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
