Then back to �basics� it is: Among some of the items that were removed was a comment, and question, to Frederick J. Stephens. More specifically the comment that the dagger Serge posted was a fake. And that fake copies of items that are at some point determined to be earlier fakes is not at all uncommon with TR items.
I also asked a question about the width of the gold characters in the �H�hnlein� signature in the third image he posted. To confirm my belief that signatures written with a pen can vary slightly in width as the tip of the pen is turned/rotated. But that to get the extra width seen in some of the H�hnlein dagger signatures the writer would have to go back and forth, up and down. To fill in the character which is not the normal way people sign things. And in the case of the daggers, is seen with some examples, to be the work of a machine engraver which does not seem to be disputed.
Also removed I think was an observation that the Offermann dagger (with the possible exception of the crossguards) bears no resemblance to any of the current �H�hnlein� daggers other than it is a political type dagger. And more specifically, neither any part of the chain assembly, nor the center mount match those currently in circulation. Although it does appear to have the more ornate type crossguards.
My point being if the markings (of current examples) are cast on the wide connector variety (no question about that). And they don�t exist on any known period object (other than the daggers). And are not in period documentation. And the wide connector in the photo is very noticeably physically different from all those in circulation now. Is all of that together: �one of the mysteries of life�. Or a reasonably clear indication that it�s just one more example of a fake made specifically to fool the TR collecting public? FP
