It would seem that Frederick ( although he has not said so exactly in so many words) is saying that the signature is the thing he has a problem with-not the dagger. The dagger is shown in at least one period photo-So???? Is ANYONE saying that photo is a fake? I don't think so but I could be wrong. Anyway, if not altered, The dagger IS period, PERIOD. No more need for any more Bla Bla about that.
So--It seems to me that it was said long ago that the signature came into doubt in the old days MOSTLY because of the SA runics on the blade with it.In fact I recall that it was clearly stated that this "fraud" would NOT have been noticed except for this. Go ahead and correct me here if I am wrong--but I don't think so. The point of the arrow head did not pierce the circle--this was the big red flag. Again, I think I am correct here. So--If that is the basis for the doubt about the signature?????
I gotta tell you--There ARE period SA items that ALSO have this different rendition of those runes. Oh YES!
So--Does that blow up the idea that the signature is bad?? Hmmm!
So--Even IF the signature is bad -has someone been going around altering original SA honor daggers to make them NSKK ?--Oh horror of horrors--I hope not!! Naaa! I can't buy that one.
OK--Lets talk about the chain top box fitting Vrs. the clip.--The box fitting is shown in wear in the period? unaltered? photo. This we know.
So--why do some have the clip? Well-- the photos I have seen seem to indicate the clip is made of different material or plated differently and presents a different looking color than the rest of the chain.I am not a metal expert -but I know a bit about metals-- This makes me think that at least some of the clips are replacements--I don't know when but it seems they were changed during the period or improved to sort of match the SA versions. Why? Who knows? But fake? I don't think so. Many revisions of edged weapon patterns were made during the period for whatever reason.
So--There are my thoughts--tear them up if you can!
