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

Trigger,

I have had this book in my possession, and nowhere is there any mention of the Gahr company making NSKK Chains or the cartouche hanger. The book doesn't show much in the form of the hallmarks, but does show the "entwined" SS culture emblem.

I have a contact who is a friend of one of the authors of the book - Arthur Meyer, and who seems to have good access to the Gahr company files. I enquired through my contact if there was any evidence for the Gahr company having manufactured chains for the "NSKK High Leader Honour Dagger". The information relayed back to me was that they had not found any evidence to support the claim that these NSKK fittings were manufactured by Gahr.

I have to state that this does not prove that they didn't do this - merely that the author was unable to find any evidence to corroborate this one way or the other. However, I have to submit that if my contact could not find any evidence that the Gahr company had made items such as these - then it is probable that they had never made such items at all. And of course, it goes without saying, that as the �Gahr� marking is crude, and �cast-like� - well then maybe this was not a real Gahr marking at all? All the genuine Gahr markings I have seen have been clear and crisply stamped marks.

All the evidence seems to point to these chains and the �Gahr� marked cartouche being poor, crude imitations - unlike anything that the Gahr company would put its� name to.

Gailen - you have related to us the acquisition of one of these Huhnlein pieces, sent to you through the mail and with no interior packing, causing the chain to damage the leather work. Is this correct?

Is this also the same dagger that had the metal snap from an SA dagger hanger crudely soft soldered to the back of the cartouche - in order to cover up the blatantly obvious fake hall marking?

Just to confirm a point, I am not saying that there is no such thing as an NSKK High Leader Dagger with chains, I am stating the reasons for my disbelief concerning all the examples that I have seen. It is not as if this hinges on a single, questionable feature, but the fact that the items have numerous, questionable features. The central mount being another feature. If they could manufacture the upper and lower mounts with such obvious precision, then why permit the centre mount to become such a crude monstrosity? It doesn�t match the rest of the original fittings, and does not make sense.

Bob - you have just related to seeing one of these NSKK pieces in the early 1960s. Are you quite sure it was one of these with the Huhnlein signature on the blade? And do you recall if it had the "wide cartouche", or the "regular" style clip?

And please do not assume that those of us who challenge the authenticity of these pieces, that we are deliberatly "tarnishing these relics" or that we have "closed minds". Far from it. We have open minds, and wide open eyes, and based upon what we can observe we ask uncomfortable questions. That is how we get to learn things.

FJS

AFTER ALL OF THESE YEARS, SMALL DETAILSD THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DAYS WERE NOT BACK THEN. IT DID HAVE THE SIGNATURE. IT WAS IN THE HANDS OF A "COLLECTOR/DEALER/FRINGE LOONEY IN CHICAGO. OLD TIME COLLECTORS WOULD REMEMBER
JACK BAUMGARTNER. I HAVE NO HORSE IN THIS RACE SO WHAT I RELATE IS ONLY RECOLLECTIONS FROM MY PAST. JACK BOUGHT THAT PIECE AND A SS HONOR DAGGER AT THE OLD MAXWELL STREET FLEA MARKET IN THE LATE 50'S. AS NONE OF US EVEN KNEW WHAT DAMASCUS WAS UNTIL THE R & L BOOK CAME OUT, HE WONDERED WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE BLADES! I THINK HE TOLD ME HE BOUGHT THE TWO FOR $10! HE SOLD THE SS HONOR DAGGER TO A COLLECTOR IN CALIFORNIA IN THE EARLY 60'S FOR $500! I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NSKK PIECE.

Did Gahr have a RZM code? Could he be the great unknown NSKK chain maker? M3/23.

Hey, Bob Coleman, are you losing the plot? I simply asked a question if you could be certain that you had seen a Huhnlein Honour Dagger (with signature). According to your claim you state this indeed so.

I don't have an issue with what you, or other people, remember - I like to think that I respect your views and memories. What I have a problem with is these so-called vet acquisitions which have fake hallmarks on them. It just doesn't make sense - and that is my gripe with these pieces.

