It is true to say that many collectors are surprised about the physical construction of the FHH dagger. There seems to be a general consensus that the quality of the piece is not of the higher standard as might be expected for such a rare and elite dagger, however, there is a probable reason for this.
It has been correctly pointed out (by Philippe) that these pieces are not presentation items, they are a regular Service Dress item. They were to be worn on everyday duty by senior ranks within the Feldherrnhalle. As such, I believe that these items were purchased by the eligible FHH member, in just the same way that he would be responsible for paying for his own uniform. It became a matter of economics that these daggers needed to be produced at an affordable price. Because of the known limited quantity of them that would be finally required, it became a determining factor concerning how much could be spent in tooling up for the production. That limitation reflected itself in final quality and appearance of the item.
To make an analogy, we have all seen fine examples of the Army Dagger, or Luftwaffe Model 1937, which are far superior in quality to the FHH dagger, or say the Government Officials dagger. The reason for this is simply the vast volume of such pieces that would be required – it would run into hundreds of thousands. With such a market the manufacturer could afford to invest in high quality tooling and dies, because it comes down to a fractional cost of each produced item.
With a limited production run of around 50 unique form daggers, the proportional cost of originating them becomes rather high on a unit basis. So some sacrifices have to be made somewhere, to keep the item within an acceptable budget.
The most expensive part of the FHH dagger is the scabbard, because the shell of the body is pressed in a die. I have wondered for a long time why it was permitted to produce the pieces with the flaw in the panel line. My guess is – and this is purely speculation – that it was a combination of time and cost. The flaw is there, but it is not really noticeable unless you know to look for it. It certainly is not glaringly obvious in the normal course of wear. The time factor is also important, as I believe that the first time the dagger was seen in wear was during Italian General Russo’s official visit to Berlin, July, 1938; and then later the same month when Lutze led an entourage on a return visit to Rome.
The concept that the need to have the daggers completed for wear in time for these official events, may have over-ridden any opportunity to have the scabbard die re-made. It is a possibility that cannot be dismissed, but as I say, it is speculation.
On the subject concerning how much information should be revealed about the fine details daggers, especially rare ones, I acknowledge and respect Wotan’s reservations about this. I am fully aware of the criticisms levelled at me, that some of my revelations make it easier for fakers to correct their work. There may be some argument to support this, but I have another point of view, and it is as follows:
I do not believe that there should be a cartel of knowledge, held by few and denied to many, because the less information a collector has, then the easier it is for the faker to pass his wares. It is my concept that the more information that is known about items, then the harder it is for the faker to make his product – because it means that he has to put more effort and skill into producing the item. The knowledge is only one part of the equation. The skill to produce the artifact is also required, and the higher the skill level the more it costs in time and money. Faker’s do not like that – it eats into the profits, they are looking for easy money.
So my final comment is that I would far sooner equip the collector with as much information as possible, rather than withhold it from them, and potentially leave them at the mercy of some unscrupulous people.
Frederick J. Stephens
