Translate German to English - Click here to open Altavista's Babel Fish Translator Click here to learn about all those symbols by people's names.

leftlogo.jpg (20709 bytes)

Upgrade to Premium Membership

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 16 1 2 14 15 16
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,026
Offline
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,026
Please excuse my ignorance.but if only 15-20 of these Huhnlein-signed NSKK Honor Daggers have surfaced in the last 35-40 years,who has had hands on experience handling these daggers over many years?

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 714
G
Offline
G
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 714
Well, I can only speak for myself. I purchased 2 from familys and have examined 8 or 10 others. So, I think the 15 to 20 is low. Rarity is somewhere between the SA high leader and SS honor dagger. This is over a 45 years period. Just my opinon.

Gailen

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,229
Offline
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,229
If you look at the old references--"Daggers and Dress Bayonets", R&L, 1959 or even "Daggers of the Third German Reich 33-45", by Mollo 1967( which I'm sure many of you doubters don't have or don't read or look at) you will see that compared to today we knew next to nothing about German WWII edged weapons. Back then (1959) many thought NPEA daggers were some type of NSKK dagger. You have to READ some of the captions and see the WRONG parts to see just a ton of WRONG information-- even in 1967. You will see in Mollo though-a photo of who he says is Hunlein wearing some type of political dagger with hangers like those worn on the Hitler Youth dagger. Impossible right? Non-regulation I'm sure. Improper silver marks I'm sure--and yet he was not taken out and shot-right?
Conclusion-It would tbe impossible to make a fake of a dagger like the NSKK Honor dagger without even knowing what it was or having a photo--and I believe the first NSKK Honor dagger came to light in approx 1958.
Even so --IF there was a fake it certainly would have been sold to the 1950's Grandaddy of Nazi blade collecting -"Dutch" Heilman. Heilman had it all-good and bad- and you can see many of the high priced fakes that were sold to him in the 40's and 50's in the R&L book--if you have it. Guess what--he did not have one.
I'm sure the doubters will avoid this just like they avoid all of the other things they can't explain.
Guess what-everything in this hobby can NOT be explained and speculation is just that and opinion is just that too.


MAX & OVMS Life Member, MAX Bd. of Experts. GDC Platinum Dealer. Collector since 1955.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
I've been watching this very interesting thread from the beginning. I have no stake in this discussion either way. I have no opinion as to its originality since it is beyond my expertise. And for the record, I have never even seen one of these daggers (in person).

I have friends on both sides of this dicsussion so I thought long and hard about this posting.

If I was to weigh the arguments put forth by both sides of this discussion, I would have to say that the "non-believers" have put forth the only solid evidence against this being a totally pre-1945 dagger. The "believers" have only put forth opinions based on experience for it being totally pre-1945. And you know what they say about "opinions" Big Grin

One thing has been gnawing at me that no one else has raised. For Himmler and Rohm daggers to be accepted as being pre-1945, the dedication and signatures have to be identical to an accepted format. In other words, they can't vary. The Rohm and Himmler signatures are analyzed ad nauseum for even the tinyest of deviations. To me, that means that all manufacturers of these daggers had the same template to work with.

So why then do the Hunlein signatures seen so far vary so much from dagger to dagger and are accepted as pre-1945 by some? Like the Himmler and Rohm daggers, should the Hunlein signatures not all be identical on all daggers?


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,259
Likes: 1
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,259
Likes: 1
Like Bernie; I don't have a stake in these daggers either and have pretty much confined my comments to the bogus chains where I do have a bit of expertise. CA is correct in that no matter when these chains were made you can't alter the fact that they are bogus. The primary difference to anyone that would argue that they are pre-1945 manufacture is you are saying that a daggers was actually issued with bogus hallmarks a position that anyone familiar with German silver hallmarking laws can easily refute and what would have constituted a serious offense. Post war bogus chains however wouldn't have been a problen because the authorities would not want anything to do with them or probably even admitted their existence. Everyone here is certainly entitled to their own conclusions but the evidence due to the consequences points to post war manufacture.
To address Gailens point inre. to reading older references I posted much earlier in this thread that I had done research to the extent I could within my own library. The first mention of these Huhnlein daggers I could find in print was in Angolias dagger book published in 1974. Understanding that this book was probably being created a few years earlier so lets use 1970 as a "discovery" date. That means that from 1945 till 1970, a period of 25 years, these daggers were unknown. In this same earlier post I asked if anyone else have an earlier reference to a Huhnlein dagger which of course was ignored.
So if the 1974 date is the earliest reference we are to believe this dagger escaped discovery till that time?
Jim

