I can see that this thread, and its subject matter, is taking on a life all of its own - so Jim M, and F.P. (both of whom I respect greatly) your deviation into pistols and plating is another interesting aside. However, I must concentrate on my main issue, and as Craig has chosen to summarise it in the thread above here, then I will respond accordingly.
Just for the record, there is no animosity or "personal jabs at each other" here - but we are doing a bit of "sparring". Some distinguished observers are concerned that we are "getting at each other" - so I am sure that Craig will confirm that this is all in good spirit.
And so to the business: Craig states: 1) He doesn't like the signature on the blade, believing it to be "unlike" actual Hunlein signatures. Response: You are absolutely right - there is a serious difference and defect in the signature construction, and it does require some explanation. I have tried, and I cannot find a good explanation to account for this - and please do believe me, Craig - and all the others who genuinely incline towards your view - I really have tried to see if I can find any justification for your unequivocal acceptance for this form of signature - but I have failed to find anything. No doubt your are going kindly correct me, with the missing proof.
Craig states: 2) He believes the markings on the back of the silver chain version are below the quality standards he expects. Response: NO Craig, I never stated that at all - come along, if you want to play this game then get your facts right. I have stated on several occasions that the issue with the markings on the back of the cartouche, the so called hallmarks and Otto Gahr marking, is that they are FAKED. The are crudely cast into the reverse, and entirely inappropriate. I do not have a problem with your disagreeing with me; but please at least be truthful about why we differ in our views.
Craig states: 3) He observed the appearance of the NSKK High Leader and a fake "plain bladed" NSKK reproduction, surface at the same time - the late 1970s, I believe. Since the signatures match, he believes they were both made by the same forger. Response: Well, you are almost right in this comment, Craig. It wasn't in the "late 1970s" - it was the EARLY 1970s - but such a distinction is not important in your way of analysing things. The actual details and photos were subsequently published in Angolia's book, in 1974. As for the identical similarity of the signatures - my conclusion was that they had come from the same original master source. The remaining question is: a) Are both signatures fraudulent? or: b) are we to believe that the fraudulent signature was exactingly copied from a confirmed original master example?
As you clearly feel that you know much better than I on this matter (after all, you are buying these Huhnlein's out of the woodwork all of the time!), please do offer me the benefit of your knowledge - and share it with the rest of the community.
I do not mind your summarising my earlier comments, because I know, Craig, that we are both doing it for the greater benefit of the collecting community.
