UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons German Sword & Miniatures Forum Presentation Sword to RK Winner

Yeah Jim...it amazes me how absolutely vicious this thread has become.

Mark

At the start Craig showed a sword he was proud of owning and selling. All seemed well and everyone likes it.. FJS didn't comment negatively in this forum. He was kind of baited here.. If he said something in private to someone big deal! This whole topic turned into something ridiculous. Neither side was there when the thing was made.No ones going to be able to prove anything 100%..
Rob, you bought a high dollar sword,,it looks nice,,congradulations. Your happy with it, great!! how much better can you get than that..Enjoy it...Thanks for showing us...,G.

This isn't vicious at all. It's a debate. Both Fred and I are adults, and can debate without it being called "vicious." Now, if he called my mother names, THAT would be vicious The fact was that a very great sword was maligned with no real justification, and that needed to be defended in public, so that the whispers didn't drift around the hobby corners and back-alleys, damaging the reputation of a fine piece of history.

Erich makes a good point. Sometimes we go a bit too far with the technical stuff IMO. Craig is 100% right when he says Third Reich items are often imperfect. Many get a bit too concerned with "font" too--Hey they did NOT just use one kind or another but MANY. In the end sometimes it's better to go with your experience and that "gut" feeling you get after a while. In this case my gut feeling tells me the sword is good. I would love to have it and I'm sure a lot of others would too. The original owner seemed to want it back too.

Exactly, Houston. We are very fortunate here to have great provenance concerning this sword, so we should all use it as a learning tool. It's rare in this day and age to have such solid documentation concerning a sword. Remember:

1) It was suggested that there was a typo, since the Germans allegedly didn't capitalize proper nouns. SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN THIS THREAD.

2) It was suggested that the dedication made no sense. SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN THIS THREAD THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF MANY GERMAN SPEAKERS.

3) It was suggested that the NSDAP did not give out military awards. SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN THIS THREAD BY THE TESTIMONY OF MANY EXPERIENCED BLADE COLLECTORS and PUBLISHED REFERENCES.

4) It was suggested that somehow, since the dates on the originally posted documentation didn't line up, that there was something fishy going on. SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN THIS THREAD BY THE POSTING OF THE REST OF EACH LETTER, SHOWING THAT THERE WERE NO DATE INCONSISTENCIES AT ALL.

5) It was suggested that the minor deviations from perfection on the etch were cause for alarm. SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN THIS THREAD BY THE TESTIMONY OF HOUSTON, AND BY MY PHOTOS OF REAL ETCHES, SHOWING THAT FRED'S STANDARD FOR ETCHES IS NOT IN LINE WITH HOW THINGS WORKED IN SOLINGEN.

6) It was suggested that "NSDAP" in block lettering was suspicious. SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN THIS THREAD.

7) It was suggested, in a final attempt to discredit the sword, that Wolfe was somehow involved in some hanky-panky. LUDICROUS, ABSENT A PROFIT MOTIF and ANY EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THIS TO BE TRUE, OTHER THAN A CRITICISM OF HIS TYPING SKILLS AND HIS ATTEMPT TO GET THE SWORD CHEAP BY BEING A BIT CHEEKY.

In summary, it's always important to judge a piece by the correct standard. To us, we ascribe an almost holy status to these relics. To the men who owned them (and certainly to the men who sold them) they were just swords.

This whole episode reminds me of my own Mameluke Officer sword. When I got it from The Marine Shop in Quantico, I noticed that mine had a flaw on the nickel plated scabbard. I was a bit disappointed, and could have returned it for a better one. But it had my name on it, and it was the one I got. So, I shrugged my shoulders, and went on with life. I imagine that Weyersberg, who made my sword, didn't really care that much about the flaw. Neither did The Marine Shop, and neither did I.

Thanks Gaspare , I love the sword , and for me its 1000% authentic.
If people want something to be "wrong" it will be, doesnt matter what you say or post.
Some people are to proud to say ; Sorry guys , I was wrong. Even if I post a picture that was made 40 years ago , showing the rip that it still has. What more can you ask for ? Lets see if there is any sword out there with this kind of proof.Oh no , I hear it allready , the seller of the sword describes a good handle in his piscription and puts on a damaged one....