FJS

Mr. Stephens,

Enough is enough! Prove the marks are fake!!!!! Until then stop posting an opinion as a fact!

quote:

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.

Seems to happen more and more often in the relm of TR items.

Yes, it's really sad. My years are numbered and probably, I wont be around 15 years from now to see what happens to what was a wonderful hobby. I feel very sorry for the collectors of today and tomorrow. We are lucky to have some of the younger dealers/collectors who have really good knowledge to carry on.

Gailen David

I can understand where Mr. Stephens might be getting a little frustrated with the issue of the hallmarks. But I think that it goes beyond the hallmarks.

Whomever cast the connectors did not know how to cast silver. And failed to take into account the lower density of the metal (compared to gold) and was unaware of molten silver�s absorption of large quantities of oxygen that had to go somewhere when the casting cooled. Which is why we see the pin holes, pock marks, voids and other evidence of a bad casting. And the resultant highly variable cast in portion of the markings. Were the silversmiths at Gahr that ignorant??

That would be making me very uncomfortable, and I would be looking at the chain links themselves for similar evidence.

I can also understand �thread fatigue� setting in. I�m getting that way myself. But we were not the ones who started this thread. And if somebody had called my judgment into question like Mr. Stephens was, I very likely would be defending it, not sitting on my hands. FP

Frederick:
Reagrding the below quote. which was forwared to me by a member.

quote:

Gailen - you have related to us the acquisition of one of these Huhnlein pieces, sent to you through the mail and with no interior packing, causing the chain to damage the leather work. Is this correct?

I stated in our last spat on another thread that I wouldn't comment on anything that you said again and I meant it.

To tell you the truth when I get to your imput on this subject I just skip it and go to the next. I would appreciate if you did the same when you come to one of my post.

Gailen David

Hello Bob,
Could this NSKK High Leaders from the 1959 Raidl & Leslie book be the one you could be talking about?









I believe this may be the same dagger that is now on "Snyder's Treasures". A very interesting Huhnlein NSKK/NPEA "Marine" Presentation.



To Bad this one seems to be missing the chain.

Wednesday, 29 August, 2007

Jason,

I am sorry, but I cannot prove that the hallmarks are real. Believe me, I have looked everywhere, and checked with the sources that really do know this subject. And all confirm that there is no record to document or demonstrate that this hallmarking pattern ever existed on an authentic item.

I am afraid that you must accept the inescapable conclusion that the hallmarking is wrong, and all else that it implies.

FJS

No we don't. Obviously -just because you can't find it does not make it fake. Fred-the lack of evidence is no evidence.

Dear Huston: You must realize by now that you are beating your head aganist a brick wall. There is no way that all the guys at the top of the food chain in this hobby can be wrong. We are talking about more then a 150 of years combined experience in the hobby. Johnson, Whitmann, Jason, you and many others,from hands on experience, know they are authentic. I know you really care about the historic damage, as do many others, done by this kind of thing and I think it's very honorable. But unless we find a NSKK leader buried with one of these daggers this will continue. And even if we found and unearthed such a grave you would hear that someone must have planted it there. It's just a waste of time.

Gailen David

I with no axe to grind, find it very hard to believe that those at the "head of the food chain" have not seen that the marks are not correct. Gahr had a special mark for the SS pieces, in silver and for no silver products. I have examples of these Having said this, it is not for the NSKK. But and the big but, is that these pieces should be marked with the cresent moon, crown and maker mark. The pieces shown are not. Not only that, these pieces are cast. This is not acceptable for proof marking for silver or gold. Please the "Head of the food chain" tell me why this should be.

Dear Christopher: I don't have the slightest idea.

Gailen David

.....and may I add, not disrespectily, that I could care even less.

Gailen David

quote:

Originally posted by wagner:
Hello Bob,
Could this NSKK High Leaders from the 1959 Raidl & Leslie book be the one you could be talking about?









