Fred States: "Wolfe is emphatic in the correspondence that �no photos were taken� and that the whole ceremony was �unofficial� - all very convenient to cloud the issue of Wolf�s recall or his understanding of the questions being asked by Mr. Bayliss."
Unfortunately, Fred has not been present at many award ceremonies, and presupposes a very romantic but inaccurate view of military awards ceremonies. I have been at countless military award ceremonies in my life (both as a bystander, and a recipient) where the whole thing IS rather unofficial. You can say with a smile "how conveeennnnnient" that this was not the number one reported event in the Reich that day, but the fact of the matter is that ceremonies like this are often semi-formal events. You cannot follow this theme, because it presupposes an entirely inaccurate view of how things "should have been" in the military. This is a mistake that you will make again and again in your analysis.
I do not propose to follow this theme, because it diverts us from the main issue. Suffice to say that I do not trust Wolf�s replies in the correspondence, and I will concentrate my efforts towards the inscription on the blade.
You cannot gloss over the validity of Wolfe as a reliable witness to the originality of the sword, and simply dismiss him from the proceedings. That cuts to the very heart of the issue - that a sword that he remembers, and acknowleges as his - does not match up with the way you want swords to look.
I have identified a lot of features on this sword etching which I find to be questionable, and indeed completely at fault. However, as I cannot be bothered to fend off the mind-numbing atavistic rejections that my information attracts from one particular quarter - I will reduce my critique of this item down to one single line.
No, Fred. The reason you will not mention your original objections is because they have been shown to be entirely inaccurate. For example, you stated emphatically that German common nouns are not capitalized. Well, the world proved you wrong. You stated that the NSDAP did not give out military swords, they gave out NSDAP awards. You were again shown by reputable members of the forum to be wrong. You stated that it was highly suspicious that the date 20 April would be used on an award of this type, and we have shown that the date - the Fuhrer's birthday - is one of the most common dates for presenting things, granting promotions, etc. So, your "numerous" features which you "found to be questionable" were not really questionable at all. It is important to remember this, folks. He doesn't have a laundry list of points here to make his case, as he suggests.
It is the last line on the sword etching, the one which states: NSDAP. Mannheim 20. April 1942. The lettering Artist has made some notable failings with this line. For example: Point 1) The whole line is off-centre to the rest of the inscription. It is not much, only about 5mm, but it is enough to be seen and any professional artist would have corrected that. Point 2 - and also Point 3) The wording and punctuation seem to be at some odds. NSDAP is followed by a full point (period mark (.) - US) then by the word Mannheim. A much greater space follows this - and then appears the date 20. April 1942. It becomes impossible to tell if this means that the award is from the NSDAP at Mannheim ? OR, Is it from the NSDAP. (given at.....) Mannheim, 20. April 1942? The legend becomes incomprehensible. These features - the notably off-set line, and the clumsy spacing and punctuation are in my opinion evidence of extremely poor workmanship (by the Lettering Artist) and are indicative of a non-professional approach to the job. Craig is going to dispute this - he is going to say that mistakes and flaws are common on German Daggers (that they are virtually �normal�). In fact he will come out with his fatuous argument about the Bahnschutz crossguard with its famous �flaw�; or his claim that the Blood Order has a similar �flaw�. None of these arguments are proven (in my opinion), but we have to put up with it.
Fred's opinion about things military, while romantic, is not accurate. He has always believed that flaws such as ones he has pointed out "would never be allowed" and "would not be tolerated." My opinions about the Blood Order flaw are NOT opinions, and ARE very relevant here. The blood order, which was considered to be the most coveted political award during the time, has a flaw. So why can't the spacing of this very long dedication be off a little? My famous Max Amann dagger, which was presented by a Reichleiter to a Gauleiter, has an actual crack in the middle of the blade that is documented in a period photograph to have left the factory that way. I have had formal Knights Cross documents wherein the name of the recipient was misspelled. We can go on and on about flaws, because most people understand and respect the notion that German craftsmen are not as pefect as you would believe them to be. I don't have to prove these things (well, with the exception of the Max Amann dagger, which is self-evident by the period photo). And you don't have to "put up with" these things - the fact is you are too romantic in your view of quality control. This is not my opinion - it is supported by evidence. So the spacing is a tad off - big deal. Give the guy a break, it's a long dedication, and I'm sure that Wolfe didn't panic when he got his ruler out after the award ceremony.
Take a look at the first word in the line: �NSDAP� - those five letters are presented in a solid Roman Font complete with serifs. And this is very curious because it is also a very post-war style. You see the usage of the Black Letter, or similar Fraktur styles does not encourage the expression of words in an all capital form. The reason being that it is almost illegible to read, the Black Letter does not lend itself to the complete capitalisation of long (or even short) words, and so the post-war western European practice was to substitute these Capital words with a non-Black Letter type face - a �Roman� form type face.
However, this artistic practice was not the norm for the Germans. They quite happily utilised all capitals in Black Letter with some of their words (NSDAP, NSKK, NSBO, etc. etc.). because the Black Letter was a very common alphabet to them - they had no problem in reading it. So the construction of the Adolf Wolf inscription reveals a very telling point - the Lettering Artist seems to have been schooled in the post-war concept of not using all Black Letter capitals - so he used a Roman serifed font instead. Therefore by doing it �right� he actually got it wrong for the time period concerned. Check the pre-war German references. You will see complete capital words in Black Letter everywhere - then look back at this inscription, it has all the attributes of a post-war construction. The Lettering Artist did not know that he should have used the Fraktur or Black Letter throughout the inscription - and therefore made his intellectual mistake.
As you can see, I have in my view easily and successfully refuted ALL of Fred's arguments except this last one. He suggests that General Wolfe is a charlatain (with no evidence whatsoever other than pure distaste with the way Wolfe tried to maneuver himself into a position to get the sword back cheap), made at least 3 statements about this sword that proved to be entirely incorrect, and has been shown to have a very romanticised view of military tradition and german craftsmanship that does not mesh with the facts. Regarding your final question, it's a simple one to answer. Walking around my office, I see TONS of material that contains block script. Look on ANY website or in any collection. BLOCK lettering is very common. That the artist chose to use it here is not atypical at all. So in answer to your assertion, I simply point to the myriad of unquestionably real artifacts that do contain block lettering in all capitals. It's shameful how much of it there is out there.