My contribution to this topic deals with the perfection of the 3rd Reich edged weapon craftsman, and what we would expect to see on a sword of great importance such as one presented to a Knights Cross Holder. On the 18th of March 1939, Himmler presented SS Gruppenfuhrer Wilhelm Reinhard the coveted Damascus SS birthday degen. Whether by mistake on the part of Paul Muller or by misinformation provided to him, Reinhard's name was misspelled "Reinhardt" on this degen of significant importance. Raised in gilt and forged in steel, there was the mistake for all to see on the 3rd recipient to have ever been awarded one of these beautiful Muller Damascus swords.

As usual, Craig, you have shot off on a tangent - struggling to refute my argument about the wording of the NSDAP - by introducing a whole host of irrelevent word variations on badges and tinnies. Yes, there are different abbreviations, hyphenations, and type styles etc., but that isn�t what I stated.

The mis-aligned etching and spacing is bad enough to condemn that inscription - and as I was trained in Typography and Lettering when I was in college in the early 1960s, I have a fair idea of what constitutes professional workmanship - and it is not evident on that line of the inscription.

However the real issue that I express is the change of font style for the singular wording of NSDAP. The main inscription is in the Fraktur German Script. There is no reason to change the font for that single word. The Third Reich practise would have been to have kept the word in the same font as it is a constituent part of that inscription. That it has been shown in a differing font to the rest of the inscription is a post-war innovation.

Therefore I am of the opinion that inscription is false. This is my final word on the matter.

Frederick J. Stephens

Rob NL, You say that you have a 40 year old photograph showing a rip? If so please post it. The last image posted was too far away to see any sort of detail with the items in the picture.

Also, do you think that I was suggesting that the seller put a damaged handle on the sword in lieu of a good one? Or I am misinterpreting your statement? What my thinking was is that everything was replaced so that the condition/appearance of all the external components would match. The scabbard, the handle, and all of the sword fittings. That is what I would have been looking at in very close detail myself as soon as I saw something like documentation stating that there was no leather hanger with the sword.

If you have a 40 year picture it would really help in clearing up what the sword looked like not long after it left the possession of Dick Deeter. FP

Personally, I have seen parts changed as often as underwear with some folks who have posted on this thread. That, my friends, is simply reality and market forces at work.

To some it may be no big deal, to others it is heresy. To each his own.

No comment on the sword shown however. It is not my field of expertise whatsoever.

Over and out...

Mark

And that is the problem, Fred. You were trained in the 1960s in England, not the 1930s in Germany. We have clearly shown that the standard used in etching in 1930s Germany was not the standard that you insist upon applying using your 1960s training. A survey of blade etches proves your standard to be inappropriate. If you can't see that, then we can't help you. If you can't see the relevance of the photos I posted to show the world that your pronouncement about "NSDAP" does not bear out under scrutiny of other period objects, then we can't help you. It certainly was not a tangent.

You had it out for this sword the moment you saw it. When the documentation was produced, you stuck to your guns rather than admit that you were wrong, and made up all sorts of stories about Wolfe being a crook, etc etc. We can't help you there either. Anyone who doubts my summary of events need only read through this thread.

Some how my post above got interspersed with Marks. The part starting with ...... "I have also publicy remained silent" down to the smiley faces are my words and not Marks. Sorry if this caused any confusion.
Jim

I have the picture posted where you can see the rip , send me your e-mail I will send the bigger format to you. And sorry , the wood on thehandle is NOT damaged.Like I said , the man who wrote the discription of the sword wasnt paying attention.

So , we have a picture that came with the documents , and that handle with the rip was on it , so if somebody messed with it it could have been this Dick Deeter right? Or the surgeon , but I think he had his hands full with other things.

Rob NL, Thank you very much for posting the images of one of the areas under discussion. If you wish you can send me the full size images and I will resize them as needed. My email is at the bottom.

In the meantime I think your second image which is a little clearer will probably be sufficient for the moment. I�m not sure from your statement if the pictures you posted came with the original period documentation, or are they ones that you have taken yourself? Or did they come with the sword as part of a package presenting it? In any case - it seems to me that more than just a simple rip in the leather as was described is involved.

