The Don Vernon connection with the sword (according to what Mr. Bayliss told me on the telephone) is that in the 1970s Mr. Bayliss was experiencing a very expensive divorce. He sold the sword to Mr. Vernon, which accounts for the fact that it appears in Johnson Vol 1, credited to Don Vernon. Later on, as circumstances improved, Mr. Bayliss re-purchased the sword back from Don Vernon.
I have no doubt that Mr, Bayliss wholly, and wholesomely, believes in the authenticity of the item. There is no stain on the integrity of Mr. Bayliss.
There is a rumour going around over here, Craig, that putting the Wolf Sword up on the GD site was not for the purpose of a cosy little chat about it. That the real reason for launching this thread is that you wanted to get me out in the open to express my objections to it. And then you would have the opportunity to come in with all guns blazing for your counter argument - in the hope of giving myself and my reputation a good kicking. Is this true? I don�t believe it - you wouldn�t do that to me, would you? I am your friend. I have given you the benefit of my wisdom on many, many occasions.
Of course it is true to say that you already knew of my distrust of the sword and its unsatisfactory inscription, and you pestered me go public with my viewpoint. In fact you raised the issue not only early on in this thread, but also in another thread - �Flaws on Daggers�. And elsewhere you have basically called me a coward for not speaking up with my opinion. In your e-mail to me of the 20 June last, you stated: �Now, I challenge you, if you believe your position regarding the Wolfe sword, to list your points about the sword you don't like. Or, do you begin to doubt that you are right, and are afraid to put your arguments forth in public?�
Well, Craig, it became obvious from the above that you were not going to rest until you got me into the ring where you thought that you might hold my opinion of the sword up to general ridicule. Your complete and outright rejection of my explanation - although you are entitled to hold such views - seems to me to be perverse and unproven. Do you seek some kudos in the public denigration of my reputation? I cannot believe that you are so malign (I am that gullible!). And even it is all true, well then I forgive you. I�ve got broad shoulders and a thick skin, I can take it. So good luck to you - no hard feelings at all, my young friend. In fact just to show you what a good sport I am - and just for a bit of innocent fun - I wish to invite your comments about authenticity of the inscription on this other blade.
I will have to be honest and state that I think it is a fake inscription - for the following reasons, shown annotated with numerals and the line indicators. This is what I have to say about it:
1) Letters and Letter-spacing, this looks very much like a post-war use of Letraset characters - very uniform although widely spaced - and not like traditional hand-drawn characters. The font appears to be Letraset �Old English� The use of the word �Herren� as opposed to Herrn suggests pluraity of name - but then perhaps they were giving out lots of examples of this dagger, to many people having the same name. (It happens all the time, you know - a bit like the cross-organisational presentations, DAF to NSBO, and suchlike. We can discuss this matter in another thread.)
2) The initial capitals of the inscription are high-lighted with a gold �blob� - I can�t really think of a more accurate definition, but it certainly does not follow the profiles of the letter. Compare this to artifact 3.
3) This is an extract from a photo submitted by a friend, it shows a detail from the etched inscription on the blade. Please note the graceful formation of the drop shadow around the letters - it follows the contours of the letter exactly. Nothing like the gratuitous �splatter� of the gold highlighting on this blade, very amateur.
4) This is an example of another etched script. Once again this demonstrates the close symmetry of the shadow effect to the letter characters, and not only that - the closeness of the lettering type. It is quite unlike the �letter-spaced� version of the example under review. This image has been taken from one of your acquisitions. So you see, Craig, I don�t �have it in� for your swords, you do handle authentic examples from time to time.
5) and 6) This is a real mystery - relating to the 84th Air victory. So odd, why would one commemorate the 84th event? Why not instead the 80th, or the 85th? I can see the logic in those, but not in the 84th. Of course there is one more point to make - the actual �Air victory� the word �Luftsieg� Normally, with this style the letter �s� in Luftsieg would be in the elongated �long-s� form - a little bit like a letter �f� but without the crossbar.
So, Craig, please offer me your response. Even if you disagree with everything I say, please do it up here in the public - same as you demanded of me. I promise you that I won�t shout you down. And it won�t alter my opinion of you at all, not one iota.
Your friend
Frederick J. Stephens
PS I WILL POST THE PHOTO ON THE NEXT THREAD - used up too much space here.
