I posted a message early in this debate and have followed the discussion since then. I must admit at this point that I understand and share Craig�s general frustration. Over the past 20 years I�ve specifically studied factory presented edged weapons of the 3rd Reich. My equal passion for pieces I own is to locate original owners or their families. Over those two decades I have seen exceptions to many �accepted� rules. Rules developed by collectors, I should add, not decrees by Herr Eickhorn or the Reichf�hrer SS. In those cases I have listened to the people who were in fact there, and who actually owned the pieces that refute common assumptions. I will only note a few cases, but which address some of the topics raised in the debate on the Wolf sword [note, i reference photos below, but for some reason the exceeded the max allowed by GDC. sorry i couldn't post them].
1) Etching flaws. A couple of years ago I was very lucky to acquire a blue & gold paneled presentation sword to a Hauptmann. Lucky for me he later turned out to be a General. Even luckier, I found one of his surviving sons. Turns out the sword was in the family until the 1970s, when the older brother decided to sell it (without first asking the other son who I contacted last year). You will note that the blade has, in my opinion, a flaw. In fact, I�d say a major one. Look at the raised line that runs through the tops of the letters on the top line. Not the regular �accent� line between the border and the etch, but the one that actually cuts through the middle of some of the letters on the right side of that line. I�m sure that someone would say that it�s �not right�, but the son says otherwise, and noted that he held the sword in his hands many times when he was younger. It�s sloppy workmanship in my opinion, but anyone who holds the sword would know that it is real (well, maybe not everyone). Anyone who wishes to refute the authenticity can contact the son (who is still living). If you convince him that his father got a repro sword in 1931, hopefully he won�t ask me for his father�s Soldbuch and other documents back, which he gave me to preserve with the sword. (And for those who think the son is �in� on some fix against me, his gift of the Soldbuch and other documents is worth more than I paid for the sword, so you can bag that theory.)
2) The use of �early� materials on a later sword. Some seem to doubt that this was done. I think it�s only normal that the factories would put higher quality fittings on presentation swords. I have a sword out of the woodwork that was presented in May 1941 to a Gefreiter (a Field-Marshall series sword, nonetheless) that has early brass fittings. There are actually multiple things about the sword that refute common assumptions (presenting an officer�s sword that he wasn�t even authorized to wear; they misspelled name; his date of birth included in the presentation [the presentation was not on his birthday]; and a chrome plated scabbard). This was another fortunate case where I found the actual recipient. He�s now 92. He remembered the sword like he last held it yesterday, and verified that the sword I own is exactly the sword he had (as a side note, his father-in-law traded it to an American soldier in May 1945 for 2 cigarettes and a pack of tobacco). I can post photos and more info if so desired. Again, my purchase price precludes any �buy-off� of the vet.
3) Different lettering of NSDAP vs the rest of the inscription. Perhaps I�m missing something but it sounds like the theory is that forgers often used those types of letters because collectors had trouble reading the older, Germanic letters. If that�s the case, did the forgers start out the first 2 lines w/ the old script, suddenly realize that they were using the �wrong scrip� to trick a collector, change it for �NSDAP�, then decide �what the hell� and go back to the old scrip for the last part? If forgers were using more modern scrip for the benefit of fooling collectors, why would they use the old style on every other part of the presentation? It�s anyone�s guess why they accented NSDAP. Maybe because the NSDAP ordered it, and was a slightly important organization at that time? We don�t know, but I can give as many good reasons why it would have been done during the period as anyone else can as to why it wouldn�t have been done.
4) The �off-center� line at the bottom. It�s so minor I wouldn�t consider this a flaw. I�ve posted a circa 1904 damascus WKC presentation blade that also has the inscription �off� by about 5mm as well (on the bottom line the lettering on the right side extends out just a tad farther than on the left). I didn�t even notice until I looked at my pieces after reading the debate this morning. It probably doesn�t come through well in the pics, but it�s probably more �off-center� than the Wolf sword. I promise my WKC is real.
5) �Nicks�, �tears�, or whatever else you want to call them in the leather grip. I don�t see where anything has been presented that establishes this as a replacement grip, or complete replacement hilt. There seems to be concurrence that the scrapes could have happened if someone had taken it apart at some point and had reassembled it without proper care. While I can say that Howard Bayliss is a fine person and loves the hobby, he is not the greatest archivist or preservationist (no offense to Howard, who I like very much). When I saw the sword in his collection in the 1990s I was disheartened by the letters and other materials glued to the wooden board. Note that he cut one of the Wolf letters around the bottom to fit into the �collage�. Also, the sword was pressed into a plywood cut-out display (as you can see in the pics posted). I don�t think it�s a stretch to believe that the scrapes happened while in Howard�s possession. They�re so minor anyway, I don�t quite understand what�s being proved or disproved w/ the particular focus on that wear.
6) Scabbard hanger. I can�t say. Perhaps the leather hanger was added. Perhaps someone swapped an entirely new scabbard. If I owned this piece and the scabbard was of proper vintage, matched the wear/finish on the fittings, matched the style attributed to the manufacturer on the blade, and was the proper length, I simply wouldn�t care. That�s just me. I don�t swap pieces and I�d rather have a worn piece that I know is original than something I know is replaced. But there�s no way to prove it one way or another in this case, and I don�t think it�s a big deal anyway.
Gentlemen, the debate is really about the blade, and it seems almost unbelievable to me with all the evidence that there is a question about it. Everything I�ve seen thus far questioning this piece is pure speculation, all of which can be reasonably refuted. There are multiple other points that were raised that I�d like to address (such as questions regarding Wolf�s letters), but honestly I don�t think it�s worth the time. Aside from other things to do, I need to get ready for a girlfriend�s visit this weekend. Priorities, my friends, priorities!
The current owner is lucky to have it. It�s a great historical piece. As I said early on in the debate, the only bad thing about this piece is that I don�t own it! Bob