I believe this may be the same dagger that is now on "Snyder's Treasures". A very interesting Huhnlein NSKK/NPEA "Marine" Presentation.



To Bad this one seems to be missing the chain.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE DUTCH HEILMANN COLLECTION REWORKED DAGGGERS THAT SOME ONE STUCK HIM WITH 50 YEARS AGO.

Yes, that's was a real piece of crap and everyone has known it was junk for many many years.

Gailen David

Dear Gailen, sorry that you do not care about the marks. These are the things that prove originality. May I respectfully point out that this is what the whole thing is about. In my field of decorations, I would show awards made in silver that never existed. Mr Souval was the master. E-Boat badges,2nd patter hollow struck, .800 in square box.

Another waste of a good NPEA Leader's Dagger where greed killed a $7000.00 piece.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Interesting to note is that the sworn eyewitness testimony of several credible witnesses is often enough to send one to the electric chair but it's not enough to authenticate a dagger for some of you guys.
You have heard the testimony ( and much more is available) that some of these daggers came out of the woodwork -some in poor obviously real condition-AND were bought for next to NOTHING. Now why would a faker do that? Junk an SA Honor Dagger and then sell it for nothing. Give me a break! Just because you have not seen something and it's not in a book does not mean much of anything. No evidence is no evidence. German craftmanship was not always that great and you all know there are many examples out there.
The technoglop presented here means nothing to me when it is opposed to the testimony of SO MANY credible collectors and dealers.
Someone said it-and you know who--"It is what it is"

Christopher: You mentioned the silver e-boat badge in silver. Did you look at the one I had on my site ( which you probably have since you mentioned it)? It is the first time I ever saw this type in the box. If you really believe that this was produced Soval I would like to know. I certainly do not want to sell or offer something that's no good. I do respect your knowledge in badges.

Gailen David

Thank you Bob, Gailen & Ron.
I guess someone back in the 1950's was taking original rare daggers and turning them into "super rare" ones and selling them to high end collectors even back then???

Oh, this rarity can now be bought for $40,000!

And I hear Snyder's getting numerous inquries.

Really an informative thread!

-wagner-

When Craig started the topic, from comments on the Wolf sword thread, I was fairly certain that it was going to get controversial. My suspicions were confirmed and unfortunately it appears that collateral damage is resulting from the discussion which is truly unfortunate. I was trying to be restrained in my comments - but here is another piece of �technoglop� mixed in with two scenarios for consideration. I am not saying that NSKK Honor Daggers don�t exist. But I have to look at objective data, and what I see that is physically before me.

Scenario 1) A Gahr silversmith makes a mold, casts, and then finishes the piece. If the casting was defective for some reason it gets re-melted. With an acceptable finished piece - the silversmith then uses one of the many stamps that the company already owned to put the crescent moon and crown and the (one piece stamp) "800" content marks onto the finished item.

Scenario 2) Somebody who probably had not worked with silver before makes a mold (from an original period example?). Someone who does not have any specialized stamps, which are expensive and time consuming to make, and consequently has to add the "Gahr" markings to the mold itself. The silver is melted (BTW: silver absorbs roughly 20 times its volume in oxygen when molten). The molten silver is poured into the mold. And when the oxygen leaves at a very rapid rate it partially obliterates or causes other problems like pock marks, pin holes, etc. as it tries to escape. Ordinary individual number stamps are then used to touch up the �800� marks as needed.

I�ve always liked Occam's Razor: �Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate�. Which put into everyday language says: �The simplest explanation is the best�. But if that doesn�t work for everyone that�s fine with me.

PS: While looking into silver alloys that were more tarnish resistant than the standard German 80% silver content alloy, versus Sterling which is 92.5%. I did come upon one piece of information that I hope is non controversial.

