Houston,
I will try and stick specifically to the points you made regarding my previous replies.
Yes, it is true that I was initially swayed by the SA rune formation on the back of the blade (why not an NSKK eagle?) and it immediately caused doubts. Perhaps there are some other authentic variants of the SA rune emblem that would make this version seem correct - but I didn't have the same range of research material available to me at that time, it was after all 35 years ago.
It was the clean crispness of the etch, compared to the aged and ingrained appearance of the trademark that also suggested that the etching was a more recent addition.
I am fully aware of the existence of the authentic photo showing an alleged pattern of the broad catch NSKK in wear. I also have another genuine photo showing the same configuration in wear by Huhnlein himself. Are the existing examples of these broad catch daggers presumed to be these same exact daggers in wear? I have my theories and evidence which I will ultimately promote.
Elsewhere it has been pointed out that the Huhnlein signature is etched into the blade (intaglio etching), and not raised from the surface like the rest of the etching on the blade (trade mark and obverse motto). I have no real explanation for this, other than that the application of the signature to the blade may have been an after thought - although just how long after is a debatable matter!
I do confirm, however, that the presentation SA Honour Dagger Model 33 style - without chains - given by Schwartz to Lutze, does have an intaglio form inscription, and as far as I can see it is perfectly authentic.
FP has pointed out the blemish in the inscription, an appearance of "diffusion" in the middle of the signature. This has occurred because of a breakdown in the "acid resist". When the blade is being etched (and it sometimes takes 2 or 3 immersions in the acid bath) the portions NOT to be etched are covered with an acid resist - to ensure that only the exposed areas of the design receive the acid. The blade should be checked periodically, to ensure that the acid hasn't broken through the resist and spread outwards, instead of biting straight down.
It would seem that such precise, professional care has not been taken in this case - not quite what you would expect for such a prestigeous award? I also recall that I may have seen this exact item in the possession of an English dealer in the 1990s, because I pointed that failed etching out to him. (If it is not the same item, then there must be two examples with the identical failure).
Finally, it has been suggested that Craig started this thread with the deliberate intention of baiting me, as he certainly mentions me by name at the beginning. Well, I am not going to play ball, I am happy with all my information and I will share it all when I publish.
Thanks to all for your e-mails of support and encouragement. I will reply.
FJS