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Bernie, A very good point, and you are correct. They should be all the same (instead of like the example of “handwriting/signature” variations that Craig kept using as an explanation earlier in the thread.) And there is a reason for the variations that you are seeing. With the short answer to the question being that the deviations are due to mechanical engraving. And not very good engraving at that IMO. Because even common German Navy bayonets were better executed, without the pronounced ‘overruns’ and other problems seen with some of the “Hühnlein” daggers.

More to follow. FP

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,259
Likes: 1
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,259
Likes: 1
quote:
The first mention of these Huhnlein daggers I could find in print was in Angolias dagger book published in 1974. Understanding that this book was probably being created a few years earlier so lets use 1970 as a "discovery" date. That means that from 1945 till 1970, a period of 25 years, these daggers were unknown. In this same earlier post I asked if anyone else have an earlier reference to a Huhnlein dagger which of course was ignored.
So if the 1974 date is the earliest reference we are to believe this dagger escaped discovery till that time?


I have tried to bring this discussion back to a point where we were talking about facts.
I can now see there's no interest in having a factual discussion anymore as the facts are not relavant.
So everyone can now go back into their own little dream world as I won't bother disturbing any of you with factual information such as the hangars are crap anymore. Signing off.
Jim

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 345
Likes: 2
F
Offline
F
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 345
Likes: 2
Jim M,

Your observations about the earliest known date identifying these Huhnlein High Leader daggers beig in 1974 (Angolia book) is most pertinent.

I went back to the earlier thread on this subject (NSKK High Leader dagger, started by Craig Gottlieb, August 2007), and noted the following submission by Ron Weinand:
Posted 03 August 2007 09:39
The High Leader NSKK Dagger with damascus blade has been known to be in collections as long as I have been in this hobby (50 years).

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 345
Likes: 2
F
Offline
F
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 345
Likes: 2
Opps, submitted too soon.

What I wanted to emphasize was that if these Huhnlein pieces had been known about for 50 years previously - as claimed by Ron - then why did they not appear in the earlier books? Certainly Atwood or Mollo would have known about them.

The fact that they do not show up until 1974 - about the same time as the accepted fakes first appear - does not inspire the belief that they were well known in the late 1950s.

It is all academic now, I think the case against the Huhnlein pieces has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

FJS

1 member likes this: max baer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 14,783
Likes: 51
Offline
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 14,783
Likes: 51
Gailen,

You are not going to hear much for a while. I'm locking this one again to cool things off.

I am sorry that folks did not read my post after I shut it down a few days ago. These posts trying to get the the other guy exited, or insulting him, or provoking him need to stop.

Dave

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 14,783
Likes: 51
Offline
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 14,783
Likes: 51
Open again.

I've taken out the slaging etc.

Please read this:

If you have facts on this topic to post, please let us all know. But no pointed remarks, cheap shots at the other guy or his opinions and no names 'egostuffed garbage" or similar. Please post as if you were face to face.

Anyone starting the fights again will have their ability to see the SA/NSKK Forum removed.

Dave

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Well after this pregnant pause, I'd still like to hear comments about the accepted differences in the Hunlein signatures as opposed to the Rohm and Himmler signatures that have to be identical to be considered pre-1945.


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,304
P
Offline
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,304
quote:
Originally posted by Bernie Brule:
still like to hear comments about the accepted differences in the Hunlein signatures as opposed to the Rohm and Himmler signatures that have to be identical to be considered pre-1945.


Bernie, this is an EXCELLENT question and especially concerning the Himmler signature.

However, just to comment about the Rohm signatures, they are somewhat all different.
Let me explain, the general inscription as a whole have an identical pattern but there are some specific and unique differences among different maker marked.
For instance, it is very easy to spot an E.Pack versus an Henckel Rohm signature, I don't even have to see the maker marked in order to know whos's the manufacturer.

It is also true that ALL Rohm inscriptions were identical among the same maker marked.
Therefore, all Himmler signatures are identical as they are produced by the same maker.
It should obviously also be the same for the NSKK High Leader as they are all being produced by Eickhorn.

