of marks. No not possible.

I don’t disagree that hand (or machine) engraving could produce a greater level of detail. But I’m afraid that I’m not quite following some of the fine points of the discussion correctly. Rather than asking questions without a reference point. I’m posting an image borrowed from a GDC discussion of SS chain links. (I know that steel is not the same as silver being a much softer metal. But the underlying principles of commercial metal stamping operations are the same.)

The SS 'Kulturzeichen' on the “Type II” link to the left is obviously hand stamped - with one end of the marking making a deeper penetration into the metal than the other end. And we know from experience that the markings are not at the same place, and are often at angles, varying from specimen to specimen.

The “Type I” to the right shows the 'Kulturzeichen' (insofar as depth is concerned) evenly stamped at all four corners. I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the Kulturzeichen itself was relief cut (positive image) onto the polished face of the die bottom. So that the marking was automatically embossed into the bottom of the link as a part of a mechanical stamping process. And is more or less in the same place from one link to another.

Is it being argued that the outward appearance of the Gahr marking(s) as seen is the result of: A broken down (damaged) metal stamp or stamps? Either an intact or defective casting mold? The result of natural wear and tear from use, or corrosion? Or is it something else that I’ve missed entirely? I’m not trying to be adversarial. I’m just not getting the main thrust of some of the statements that were made. FP

FP, You have what I think maybe a good discussion regarding the "regular" SS "Kulturzeichen" on the Type 1, 2 & X chain links. However I believe what we are discussing is the conditions of manufacture and placement of silver "Hallmarks" on .800 and above silver pieces.

Here is an example of a .800 "Siver" SS Chained Honor dagger. Image taken from:
German Daggers of WW2 by Thomas Johnson. pg. 419. Note stamped .800 silver hallmark on link.

-wagner-

In spite of all this stuff----What all of you naysayers choose to ignore is that there are many veteran collectors who know personally those who have obtained these daggers out of the woodwork and saw the daggers at that time.
This is a fact -but many of you won't believe. Sworn statements COULD be obtained from those who actually bought them. But I wonder--Is there anyone in the world you would believe?
I do have to add that the statement made that to convert a M33 SA Honor Dagger to a chained NSKK Honor dagger with signature would increase the value very significantly ( DOUBLE? ) is just not so and not worth the effort. You can easily check this out--so where's the motive?
To me the 33 SA would be VERY much more wanted and in demand. NSKK? Who cares? What did they ever do? The SA boys were the nasty ones--and that's who we like--Oh Yeah.

Oh--and if you naysayers can name one well known collector/dealer that is not a naysayer here that you would believe I'll do my doubledamnest to get him to post here and tell you about it.

Houston,

For all the arguments that you make concerning these NSKK Huhnlein pieces that have "come out of the woodwork" - and I do respect your opinions and observations about these (you are a landmark in this collecting fraternity) - if the cartouch of the chains is seen to have a fake form of hallmarking (and it is just not on one example but several specimens - in fact I think that Jason quotes about 8 such examples with the wide style Gahr cartouche), and compared to the 4 others with the "regular" NSKK clip that he has examined, then what is the obvious conclusion about such an obvious fake marking?

As being someone who falls into your category of being a "naysayer" I am offended by your dismissive tones. Perhaps you can offer me some real evidence that qualifies your claims about these daggers?

Sincerely

Frederick J. Stephens

I don’t think that a technical discussion of something that we can physically see. Or prove using period references can be considered naysaying. A personal testimonial is one more factor that can be considered with the well known individual providing his input as a welcomed participant.


Wagner, Thanks for posting the image of the SS Honor Dagger chain link.

I know that what is under discussion is the silver NSKK Honor dagger connector piece. However, the example you posted I think is directly tied to the images that I posted, and has an indirect connection to the NSKK component under discussion. The example in Tom Johnson’s book is basically the same as the steel Type II link - with the exception that it has the silver markings added. All done by hand at various angles and locations. And the overall appearance of the silver chain link approximates that of the steel link after the difference in physical hardness is taken into account. Both having a smooth finish.

For all of the NSKK connectors seen so far. With the possible exception of the “800” numbers, the other markings are all in more or less the same location. A logical assumption or assumptions might be:

1) A stamping fixture was used that placed the markings at the exact same location.

2) The markings were an integral part of a mold.

