I think that we have to give them the benefit of a doubt while more information is collected. While I have some experience in metal stamping, and larger scale casting operations, these are smaller parts which brings into play other factors. I have a brother who does commercial precision investment casting and will get some input from him. Although as I said initially my sense of the parts themselves is that they were cast. The double strike of the �800� on #2 and the misalignment and possible overstrike on #1 suggest hand stamping. The other markings I�m not as sure of, and while require some more thought, and possibly some outside input. As for the Gahr markings they are not the same as on the Birthday swords. But that is not conclusive in itself unless it can be confirmed that Gahr never ever used the same mark. And even then it could be a gray area, unless it's discovered that the mark was used somewhere else.
We also don�t want to forget the first example which is more or less in an uncleaned condition (although it could have been cleaned in the past). Some of the irregularities we see could be the effect of aging/corrosion which can have unpredictable results. And might require further study. And it could also be that the wide connector links were �product improvements� because the other style was found wanting for some reason. Or a replacement component. What I think might be critical here is how well the links front and back match up to the connectors in terms of wear, manufacture, and age.
When I first started to look into the �Type X� SS chains there was the possibility that some might have thought them to be fakes because almost no one had seen them before. That was not the case - but it was only after a more through investigation that any doubts or fears could be put to rest. FP
