UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Miscellaneous Dagger Forum RAD "FATMAN"

I asc FJS about Fatman and his opinions, he answer me:

TEXT FOR GDC RAD KREBS FEATURE:
The current interest in the matter of the RAD �Fat Man� Hewer has been brought to my attention � with a request that I clarify some statements previously made; and which are in conflict with my comments made in later years.
The information published in my Reproduction? Recognition! (R?R!) book, 1976 edition, pages 58-59, does indeed state that the Krebs �Fat Man� was constructed of original parts. This information was relayed to me by Jack Angolia, with whom I was in regular contact during the 1960s and �70s. It was also stated to me that issue and marketing of the hewer was curtailed because of the war effort.
As this information seemed be a reasonable explanation to account for this hewer version, there were no obvious grounds to question it; I believe that Jack Angolia genuinely believed in this account, and I accepted it at face value.
Another piece of information related to me, at that time, was that when Atwood found the supply of Krebs hewers, there were no scabbards with them. So Atwood had Krebs produce new scabbards so he could market the items more effectively. I believe that this account of the hewers and the scabbards had come from Atwood himself, so there seemed to be no reason to doubt the explanation.
The photograph of the �Fat Man� hewer which I used in both editions of the R?R! book (1976, and 1981 respectively), had come to me from Andy Southard Jr. Andy, who was based in Salinas, California, was a highly competent professional photographer, and who additionally collected Third Reich militaria. The RAD hewer in question was, I believe, the specimen owned by Jack Angolia, and had been photographed for inclusion in a book that Jack was writing for Bender Publications. So all the information I had about these �Fat Man� hewers, at that time, was based on what Jack had told me, and the photograph which Andy had given me. I had yet to examine an actual specimen at first hand.
Even in those earlier days � 1960s-�70s-�80s � there were two main schools of thought about the Krebs �Fat Man� hewer. The first of these was that of it being an original �parts� item (as described above); the second line of thought was that the whole thing was a total fantasy, dreamt up by Col. Atwood. Unfortunately, because of some of the shenanigans that Atwood had been up to, there was grave distrust about some of the more curious pieces he was marketing � and as a result of this the status of the so-called �Fat man� hewer was viewed with suspicion.
My personal opinion concerning this RAD dagger was revised in the early 1990s, when I finally obtained an actual example, and was able to consider it with the benefit of first-hand examination and study � the result of which was the article that I published in the �Armourer� magazine. To briefly summarise this, I came to the conclusion that the �Fat Man� Hewer was indeed completely authentic � and not only that I consider it to be a very early production piece.
The basis of this opinion was created through the following observations:
a) The trademark on the blade is that of a Crowned letter �K� stamped into the blade (not etched) and this is consistent with early period Krebs items.
b) The hilt is made of iron (generally indicative of the early period) and not the more usually encountered alloy type hilt which superceded it.
c) The whole Hewer is constructed to a working standard � far more robust that the usual type of hewer; and the notch on the blade is (in my opinion) designed to be accommodated in some type of clamp to facilitate the sharpening of the blade � this was a real working tool.
Why the design should be abandoned, and replaced with the more familiar pattern of hewer is unknown to me, but I do believe that the �Fat Man� is genuinely an early production piece and exclusively produced by Krebs.
I have a �regular� Krebs hewer and the �Fat Man� hewer which I am preparing to dispose of. If anyone desires further photographs of these for comparison purposes, then please contact me and I will be happy to supply images high-lighting the particular portions that are of interest. My direct e-mail is: [email protected]
I hope that the above explanation answers the various questions, concerning why I amended my original opinion to my currently expressed statement. Like everyone else in this business, I continue to learn � and where better facts seem to clearly advance our knowledge, then I am happy to set the record straight.
Frederick J. Stephens