It seems that the origin of the crescent moon marking for silver is rooted in alchemy. And it was the alchemists who referred to silver as �Luna� that gave it the symbol we see today. FP

Fred: All I can say is I wish I hadn't sleep through English Class, it is obvious you diidn't.

Gailen David

Houston wrote;

quote:

German craftmanship was not always that great and you all know there are many examples out there.

Take a look at the reversed swastika sword , nice example of german craftmanship.

Houston,

I am aware of the maxim: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The point I was trying to make is that the German assay marks, within some small variations, are of a proscribed appearance and format. Not only that, they are always stamped into the metal.

The markings on the reverse of the cartouche are not just different to the proscribed pattern, but they are completely different in structure - so much so that they cannot even be considered as a "variation" - they are created in a completely different taxonomic style. Not only that, they seem to be cast into the design of the item.

Houston, you would no doubt pronounce that an accepted test for certain daggers is that the trademark has to be stamped and not etched. This is not true of all daggers, of course, but there are certain patterns (Hunting Association, Police Bayonets, HJ knives, etc) where the marking is anticipated to be stamped, rather than etched.

Why are you unable to extend your belief in these matters to the subject of silver markings, where stamping of the proof is the established and authorised way to mark an item?

FJS

Because I believe the people I know who got them out of the woodwork--for nothing. That's all I have to say.

quote:

Yes, that's was a real piece of crap

You can say that agian! There are some dealers I would NEVER buy any items from.

Yes, Houston,

And I know when I believe that hallmarks have all the attributes of fakery. And that's all I have to say!

FJS

I�ve possibly identified the �mystery� metal for the alloy that was used to make the center scabbard mount. Antimony, which is poisonous, apparently was popular at least 50 years ago as something that could be added to silver to make it tarnish resistant. At the moment I don�t know just when it began to be used which obviously could be earlier. Looking at the coloration, and some of the data, I suspect that the copper content could have been "bumped up a notch" also. FP

Frogprinz: I assume this discovery of the chemical composition would tend to make you think its use would date the piece to the 1930s??
I have felt that some breakthrough would settle this question once and forall as I have NO DOUBT about the period of production.
I have always asked myself: Why would any reproduction "expert" utilize a dagger that would have cost him an arm and a leg to start with and then "Hokie It Up" with such a crude center band and hanger?? It just didn't make any sense to me to assume that it was something other than period. PERIOD.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

It seems that some people here just want to see that good items get trashed.
Why ?

I encourage the discussion of metal types and their use in edged weapons. This type of information is invaluable to us youngsters. Frogprince and others, please start a informative thread about the different metals and the use of these metals in hallmarks, links, etc. Not many look at edged weapons at this way. Just because the NSKK piece is real, doesn't mean we should not investigate every piece of this dagger. The only way we will learn is to ask questions and investigate. Some day all of those who could say �I have seen this come out of the woodwork� will be dead, and we need this type of information to carry on.

To add to what FP posted above here's some additional information on Antimony.
Pewter which has been used in household tableware has been around for centuries. The makeup is Tin 90% with the remaining 10% being divided between Copper and Antimony.
Lead shot which has also been in use for a couple of hundred years in composed of 90% Lead and up to 10% Antimony.

IMO: Neither of these metal compositions would be suitable for edged weapon parts.

However "German Silver" which is a combination of Copper,Nickel and may additionally contain Zinc,Antimony,Lead or Cadmium saw widespread use in the manufacture of edged weapons parts.
Jim

Ron, What I found was evidence of a tarnish resistant antimony bearing silver in print circa 1955. If we assume it took 5 years to get into print that would take it back to 1950. Before that it�s a question mark(?). I�m still looking, but it seems to be just one more piece of the puzzle at this point. I do find it a little strange that all sorts of unconventional variables seem to be centered about this particular type of dagger.

Rob, It is what it is. I don�t necessarily accept what people tell me just because they say so. If I did I would have to accept that SA scabbards were �anodized�. It may seem like a technicality to you - but I�ve uncovered more than one fake using my physical senses and experience/training. I am not saying that with the alloy here because I�m still gathering information.