To me, this is the most devastating piece of evidence that we have found yet.
Well done Bernie, no one had thought about it before, I guess it was just too obvious.

One thing is certain though, I would never, ever have one of these in my collection.
Razz

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
I am so confused, I wouldn't venture to comment on the SA dagger. I would note on Himmler daggers that the motto differs, depending on the type of Eickhorn trademark. One of these mottoes seems to be on all Rohm daggers by Eickhorn.

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,430
Admittedly there are very minor variations on the Himmler and Rohm signatures but certainly not as pronounced as the examples of Hunlein signatures we've seen.


"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow"
-Cross of Iron
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Excellent questions and observations. I honestly never understood some of the rationale put forward to explain the bad signatures myself back in 2007 (1st NSKK thread page 3/other). With one of the basic arguments being something like: “Who in their right mind would alter valuable SA Honor daggers?”

One of the problems that confronts especially newer collectors are the conversions of regular daggers into Röhm or Himmler daggers. But with those counterfeits, the fakers at least had one advantage. Namely that the blades were made from conventional steels, and the added etching did not really require a lot of extra work to accomplish.

The big difference of course is that the daggers selected for conversion to the “Hühnlein” daggers are made with Damascus steel. Which presents a unique set of problems when trying to do etching, and especially deep etching to get the signature below the irregular surface of the blade.

The problem of course being that Damascus steel is layered, and the “grain” structure can cause the etching process to get out of control with the harder and softer steels. For example “Numero Uno” may have been one (failed) experiment, and with the “Kassel” dagger - sight unseen who knows?

The most obvious solution of course (at least IMO) for counterfeiters would be to go to mechanical engraving to create the signature thereby achieving the desired depth. And (if needed) an acid wash to try to camouflage the machine tool work.

At the end of the day, the reason all of the signatures are different from each other is due to the nature of the steel, and the process used to create the signatures. Not due to an intentional desired end result on the part of the fakers. FP

NSKK Thread 2007

NSKK_etch_mark.jpg (75.7 KB, 727 downloads)
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,259
Likes: 1
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,259
Likes: 1
I think the most telling points in this thread are putting bad hallmarking on display and no ability to trace these daggers past the mid 70s and the obvious variation in their construction. I stated this thread as just an interested spectator until the bad hallmarks showed up then I started drawing my own conclusions.
The telling point to me at this time is the reluctance of any of the owners of these daggers to post good quality pictures of them in this thread. This speaks reams to the point that "I've got somethng to hide".
Jim

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,620
Likes: 183
G
Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,620
Likes: 183
Jimbo, you conclusions are as the rest of us here. The debate is over. Only those with the daggers and versted interest will fight for them. After the last few pages of this topic I'd say the 'con' side has won..

No one watching!? almost 60K hits!! There are guys at the silver forums laughing at us. Sure they don't know daggers,,but their experience with silver and especially hallmarks is at least as much as any of the members here.. No matter who says what,, game over.........

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 442
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 442
Fred...Were any of the blades you show differences in the signatures shown at the MAX to the people that were on the board?

Did the Board members compare two, thought to be good daggers?

Where any of the chains that have these hallmarks shown at the MAX?

CG's Dagger I believe he said,does not have a chain is that correct?

jim m...interesting point: Why not just show some very clear photos of these daggers,CG can take very clear and close up shots of his dagger
for sure??

Not sure who else out in the collecting world has this type of dagger,but just a few photos might just put this subject to bed.

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 628
Offline
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 628
As they say on the TV show, "This myth is busted."


"If it ain't baroque don't fix it." Johann Sebastian Bach
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
Offline
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,077
If and when the topic is put to bed, a summary would be appreciated.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
There are still some loose ends. But with as many twists and turns that the topic of the “Hühnlein” daggers has taken over a two year period the idea of a summary is not bad one.  Especially for new or non-specialist  collectors.  I think a compilation of the points made against the  daggers (in their current configuration) would not be too hard to assemble.

But to be fair, I also think that a summary of the arguments in support of them should be made by those who are in favor of them.  To let them put their best case forward. FP

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Sepp, I was not at the MAX, and was asked a short while back to publish a correction to some earlier statements that I had made. It turned out that I was not as off base as I had been led to believe - but it’s with that understanding that I’m posting what I think happened. And would defer to anyone who was there and was actually a witness to what took place.