I have some thoughts as regards some of the physical characteristics of the connectors and markings themselves. But don’t want to prejudge them, and I’m still waiting for my brother’s input in case I’ve missed something.

And I find that I made a mistake and am going to have to correct myself. I did not take civic heraldry into account. While it is not a particularly long list, there are European cities which employ a crown with three upward projections as part of the civic coat of arms. Most of them are outside of Germany, but for the relatively few German cities, Munich itself is not on the list. FP

Fred,

As the Admin, I love these discussions and I wish I could figure a pay-per-view scheme for this one

Just to add another dimension to this could you please offer some real evidence that qualifies your claims?

Thanks,
Dave

PS - Houston you say "The SA boys were the nasty ones--and that's who we like." Actually the SS wion that discussion

I Guess I also fall into Houston's category as a "naysayer". And I also don't care for the dismissive tone.
I don't have his knowledge I just go by where I believe the evidence is pointing.
That evidence and with statements by the esteemed Mr. Ailsby, whom many of us consider an "expert" on the topic of silver manufacture and "Hallmarking" in the 3rd Reich, seems to confirm to me the "weight" of evidence supports Mr. Stephens thesis on this matter.
Are those fake "Hallmarkings"? Mr. Ailsby say's they are.
Are there any other examples of either the "Gahr" or other silver makers where the "Hallmarks" are cast into the mold? If there is...I believe we would all love to see it.
And if there are any of the "Wise Men" whom are behind the curtain that have "proof" to the contrary. I welcome them and their evidence.
But for right now...I'll stick to the old formula.

" Buy the piece and not the story"

-wagner-

Wags,

It seems you mostly don't like anything on gdc axcept the stuff you are selling. What sort of expurt are you ?

The POINT just keeps on being ignored. IF you KNEW that these daggers with signature AND with the same silver marks that are shown here came out of the woodwork many years ago and were bought for next to NOTHING--would you then dismiss all these arguments? I do, Jason does, MANY others do also--and so would you if you would only listen------to those who WERE THERE and KNOW. But--I know many of you won't--because you don't want to believe anyone--and you want these daggers to be fakes. But they are not.
So--why are you collecting? The SAME people who wrote almost ALL the books that taught you MOST of everything you know will verify what I say and what Jason says. So--if you don't believe them-why believe ANYTHING that they have written? So then--you know nothing-you don't even know what you have. What good is it?
What treasure of the hobby will you try to destroy next? Or will you continue with this series and suggest that all these daggers are 100% fake, not even parts. Then--will the SA High Leader be next? How about those Himmlers with the smooth tail? Oh --and the Railway daggers, WPP, or anything rare-then the Armies and Lufts that have "non conforming parts"-they must be bad too.

Houston, Our messages must have crossed paths seconds apart. Speaking only for myself, it’s not about dismissing what the pioneers in the hobby discovered and wrote about. They have provided a pathway to more completely enjoy the hobby. But lets be honest about it. Sometimes mistakes were made which were visited upon generations of collectors. The most recent significant correction to the body of knowledge that comes to mind was Joe Wotka’s revelation about German Police swords and the SS Kulturzeichen. My point being that sometimes you have to take a fresh look at things, and reevaluate all of the evidence at hand. I hope that the well known individual that you mentioned can provide some more insight.

I probably should have posted this computer inverted image of the connector (that Craig used to start the thread) on the 20th when I asked about the Gahr and “250” alloy markings on the 20th. I know that this is not a “true” image. But the surface seemed to have a strange texture, and some other characteristics that seemed out of place. I also think that the alloy marking does look a lot a “250” in the enhancement instead of an “800”. I’m not saying that it is. But that is what jumped out at me prompting me to ask. FP

I'm going to make an attempt to provide some balance to this thread as a mere collector. Is there any definitive proof that these are good pre 1945 daggers? and I think the honest answer is no. However is there any current proof that these are post 1945 creations? and I think the honest answer is also no.
So much information was lost due to the direct and indirect destruction of records that what was actually produced during the 3rd Reich period will probably never be completely known.
We as history buffs and collectors from this period can only continue to delve into whatever infromation is available and make our own personal judgements depending on the information available at any given time.
To me this is one of the intriging aspects of 3rd Reich collecting.
Jim

I always keep an open mind when it comes to our evolving and growing hobby. I have many questions, but never enough answers, just the nature of the beast… Besides none of this "other stuff" comes close to or compares to the quality of hirschfangers anyway!