Paloma Kid, From time to time I�ve engaged in discussions, ranging from casting techniques, phosphate finishes on dagger parts, plating, metal finishes in general, anodizing (the legitimate kind), zinc, nickel silver, etc. With items that guys are buying, or they have no doubts about, images are usually forthcoming. When they are not or are 10 feet away it gets a lot harder to make an accurate assessment. I sometimes get challenged with �Vaporware�, but only rarely has somebody pointed out exactly where they thought I was mistaken. Not that I am perfect. Because for example I made a significant error with SA grips actually made from oak instead of stained �oak�. So from time to time like most folks I have to realign my thinking. I'm certain that some of the threads have disappeared over time. But what I like to do is discuss one item at a time rather than everything at once.

Jim, Metal alloys can be a tricky business, and very often is not something that is easily discussed because of the different variables. For example there are casting alloys and alloys for other manufacturing techniques, and it gets more complicated from there. What the data suggests is a relatively low silver content. With more copper as well as antimony added to both increase the tarnish resistance and get the coloration back closer to white. Which was done commercially at least in the 1950�s. Regards to All, FP

FP,
As always thanks for a very interesting topic. Amazing in fact.
It would answer a lot of our questions if we could have a simple touchstone or a X ray Fluorescence test performed, could clear up a lot. Won't harm the items at all. But would the X ray Fuorescene method work with a chemically treated surface? What do you think?

FP - for your information (and anyone else who chooses to read my submissions, rather than skip past them); the use of antinomy has been used in type founding since the 1880s.

The reason being that antinomy has a rare property - from being in a heated molten state it is one of the few metals which actually expands on cooling, rather than the more common contraction of metal.

As such, as it cools the metal expands into the die to make a crisper, sharper image. It also had applications in the jewellery trade, where designs on brooches and badges, etc., could be cast with a greater clearness of detail.

Rob NL - the purpose of this thread is not to trash collectible items. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that the original concept behind this thread was to trash an individual who speaks his own mind.

It has since expanded into a great area of learning, for all who are interested to know the real facts about the construction of these daggers.

FJS

Mikee, Is there something like a point and shoot laser that tells you the exact chemical composition of the target metal? Not as far as I know, although there is a relatively noninvasive chemical test to check for silver content. It is used to detect for other things as well, but I don't think is designed to detect antimony. FP

Antinomy (Greek ????-, against, plus ?????, law) literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term used in logic and epistemology.

The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who used it to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it.

For Kant there are four antinomies connected with

1. the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time,
2. the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist),
3. the problem of freedom in relation to universal causality,
4. the existence of a necessary being

about each of which pure reason contradicts the empirical, as thesis and antithesis. This was part of Kant's critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. Kant claimed to solve these contradictions by saying, that in no case is the contradiction real, however really it has been intended by the opposing partisans, or must appear to the mind without critical enlightenment. It is wrong, therefore, to impute to Kant, as is often done, the view that human reason is, on ultimate subjects, at war with itself, in the sense of being impelled by equally strong arguments towards alternatives contradictory of each other. The difficulty arises from a confusion between the spheres of phenomena and noumena. In fact no rational cosmology is possible.

It can also be argued that antinomies do not highlight limitations in the power of logical reasoning. This is because the conclusion that there is a limitation is (supposedly) derived from the antinomy by logical reasoning; therefore any limitation in the validity of logical reasoning imposes a limitation on the conclusion that there is a limitation on logical reasoning. (This is an argument by self-reference.) In short, in terms of the validity of logical reasoning as a whole, antinomies are self-isolating: they are like scattered discontinuities within the field of logic, incapable of casting doubt on anything else but themselves.

This carefree position is incompatible with the principle of explosion. In mathematical logic, antinomies are patently not self-isolating, and are usually seen as disasters for the formal system in which they arise (as Russell's paradox in Frege's work)