Craig, As to what we can agree on, at least from my perspective, I think that it depends on what it is.
1) The Huhnlein signature on the back of the damascus blades are all identical to each other with respect to shape.
Yes and no. They are generally similar, but exhibit (IMO) noticeably more variations that comparable Himmler signed blades. (See attached.)
2) They do not match identically with the "fake" inscription on the back of the plain-bladed fake (as has been alleged),
I�m not quite sure what is going on with this one. And it�s a little hard to say for sure (at this late date) from an old photograph in print. Could it be just be poor workmanship versus something intentional? A problem with an etching mask, or a less skilled worker? Unknown. See second image.
3) and all observable Huhnlein signatures exhibit variations - printed, etched, cast: whatever the medium.
I disagree. I don�t ever expect to see significant variations in stamped plaques. Or cast ones using the same (master) mold for that matter - other than them breaking down. And I would not expect to see really significant variations in the etched signatures on blades from the same maker (except to the same extent that we see for example minor variables with the Himmler etches). Which does not seem to be the case here. And because the plaque signature more closely matches the one in the book. I think that it has more credibility as to what his �official� signature was supposed to look like.
4)But again, lets get back to the new documentary evidence, which I will be adding to over the next few days.
That�s fine. But I�m not as interested in the documentation as much as I am the dagger itself. By way of explanation: The guy with the P-38 pistol that I mentioned earlier had a ton of documentation. With no disrespect intended to the original owner. His problem was once the item was looked at. There was no question that it had been significantly altered in the postwar period. With the documentation really only proving that he acquired that particular pistol from that individual. My point being that for that particular item - the item itself told the story. And the documentation had no real value as regards its current configuration.
And I would also add, without seeing an item first, how do we properly evaluate the supporting documentation?? (Usually it is the other way around.) FP
Attached: An image of some signatures which I think I�ve posted before in an earlier thread. Showing some of the variables in signatures. My best recollection is that there was permission to post these images, which has not always been the case, and if I have erred I apologize.