I would like to ask some questions and make the following observations.
It's been my experience to never judge a piece based solely on the lack of a crescent moon and crown. It's also been my experience that some makers stamped their wares with a crescent moon and crown while others simply didn't. I've always believed that jewelry and other small items weren't required to be marked with crescent moon and crown. Again, some did and some didn't.

The first thing I eye ball is the silver content mark. Which in this case is .800 parts silver? Because that's what it should be. Is it? The Gahr maker marks and the other marks posted require more research and comparisons in order to come to positive conclusion. Have we done that? Has the Gahr firm used this very distinctive type crown and crescent moon mark on other items or just these central mounts or do we see the use of other marks during this same period? Another company involved? I’ve heard no?

This crown on the Gahr piece in my opinion is a very distinctive mark and resembles a trade mark in design that would be registered. Maybe to small in this case, I don’t know. The mark with one or two crescent moons inside a circle, if that's what it is? Not a clear enough image for me anyway to actually determine what type of mark it may or may not be. Although the marks are unusual and not what I'm used to seeing, I find these marks very interesting.

I have seen very similar Bavarian crown type maker marks on other types of wares resembling the crown mark on the Gahr piece. Not all Bavarian makers used this style of Bavarian crown mark on their stuff, but a few did and again are some what very similar to the one shown on the Gahr piece. What we need is more information on the Gahr firm presented here on this forum.

The 1886 law was mentioned. Could this explain why we see the different style of marks on this Gahr piece(s)? A German Imperial style crown mark versus a Kingdom of Bavarian style of crown mark? Was this 1886 law only for Prussian companies? Or did it include the Kingdom of Bavaria? The Kingdom of Bavaria became part of the German Empire in what, 1870/1? But did the Kingdom of Bavaria follow German imperial law?

Anyway, during the 3rd Reich period from what I gathered from other posts the Gahr Company it seems followed the law marking other items more to what we are used to viewing. But chose to mark at least these central mounts with a Bavarian style crown? I’m not sure if anyone at this time knows the consistency or types of marks used by this company during this period? To think a faker could be so far off base with these national marks with so many to choose from to get it right. Maybe it is right!

Could it simply be the Gahr firm chose this style of Bavarian crown due to being located in Munich “The Paris of Germany”, which is the Bavarian Capital?

It's hard to believe that up till now nobody after all these years has at least attempted to find out more about these marks. Somebody must have?

It’s all debatable, but we need to research this one further. Thanks for the interesting topic.

Hi there, here are a few points on German silver marks.First of all the Half moon and Crown mark are nothing to do with Otto Gahr.
They are German Reichs marks.Half Moon and Crown for silver and Sun and Crown for gold.
The item is made first,them the metal is tested for its silver content,and the hallmark is then struck.
On small objects the Reich mark is not used ,just the number.
Heres is a link to German Hallmarks.
http://www.925-1000.com/Fgerman_marks_a1884.html

Hers a gold item by Gahr,From Snyder's Treasures.? I 'am still trying to find a silver one. I hope this helps with some of your questions,nats

I found this silver on on Tom wittmans sitenats

With this renewed discussion of the markings, this observation is more of a commentary at the stage of the discussion before established German silver markings were brought into the picture.

At this point a short while back when looking at the connector on Craig's example it looked like an unknown number of metal stamps had been used. If you look at the border area it looks like one very large made to order/single use stamp had been used to create it. And then three or four additional stamps some at angles to create the other markings - with the silver content mark an unknown. Then I envisioned one large stamp with everything included so that it would only have to be struck one time to impart all of the markings. But the markings had some very apparent high and low spots and angles, so that was ruled out, and I was back to square one with more questions than answers.

Creating metal stamps to be used for any process involves a considerable amount of effort from highly skilled tool and die makers. Some of the Gahr markings just presented are what I would call “minimalist”. It seems (to me at least) that a lot of extra effort went into “branding” the connector as a Gahr product - and I will leave it at that. FP

I think many of the more analytical observations above have significant merit.

My attention is still drawn to the use of the three pointed crown.