The images: My first image is just an enlargement. With the second image to the left it shows a split or piece missing in the wood with the red arrows showing one side of the break. And the green arrow showing a trough or valley between the two sides of the break. The trough itself seems to be partially filled in with shoe polish (?) or some other kind of filler. In the middle it looks like perhaps a small chip of wood is missing between the arrows. To the right I also saw what might be another split starting which is illustrated by some more arrows. I could be reading too much into the middle and right side of the image. But with the damage to the left I doubt that I will be changing my opinion in the immediate future.

I also think that some clarification of the sword�s chronology might be in order. The 1968 correspondence between General Wolf and Mr. Bayliss indicates it was in Mr. Bayliss�s possession at that time. But I don�t recall seeing just when he first obtained it. Apparently the first known owner was a Dr. Heinz Von Hungen who had it for a long time. Then it was Dick Deeter who had acquired it from the doctor. And then Mr. Arthur Grigg who was offering it for sale. It was also Mr. Grigg who described the sword�s condition at that time. There does not seem to be an indication as to the time Mr. Grigg had it up for sale. When he sold it, or if there were any intervening owners. That information may be in the documents you have and I may have missed it (?). But that is my understanding at the moment. Most Respectfully, FP

[email protected]

Image 2.

Rob NL, If I might at times seem to be critical of things please understand my motivation. I am not trying to be confrontational. In a discussion different points of view are expected because we all have different backgrounds and experiences. I don�t know that anybody expected the discussion to evolve as it has so far.

If you like the sword that is what counts. But please understand that there are lessons for all of us here to be learned. And I am trying to give my best honest opinion from my perspective. I hope that you accept my intent even if you disregard whatever else I might say or present. Regards, FP

Very interesting debate which hopefully remains civil as we all learn from this thread. While I don't wish to make any comments as to the authenticity of the sword which appears to be a fine period piece by most accounts, my observations relate to the inscriptions in general.

I am by profession a graphic designer and started my field as a typographer and scribe (lettering artist), having studied under a German master scribe who actually served part of his apprenticeship at one of the blade producers during the War, I forget now which. He related to us some of the methods used on dedication blades and we as apprentices had to apply some of these old techniques ourselves to various contoured metal objects. There were typically several scribes employed by factories, each of which applied their own favoured techniques and styles. The dedication blades were highly contested by the scribes as not only was there a level of prestige, but it detracted from the daily mill of artwork and lettering, as such, great care was generally taken in lettering a named dedication. Back then this work was done with a flat pen and masking ink. The technique I was taught differs slightly to that explained by FredJS in that the scribe would carefully plot the dedication on paper to achieve the correct position, centering and also the required line breaks and border dimensions. From there a acid resistant "ink" was written directly onto the blade using a broad pen by the scribe in Gothic calligraphy. Corrections and deletions to his workmanship were common until the scribe was completely satisfied with his typography, layout and penmanship. As FredJS pointed out, the etching process was done by a different tradesman.

FredJS's point about capitalisation of Gothic style letting is valid in my experience. Gothic capitals are basically illegible to most, however not to people back then, capitalisation was usually done in the style of the hand-written script, and the combination of Roman style lettering would not have been characteristic, certainly not back then, HOWEVER, each scribe had his own style, letter forms and unique characteristics in how they formed and completed words, some better than others. Lettering for flags, medals, etc would NOT fall into this category, I refer specifically to the penmanship of the scribe lettering in Gothic hand. There are several key factors that I personally look for in any hand-written inscription.

No two letters should ever be identical, while the scribe tried to achieve uniformity, it is very difficult, so there are usually small differences in the spaces, shapes and angle of pen-strokes. This can even be noted on "mass-produced" inscriptions like SA & SS mottoes which were also hand-penned for the master templates.

One will often note forced compression of ascenders and decenders on these inscriptions in an effort to try and fit them into the blade fuller. You will often see compressed "g, h, p and the flourishes on capital letters.