“Fred...Were any of the blades you show differences in the signatures shown at the MAX to the people that were on the board?” No, the differences in the signatures were not presented.

“Did the Board members compare two, thought to be good daggers?” Uncertain, the “Grüner” dagger was looked at and I think the “Kassel” (relic) dagger blade.

“Where any of the chains that have these hallmarks shown at the MAX?” No, not that I know of.

“CG's Dagger I believe he said,does not have a chain is that correct?” Not exactly. Craig said that his “Grüner” dagger did not have a silver chain. FP

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 796
Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 796
Has anyone looked in Tom Johnsons 1978 book, "Collecting the Edged weapons of the third Reich Volume III" , Pages 108 - 109.

Re: Silver / number markings on the chain

Also Check the photograph in wear .... and count the links.... Smile

Mark

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 111
T
Offline
T
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 111
Sepp - There are no bones about you . Well stated.

_Joe

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,689
Offline
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,689
For those of us who dont have the book can you show us or explain what is in there?

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,344
Offline
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,344
the pics on 108-109 dont show the back of the chain but the pic of one in wear by Reichspostminister Dr. Ohnesorge,shows that there are 4,not 3,links in the upper chain,so i would guestimate that there may well be 5 or 6 links in the bottom chain ,,however,could this have been his personal preference??

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
C
Offline
C
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
It seems that the debate has gone cold. The assumption, could be drawn that the piece is now concidered to be a fake. The strength of evidence that the hallmarks and silver marks are incorect seems to have been accepted.Thus chains with these marks are incorrect, placed on a dagger, that could be original or not, proves that the piece has been tampered with.If this be the case, then the whole cannot by nature be original.

Again I state I am no expert on daggers but silver marks are my fortey.I look forward to a revised view by some of the believers.

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,229
Offline
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,229
Don't hold your breath. Assume nothing.


MAX & OVMS Life Member, MAX Bd. of Experts. GDC Platinum Dealer. Collector since 1955.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
R
RFI Offline
Offline
R
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
Does anyone know what happens when you assume? Or, how the word breaks down phonetically?
Bob

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,809
Likes: 18
Offline
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,809
Likes: 18
Bob:

You know that this system's censor will cut out the first part of what it makes of U and ME!

John


Always looking for Eickhorns and etched bayonets.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
R
RFI Offline
Offline
R
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
I was careful JohnSmile!
Best Wishes,
Bob

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
quote:
".... The .... evidence that the hallmarks and silver marks are incorrect .... (etc. etc.) I look forward to a revised view by some of the believers".

Although I think Craig seemed to be teetering on the edge a couple of times, from my understanding of those who are (or purport to be) the ‘believers’ of the “Hühnlein” daggers. In all of their multiple configurations. With that one possible exception, I don’t see any of them breaking ranks, or having a sudden public epiphany occurring myself.

Earlier while I was getting some feedback on the MAX show. I came across a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer a 19th century German philosopher, which I think is appropriate for what has been happening with this thread:

"Alle Wahrheit durchläuft drei Stufen. Zuerst wird sie lächerlich gemacht oder verzerrt. Dann wird sie bekämpft. Und schließlich wird sie als selbstverständlich angenommen." Which roughly translates to: All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed or distorted. Then it is fought. And finally, it is taken for granted.

In this discussion we have seen all three. With the momentum in stage three seeming to favor the ‘disbelievers’. Which (at least IMO) seems to have been substantially assisted by a failure to properly address some of the specific problem areas that were brought up in this latest discussion. FP

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
R
RFI Offline
Offline
R
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 693
Hi FP!
I can see you are trying to take a scientific approach to this which I can respect, especially since my education is based in science.
For some of the people responding here I have an analogy for you which would explain your and my belief. I have collected for over 30 years, my two friends who are very knowledgeable and collected for 40 to 50 years each disagree on the gold TDS. Jim talked me out of buying one with a yellow backing; the other would only buy one with a yellow backing. The reason was their direct vet purchase experiences over the years. I think we believers have solid experience one way or the other. Those that do not have no experience with these over the years. In the helmet field we would say, “We agree to disagree”
Best Wishes,
Bob

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,274
Hello Bob!
I understand the basic premise of “agreeing to disagree”. And have seen instances where two well meaning individuals had issues that could not be definitively resolved at that time. On a couple of occasions I have related something I once saw between two of the top M1 Garand rifle specialists in the U.S. arguing about a specific rifle. One was right and one was wrong, but as an onlooker it was well beyond my limited expertise.