I am not an expert on silver or silver hallmarks, but would offer the following:

The crown, as a symbol, is a VERY authority-specific heraldic device. Use of the crown of state, as in traditional hallmarks, designates the "approval" of the state. Therefore a period German silver hallmark, when used in its entirety, would show 1) material=crescent moon=silver, 2) content=800,and 3) who endorses it=
the IMPERIAL monarchy/government.

I don't believe this 3 pointed crown is a Bavarian, or any other monarchy-represented, device. The closest "Bavarian crown" is a 5 -pointed coronet found on the Bavarian coat-of arms.

The 3-pointed ducal crown (or ducal coronet) is traditionally used when NO other "crown" is designated. It's generic. It is primarily used to represent the general concept of nobility without representing any specific level of nobility.

The portion of the silver hallmark showing the moon and crown is NOT a private commercial logo or trademark to be randomly altered on a whim, it's symbolic of an imperial endorsement. Therefore, it should show an imperial crown.

If this "stylization" was done by Gahr, it was an extremely uneducated decision.

But, then, if this is a fantasy mark on the Gahr chain, why wouldn't a forger simply use the Imperial crown and avoid the question?

Maybe, the generic crown is the one detail that keeps this piece in the semi-innocuous realm of fake collectables and out of the realm of criminally counterfeited, government-endorsed silver.(?)

I don't know.
I wasn't there.
Just my thoughts.

Just a little insight from a 31 year old 6 year TR collector.

There has been many comments good insightfull and some less insightfull on this blog and many other areas of the forum. I could see why some knowledgeable long time collectors leave simply because you have a few newbies that trash perfectly good daggers w/ NO real factual basis, experiences or evidence. The heard mentality really can damage a "good" dagger or collectors reputation. If there is a subject matter I know nothing about.... like high leader daggers, I keep my eyes and ears and mind open.....and my mouth shut. Listen to the Sr collectos, expecially the well know active GD members. They have seen the fakes, scams, good bad and they really ugly.

In the past I had owned a nickel silver SS officer's buckle that was a quality reproduction made in the 60's in England. The back was nicely stamped with the "crown, 1/2 moon, 800 and the #3". Quality piece....... total reproduction with convincing stamps.

JR, It’s a small world. I don’t remember what I did with it, but I had a nickel silver SS “Officer’s Prototype” belt buckle myself. It had a bunch of markings all over the back - “SS” markings and some others I don’t remember. I also was told that it came out of England from that era. The quality was really very good, and it was sold as a repro, and cost me almost nothing. FP

quote:

Wags,

It seems you mostly don't like anything on gdc axcept the stuff you are selling.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, at least not on this forum. I can tell you that the NSKK High Leaders are real. I purchased one from a veterans son with half the original leather peeling off. It was black and had never been touched. The blade was coated with petrified grease. It was absolutely untouhced. Funny note: The sender sent it to me in a priority box with no packing or wrapping. It was just banging around in the box. There were chunks of the scabbrd leather in the bottom of the box from the chain beating the hell out of scabbard durings it trip through the mail. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Gailen David

This is a very brief overview of some of the problems confronting those doing small scale precision gravity casting, with an emphasis on silver. It is a general discussion not directed towards any object or individual. Those who are engaged in the casting business as a profession are generally aware of the problems, whereas it is more likely that amateurs are not.

For an amateur there is an increased likelihood of solidification shrinkage causing a deformation in the casting. It can also manifest itself as a crinkling or unevenness in the casting.

And voids. As discussed in the “Reverse Swastika” thread on the sword forum. Gravity casting can be a problem especially for those who lack either knowledge or experience. Silver is heavier than aluminum, but improper mold design can cause and magnify problems.

And most especially for amateurs - silver as a metal has it’s own fairly unique problem. While silver is generally stable in the atmosphere. In a molten state it absorbs a lot of oxygen. Which if not compensated for creates pin holes, voids, and other casting flaws when it cools. Sometimes it can be a few pin holes or flaws, or it could be a lot of them under the right conditions. (Discussed in several GDC sword forum threads a few years back where fake silver hilted “SS” sabers were under discussion.). There are some other issues as well. But those are some of the “biggies”.

The point of this commentary being that not only with stamped parts should there not be any of the above mentioned flaws. With a well experienced company that was in the business of manufacturing silver castings as part of its core business. There is I think a reasonable expectation that the manufactured goods will be reasonably defect free. FP

I agree w/ Fred. I was a casting engineer in my past. Gravity castings had many problems with traped gas, burned in sand, shrinkage due to poor pattern design (undersized risers) Poor part design..etc etc....