Many fakes produced post-war use mechanical fonts which were created using rub-down letters produced by Letraset, often in a font called Fraktur which was based on Germanic script. Also fakers would use "Old English" style text which has a different style to the Germanic form. You'll often see these on those early UK etched K98 bayonets.

Many post-war inscriptions were not done by scribes, but by finished artists who frequently made errors in letter form, character angles and the shapes of flourishes, many "rules" of penmanship were broken by these artists, thus easily detectable.

Just my two cents from my own personal experience...

Red

Is there a maker mark on this particular sword? I don't think that has ever come up and is important to the discussion.

Red, thanks for your interesting post. I don't mean to get off topic here, but perhaps you could detail all that you know about the lettering process on blades on a new thread. It would be extremely valuable for future reference! Max

Gentlemen,

Here is a photograph from the Eickhorn "Leisten und Dienen" book published in 1940 that shows the process that Red is describing. Notice the inscription being hand lettered onto the blade by the craftsman with the aid of a magnifying loupe.

I hope this helps illustrate the process.

JR, Now that you mention it no picture of a maker mark has been posted. The sword has been described as an Eickhorn. And I would have to agree that a maker mark would be an important factor that has to be taken into account.

Red Baron, A very interesting presentation. I think I still have a mass produced wax mask from a blade maker that would have been applied to a blade like a decal. My recollection is that the transfers were then cleaned up prior to etching. I also found interesting the discussion of mechanical fonts and letter styles. There was never any doubt in my mind that the etched 98K bayonets were fakes. But I did not known that they were done with �Old English� style fonts.

And thanks to George for an excellent visual representation of a period craftsman at work. It really does help to bring what was involved to create an etching into focus. Regards to All, FP

Not much of a blade man, but have seen much in the "Betterment" departmet of antiques. There are many interesting points being brought forward. Firt how and where. Then form of inscription. This being discused by Fred Stephens, then amplified by Red Barron. The paperwork, questionable. Grip and hanger. This would be enough for me to want to serriously stand back, take a very deep breath. THEN and THEN - think again.

I was sent pictures of a simmilar sword with prov to a Knights cross winner. Simmilar story, simmilar inscription. BUT . This was direct from the family.

quote:

I was sent pictures of a simmilar sword with prov to a Knights cross winner. Simmilar story, simmilar inscription. BUT . This was direct from the family

quote:

If youre not buying it send some pics to me , I am interested.
Wich part of the paperwork is questionable?
If it was faked wouldnt they change the discussion point in the letters?
Fred , the foto was with the documents and was made by Grigg , he allready wrote about wolf beeing in the paper clips that he put up with the sword for display.A larger picture is on the way. I will also send some pics of the handle to you , because I dont feel like discussing and posting this sword anymore , I believe its real and its going to stay in my collection for a VERY long time , ( so eveybody that have send me e-mails , I will not sell ! }
Fred , nice to hear that you dont want to confrontational , thanks , to be honest , somethimes I did have this feeling that you were.
So guys , thanks for all your replies , and I wil see you all soon . ( on another thread )

Craig, i appreciate your thoughts and understand that you strongly dissagree with my thoughts. I have to say again, not a blade man - but have a wide experiece in other metal field. Again all I can say is I would count to 10, think hard and then think again. Craig if you are happy, well what more is needed. You have the knoledge, expertise and the piece in hand.

Chris: Amen.

Craig,
Please forgive me but some things you just can�t let slide. First, I don�t have an obsession with the grip. I pointed out using the grip itself as proof that a piece of it is missing. Not ripped leather.

And what seems to be very conveniently forgotten is that the sword now has a hanger. Was that also an incorrect description. An oversight?

I also understand fitting and tolerances, having spent a part of my life in professions where they are critical. My dad used to have a saying that: �If at first it doesn�t fit get a bigger hammer�. He was joking. But from what I�ve seen so far the sword handle shows signs of abuse and a forced fit.

And where are the 40 year old pictures? Was the one I reposted supposed to be one of them? And how would they make a difference other than to show a parts change was not recently done?

If I saw the scabbard and hilt of this sword on a used but relatively decent early period Fliegerschwert f�r Unteroffizier mit Portepee I would not give it a second glance. But on a late presentation sword where the owner states that he kept it in his closet. In a time where pistols were becoming the required side arms?

