Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb: I'm sorry, Chris, but I disagree strongly. And this will be my FINAL post regarding this. Fred cast doubt on this piece by making a very boldy-stated argument, and was shown to be wrong on EVERY single point that he made. Read the above thread, and you will see that because he recognized this, he focused his public assault using two arguments.
The first argument - that the sword was sloppily etched, was shown to be irrelevant - it is actually bueatifully etched, in perfect keeping with the standard of the time. That Fred's standard exceeds the standards of etched pieces produced in solingen is not relevant here. My post of two beautiful period swords shows that I am right, and Fred's standard is too high. Anyone who still disagrees - pull out your own etched blade and have a look - you'll find the same quality of etching on your piece as found on this piece.
The second argument involved the production of lettering. The argument was filled with "would have and should have" arguments that do not hold up when you view the evidence - other typeset words - on paper, on badges, on flags, and even on swords. Again, while Fred's single remaining objection is interesting, it does not hold up when you scrutinize the body of evidence that contradicts his opinion. The simple truth is that he can say "it was a certain way" until he is blue in the face, but when the body of material indicates otherwise, he should retract his statement.
And then we have Fred Prinz's obsession with suggsting that the handle has been changed out - all because of a rip in the grip. I am sorry, Fred, but you have not handled this sword in hand, and you are frankly not experienced enough with this sword to make condemnation because you FEEL that the rip in the leather was caused by a mismatch-of-parts. Folks - I don't know what Fred Prinz's experience is, but mine is plenty - this sword hilt fits in perfectly with the other hundreds of Luftwaffe sword hilts that I have seen - the quality and construction is no different than any other sword. It's obvious to most people that either the grip was damaged at some point, or it was incorrectly described. In my view, it is the latter. Besides, the grip and entire hilt is shown in the 40 year old pictures as the same as it is today. That's much further documentation into the history of a piece than 99% of us have on any piece we own.
In summary, don't forget one thing, readers. This sword has NO liabilities. And, unless you believe Fred's assertion that "Mr. Wolf was in on it" (ludicrous, given how little money this sword traded hands for, and ludicrous given the mere thought by itself), this sword has more provenance than almost any piece in any of your collections.
There have been many objections brought up, but they have each been dealt with and shown to be spurious arguments. Of course, many would have you believe that a pile of discredited tangents makes a strong case against this sword. But, it does not. It is a beautiful sword that every advanced collector and researcher who has held it in hand, loved and believed in. That Fred Stephens doesn't like it, and Fred Prinz thinks the hilt has been changed out, is irrelevant, given the strong refutation that has been made against their points. Enough.