If produced in modern time the lost wax (developed in the 1950's?) castings would fit best for this application.

To provide a visual frame of reference for some of the previous comments here is an image taken from one of the Sword Forum threads I mentioned. What the counterfeit/postwar “SS” langet equipped silver hilt posted here shows is where somebody has tried to remove evidence of a worse than average casting effort with an aggressive over polishing. While the majority of the pin holes have been removed the larger voids are still mostly intact. To add insult to injury - the extra added stamped “SS” markings are also fake. FP

Does anybody have this book in their library:
OTTO UND KAROLINA GAHR - DIE SILBERSCHMIEDE DER NSDAP UN DER SS

That could possibly answer some questions regarding the hallmarks.

Cheers,

Most of the items pictured are "front" shots
only.
It states they used in ,32-- O.Gahr Munchen
until 1932.
Therafter---Gahr Munchen
Specific SS items are the runes in a box as on the sword and M 36 dagger chains.
In the section related to "Stempel" there is no
indication they used the standard German silver marks.
I have two Gahr items.
SS Zivilabzeichen No 1 (Yes)is marked 900 Silber
Gahr Munchen.and the No 1.Berlin Docs confirmed.
The other credited by the Berlin Docs Center IS marked with the Half moon and Crown and silver content.
Not much here!!!
Cheers
Seiler..(Yank in UK)

those that originally advocated the legitimacy of these pieces have fallen conspicuously silent...

We haven't fallen anywhere we are just tired. Tired of defending an original piece that needs no defending, that's all

Gailen David

If someone would have told me years ago that some day I would be defending the NSKK High Leaders Dagger, I would have laughed out loud.

Gailen David

I am also tired but still maintain these are 100% authentic and will continue to do so because it is true.

Houston, Like I think any of us, I would imagine that being involved in a discussion of items where long held beliefs are being challenged is not a pleasant one. But like many discussions there are areas where there is sometimes agreement.

An hour or two after this thread was started on the first of August, on the Sword Forum you acknowledged that some NSKK chained Honor Daggers were fakes. Is there some kind of consensus among the Cognoscenti as to the characteristics of the fakes versus what are considered genuine daggers? FP

The fakes would be quite obvious to most and nothing really close to the original. They are in a few books and have various features--no two seem to be exactly alike. Many have TM's other than Eickhorn and damast blades that are other than the maiden hair pattern. Just as with the SA there are also originals that have been repaired over the years. Each needs a separate evaluation just as with any other dagger.
If a group of experienced dagger collector/dealers looked at any of these I doubt if there would be much disagreement after a brief discussion.
In fact, that is the way questionable rare things are really authenticated.
A rare item almost always surfaces at a major show-sooner or later and is shown to several of those who are known to have specialized in the item in question for several or many years. In the end, most of the time, there is a clear majority or sometimes even 100% agreement one way or the other.
Having the item in hand is often necessary to do this. The Forum is great but in some cases photos are just not good enough.

I AM NOT CONSIDERED A DAGGER COLLECTOR SO LIKELY MY OPINION WILL BE HELD WITH LITTLE TO NO ESTEEM. I SAW ONE OF THESE IN A CHICAGO COLLECTION BACK IN THE EARLY 60'S LONG BEFORE ANYONE EVER HEARD OF JAMES ATWOOD AND HIS PARTS AND FAKE DAGGERS. AS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED, A GOOD FREIND OF MINE FROM YEARS BACK HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE PRIVATE COLLECTION OF A FAMOUS AMERICAN GENERAL OFFICER WHO DIED SHORTLY AFTER THE WAR. THE COLLECTION IS NOW IN THE CUSTODY OF HIS SON. AMONG THE ITEMS WAS ONE OF THESE DAGGERS. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT FAKES OF THIS DAGGER EXIST TODAY. I ALSO STAND WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE COLLECTED FOR DECADES AND UNDERSTAND THE VAIDITY OF THIS PIECE. I ALSO CONCUR THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER REASON TO ARGUE FURTHER WITH THOSE WHO HAVE CLOSED THEIR MINDS TO THE SUBJECT
BOB