In my honest opinion the sword has significant liabilities - unless you want to focus only on the blade.
Most Respectfully, FP


PS to Rob: My apology. The first two messages I was not able to open. My computer did not recognize the format. The third was the one (typo correction) already posted showing the display.

Rob,
I was able to open 010, 011, 012, and 013 after some manipulation. Sometimes collectors send me items for a private evaluation which I keep confidential if that is their desire. I know that you are quite understandably becoming disenchanted with this discussion. I will either post or keep confidential the images as you wish, and you can send me a private message letting me know what to do.
With My Best Regards, FP

I stated early on in this discussion that I felt the fittings were not original to the blade. I still feel this way and am sure they were not the period fittings of this presentation sword.
I cannot comment on the originality of the blade until I see it in person, but I am, like others commenting, questioning the work.
Lastly, I feel FP and I appear to agree on our feeling. I am SURE the documentation is original, but the real question is: Is this the piece referred to in the documentation? This is why when I document an item with the veteran, I take photos of the veteran, the piece and the two together. Just my opinion of the manner in which to secure documentation.
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

Am I missing something here?


"quote:
Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb:
I'm sorry, Chris, but I disagree strongly. And this will be my FINAL post regarding this. Fred cast doubt on this piece by making a very boldy-stated argument, and was shown to be wrong on EVERY single point that he made. Read the above thread, and you will see that because he recognized this, he focused his public assault using two arguments"

I am under the impression that Craig Gottlieb brought this topic to the forum. Fred Stephens did not focus a "public assault" on this sword from my viewpoint. FS simply responded to Craig's public "Presentation Sword to RK Winner" thread. It is simply a "disagreement" as Craig states.


"The first argument - that the sword was sloppily etched, was shown to be irrelevant - it is actually bueatifully etched, in perfect keeping with the standard of the time. That Fred's standard exceeds the standards of etched pieces produced in solingen is not relevant here. My post of two beautiful period swords shows that I am right, and Fred's standard is too high. Anyone who still disagrees - pull out your own etched blade and have a look - you'll find the same quality of etching on your piece as found on this piece."

As both Fred Prinz and Red point out this is not a standard etching template but is a custom lettered etch.


"The second argument involved the production of lettering. The argument was filled with 'would have and should have' arguments that do not hold up when you view the evidence - other typeset words - on paper, on badges, on flags, and even on swords. Again, while Fred's single remaining objection is interesting, it does not hold up when you scrutinize the body of evidence that contradicts his opinion. The simple truth is that he can say 'it was a certain way' until he is blue in the face, but when the body of material indicates otherwise, he should retract his statement."

It seems this is also Red's opinion and they were both semingly trained in this particular technological field. Anybody can have an opinion and differing opinions sometimes do not get resolved.


"And then we have Fred Prinz's obsession with suggsting that the handle has been changed out - all because of a rip in the grip. I am sorry, Fred, but you have not handled this sword in hand, and you are frankly not experienced enough with this sword to make condemnation because you FEEL that the rip in the leather was caused by a mismatch-of-parts. Folks - I don't know what Fred Prinz's experience is, but mine is plenty - this sword hilt fits in perfectly with the other hundreds of Luftwaffe sword hilts that I have seen - the quality and construction is no different than any other sword. It's obvious to most people that either the grip was damaged at some point, or it was incorrectly described. In my view, it is the latter. Besides, the grip and entire hilt is shown in the 40 year old pictures as the same as it is today. That's much further documentation into the history of a piece than 99% of us have on any piece we own."

It seems that we once again have a legitimate difference in opinion as both men are experienced and respected collectors.


"In summary, don't forget one thing, readers. This sword has NO liabilities. And, unless you believe Fred's assertion that 'Mr. Wolf was in on it' (ludicrous, given how little money this sword traded hands for, and ludicrous given the mere thought by itself), this sword has more provenance than almost any piece in any of your collections"

I took this discussion to be over the provenance and documentation not quite matching the material culture artifact. That is to say, the condition of the grip and the absense/presence of a hanger.