I’ve also seen instances where a presumably well meaning individual was convinced of a circumstance which has or had no discernible relation to the real world. Even though he (or they) were firmly convinced that it did. A case in point being trying to convince even a not very well experienced gun collector that the military issue German Luger pistol being sold left the factory chrome plated - from the vet himself, much less an intermediary. But if a new collector lived in an area where a lot of vets had their guns chrome plated. I can see where they might at least initially believe what the vets told him.

But more to the point with the “Hühnlein” daggers. Trying to convince a reasonably well seasoned silver specialist that the “Gahr” markings (including the supposed “hallmarks”) and the one at a time “800” assay stamps are period - not postwar. Is (and has been) an uphill battle for dagger collectors who seem to have very limited experience with silver markings in general. With no one who fits in the category as a ‘hands on "Hühnlein" specialist' being able to point to anything else (besides the “Hühnlein" daggers) having the kinds of markings cited above.

And once the door to that potentially fatal flaw is opened. As was pointed out earlier, other inconsistencies that have been noted in the thread are (IMO legitimately) called into question.
Best Regards, Fred

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 16
B
Offline
B
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 16
so wait man like there are soo many pages of this thread here ......is the dagger real or not ? lol jeez ...did it come back from wittman as a real or fake ? gah

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,414
M
Offline
M
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,414
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher J Ailsby:
It seems that the debate has gone cold. The assumption, could be drawn that the piece is now concidered to be a fake. The strength of evidence that the hallmarks and silver marks are incorect seems to have been accepted.Thus chains with these marks are incorrect, placed on a dagger, that could be original or not, proves that the piece has been tampered with.If this be the case, then the whole cannot by nature be original.

Again I state I am no expert on daggers but silver marks are my fortey.I look forward to a revised view by some of the believers.


,,as we will look forward to your next post...
( SILVER indeed!)


In Memory of Joe Mann
Medal of Honor Recipient
July 8, 1922 �
September 19, 1944



Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 51
M
Offline
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Hi Fred, I sold the original NSKK Huhnlein ( known) back in 1974 or 1975 to a well known dealer and know who was the recipient. Afterward, coincidentally, popping up everywhere? Yours sincerely, Max my email, Dazzofrank7@gmail.com

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 999
Offline
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 999
This is like the discussion on the Shroud of Turin.............

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 14,783
Likes: 51
Offline
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 14,783
Likes: 51
grin grin

Page 16 of 16 1 2 14 15 16

Link Copied to Clipboard
Popular Topics(Views)
2,228,804 SS Bayonets
1,729,075 Teno Insignia Set
1,091,272 westwall rings
Latest New Threads
SS Skull & Eagle, the Bad and the ugly.
by C. Wetzel-20609 - 02/03/2023 10:05 PM
ring of Hans Rattenhuber
by Evgeniy - 02/03/2023 06:02 PM
Winged Propeller Badge
by Hermanator - 02/01/2023 10:33 PM
SS Foreign Legion
by Hermanator - 01/31/2023 10:31 PM
Over the shoulder Eickhorn Army dagger
by Dion - 01/30/2023 07:26 PM
Latest New Posts
ring of Hans Rattenhuber
by Evgeniy - 02/04/2023 10:54 AM
SS Skull & Eagle, the Bad and the ugly.
by C. Wetzel-20609 - 02/03/2023 11:21 PM
R.A.Herder sword variants
by BretVanSant - 02/03/2023 08:58 PM
Very rare medal just 1,708 awarded
by Billy G. - 02/03/2023 05:55 PM
Kuno Ritter Nicker
by C. Wetzel-20609 - 02/03/2023 04:07 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics31,388
Posts325,230
Members7,289
Most Online5,900
Dec 19th, 2019
Who's Online Now
7 members (Don Scowen, lmrobil, Jim W, Alex ., col, DBaker, Nietzsche), 66 guests, and 118 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5