Dave,

In response to your reply I have read through your first page - and indeed the entire thread, several times - and nowhere do you reveal a precise reason for believing that this SA Dagger is a fake. It might not be a bad idea if you re-read this same information yourself. It will assist the situation if you and I are seen to be assessing the same information. So I recommend that you firmly acquaint yourself with what is published in your name. You have made a statement - I am asking you to back it up.

Let�s be clear about this - you annotate your thread with the caption: �Anatomy of a Fake SA Hammesfahr�. Well there is no doubt about that description - we have here a basic SA dagger - sans scabbard - which you declare to be a fake; and you are going to take it apart and show us why it is wrong. No problem with that at all - except that you don�t show us what exactly is wrong with this item. This seems to me to be a failing in your analysis.

Starting at the beginning: You identify the hilt fittings correctly as being original - although they do appear to have been subjected to polishing, buffing, etc. etc. The presence of the �Om� stamp on the lower guard suggests that this portion of the item, at least, had spent some time as part of a Service Dagger. The stamped mark, by the way is an SA Group marking, not a �gau� marking as you incorrectly stated.

It now appears that what we have is not so much a �.........Fake SA Hammesfahr�, but an original hilt to which has been added a fake SA blade? Are you absolutely sure that the blade is fake?

I agree that the blade appears to have been worked upon - the tip seems to have been re-shaped, but cannot all this be the result of over-enthusiastic restoration? (After all, the hilt fittings have been subjected to some workmanship.) You state that the tang appears to be �larger� - larger than what, and by how much? If all this boils down to that this item has a marginally different tang, a �shiny� blade, and a slightly different trademark, is all that sufficient to declare this item to be faked - regardless of the fact that it is housed in an original hilt? Such a conclusion based upon such �facts� appears top be lacking measurable proof - empirical or otherwise.

The trademark, I agree, is intriguing. It has certainly been created from a different master pattern, and it has some slight differences to the �real� version that you show alongside. Within this �fake� trademark there are minute differences in the shape of some of the letters in the name and address - but I suspect that this is just some random difference created by the original lettering artist. If you look closely at your �original� trademark (and I do consider that your example is original) you will also find some small differences within the same letters - take a look at the letter �E� for example. In some of them the central crossbar of the �E� is much higher in position, whereas elsewhere it is more or less central.

On the "fake" trademark the most immediately recognisable and distinguishing feature concerns the �pyramid� emblem in the centre. Two brief points to present to you;
1) The �cross� emblem in the central face is more solid and thicker.
2) The position of the baseline of the pyramid shows that the total image is lower down. It aligns with the space between the text letters and the �dots�; whereas on your SS trademark it is roughly aligned with the start and finish of the text in the upper arc.

These differences are not enough, in my view, to declare the piece wrong. The apparent thickness of the lines in the trademark etch could be explained by the amount of time the piece spent in the etching bath.

Could it be, Dave, that what you have encountered here is in fact a previously unrecorded example of a Gottlieb Hammesfahr SA dagger; and by odd coincidence it just happens to have a trademark variation which similarly has not been noted before? There doesn�t appear to be anything else showing obvious red flags.

Please review your �Anatomy of a Fake SA Hammesfahr�. Is it possible that you have innocently made a mistake here - or is it myself who has over-looked something?

FJS