"There have been many objections brought up, but they have each been dealt with and shown to be spurious arguments. Of course, many would have you believe that a pile of discredited tangents makes a strong case against this sword. But, it does not. It is a beautiful sword that every advanced collector and researcher who has held it in hand, loved and believed in. That Fred Stephens doesn't like it, and Fred Prinz thinks the hilt has been changed out, is irrelevant, given the strong refutation that has been made against their points. Enough"

Well, I do agree that this is probably, "Enough."

I don't have a dog in this fight. I have no monetary interest in this sword. I did not sell it nor did I buy it. I make no statement for or against the originality of this particular sword.

Frankly, it seems that this thread illustrates legitimate differences in opinion. If the owner of this sword is happy with it, that is enough for me. I suppose it should be clear by now that high profile and high dollar swords will always be controversial and honorable men will just have to agree to disagree.

Ron: With respect, it is shameful that you would not acknowledge that this blade adheres to the standard etching quality found on almost all etched swords, bayonets, and daggers. As for the hilt, we know that it's been this way for at least the last 40 years. Everyone who has had the sword in their possession and everyone who has had it in-hand, agrees that it is original. Fred's arguments, and my rejoinders, are very clearly outlined above. If you can't see the truth, so be it. By the way, ORPO - the etching IS a TEXTBOOK eickhorn template, so you are incorrect.

Craig, the truth is not the truth for me until I deem it the truth.

Okay, so I guess you're as much a skeptic as Fred Stephens - no harm in that Here, incidentally, is a photo of the hilt, taken circa 1970. You can clearly see the "rip" and the hilt, as it is today, in this photo (along with the surviving hilt). Again, I keep saying I am done with this thread, but I keep coming back! I will try not to comment again - I promise!

Also, this photo collage should put to rest Fred Prinz's belief that the handle was somehow "cracked" when mismatched parts were installed on the hilt for some reason. The photos clearly show that the "mysterious" rip in the leather is just that - a rip. The wood under the leather is neither damaged nor crushed, as Fred Prinz would have had us believe. Oops! That was one last comment, but I couldn't resist. So, anybody who has damaged leather on a 70 year old dagger should immediately be suspect that the dagger is a parts dagger . . . NOT!

I have one observation to make here since I don't believe it's been previously mentioned. When I examine and edged weapon I like to see consistency in aging. If the grip shows lots of use but the scabbard is pristine my alarms start going off. Agreed we're looking at photos here but please examine the 30 year old one above my post. My point being is the guilding wear on the pommel swastika consistent with the guilding wear on the crossguard swastika?
I also don't remember the maker of this sword being identified.
Jim

Craig,

Here is what I said...

"As both Fred Prinz and Red point out this is not a standard etching template but is a custom lettered etch."

Is this an Eickhorn sword/blade?

This sword certainly does not have a standard textbook Eickhorn etch template. If it did, the lettering would say something to the effect of "Zur Erinnering an meine Dienstzeit" or some other generic statement as shown in the Eickhorn catalogs. It could then be compared with other standard boilerplate templates from Eickhorn or others. Instead it has a customized presentation inscription. That is why I said, "custom lettered etch."

Portions of the etch are an Eickhorn style template. The lettering itself is a custom etch. The style of the custom lettering is what I have been reading the discussion on. You are either selectively mis-interpreting what others are saying or you are mis-understanding.

Please do not mis-interpret what I say.

Craig,

I quote from your submission on this site of about an hour ago, as follows:
----------------------------
ORPO - the etching IS a TEXTBOOK eickhorn template, so you are incorrect.
----------------------------

Would you please tell me exactly what is a "TEXTBOOK eickhorn template," do you have a positive definition and explanation for this? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

You are by no means finished with this thread, Craig. You have made too many contentious statements and accusations - including some against myself. The time has come for you to stand up and prove your points, because in my personal experience your commentary is somewhat lacking in authentication and hard evidence.

Frederick J. Stephens

In another sword thread we discussed swords with backwards swastikas. Many did not believe they could be period made but I THINK by the end of the thread many had changed their minds. However, here, it would certainly seem that minds are not going to be changed. So let's not go any further with this, everything has been said--It's a matter of opinion. Let's not get nasty. It serves no purpose.