Personalized Engraved NSKK Dagger

[wagner]

Hi All...I know I'm late to this party. Glad to see ya all BUT....

John,
To my understanding that these presentation type dedications were presented at or right after "The Event".

That particular Eickhorn logo with the RZM is known as a Transitional. This particular logo was used on blades of 1938 and 1939 vintage.
So to see that on a 1936 dated dagger is a.....

Another feature is that the scabbard patina does not seem to match that of the dagger. Grip is near mint while scabbard fitting show strong patina and wear.

I watched this and stated my concerns to a World Class specialist on third Reich engravings. I had to wait for his response and confirmation of my findings. He gave a very detailed account to me of the engraving however I don't yet have his permission to disclose. But as far as the engraving it was ....

I realize I'm just one guy out of everyone who says otherwise.
You have to be Veeery Careful on these type. A favorite of the fraudsters.
But again it's -JMO-

I hoped I was wrong, but a specialist confirmed the engraving end and ..."she is not what she appears to be".

-wagner-

[RevYJ]

Just a lurker here so cut me some slack. But I've been watching this thread and waiting for someone to point out the obvious- this dagger was manufactured well after the commemorated event. There's no haggling on that point. Sorry, but that's checkmate. Wagner is 100% correct to bring it up.

[Adrian Stevenson]

Hi Guys, thanks for your valued input. For some reason I was thinking the transitional came out a bit earlier? But a difference between the date on the dagger and when this style came out has to raise questions...

Cheers, Ade.

[John Brandon]

Thanks for the points guys. I know when something "unusual" comes up everyone is sceptical however, a few points I would like to raise, and that is transitional blades first appeared in 1936, so it IS possible that this was inscribed at the time (source Tom Johnson Collecting Edged weapons of the 3rd Reich Volume v page 10)
secondly the point raised about the scabbard is un-founded, as far as I can see, mainly because the pictures that I posted were rushed, and not of good quality.And making informed decisions based on poor photos is hit and miss

I have a micro camera, and have taken a couple of pictures of the inscription. It is the old style of engraving, not modern. however all said and done the dagger is not for sale, and for the foreseeable future will not be, so it doesn't really matter.

I appreciate your comments

[bikerboyzx6r]

Certainly the old style engraving!
Looks super good to me
Dan

[wagner]

Certainly the old style engraving!
Looks super good to me
Dan

At first glance I have to admit it does "look" good. But if you look at the details through the eye of an expert.....

Now I have the permission to state the opinion of my friend who I regard is an expert in engravings of the 3rd Reich on Edged weapons.
He has also requested to be not named in this discussion.

Finally it is up to each of us to judge and accept each item in our collecting as real or fraudulent. I will have more to state upon the "transitional" logos in a later.

Now for the engraving per 50+ year expert in this area. It's not me!

"This engraving is extremely unlikely. It purports to be a presentation "In Comradeship" from the Reichskorpsfuhrer, but it is so badly performed that I cannot believe that it is professional workmanship. I have annotated some parts of the photo in order to present detail features."



A and B - This relates to the name "Otto Frank", who could be anybody. The engraving is poorly formed in that it starts that it starts out with the letter "O" in Roman form, and then immediately moves to Italic for the rest of the inscription. The letters are badly formed, and become more widley letter-spaced in order to stretch the inscription to become centralised on the back of the guard. The baseline of the inscription is uneven and rises (point B).

C. - The inscription "In Kamerads chaft" has an unnecessary space between the s and the ch.

D. - and E - "Olympiade 1936" although set upon a curve does not maintain the same italicised angle with the characters, notably the date "1936" where the angle of the numeral "9" inappropriately below the base-line.

F. - "A Huhnlein" - indeed! Could be any A.Huhnlein. The combination of the initials "OF" on the obverse locket (not shown on my image) would be an extremely odd feature in my opinion, as part of the original presentation. (It is the sort of thing that the owner might conceive to mark his property, rather than form part of an award feature).


The following line was his reply to my concern of the late transitional logo/RZM marking on the blade. ..."Your observations concerning the actual period of the dagger- more likely to be 1938 - seems accurate. The color of the steel of the blade seems to be more grey like the later RZM period items, than the high gloss polish finish of the earlier period."


Regards,
-wagner-

[wagner]

When it is stated in a book that the "transitional period" began in 1936 on political dagger with placement of RZM...I do agree with that.

We see Eickhorn double oval logos with RZM marking with dates as early as 1936 on SS dagger blade. Also on 1937 SS dagger blades we see the squirrel with sword and RZM proof. However on SA daggers this particular combination of Squirrel with sword and RZM mark we do not see till 1938.

Do a "search" on the progression of Eickhorn Logos all the way to late 1939 when the war stated when they went to just RZM and no company logo just number codes.

There comes a time when we all have to call it the way we see it.

Anyone with real "hands-on" experience such as "Rev", my engraving/fake expert, and many others I know will tag this thing -Fake- right away.

IMO, this dagger was made only to defraud a collector of some serious pound sterling.

I would return it without hesitation. Anything you put near it will cause doubt on those items also. -Sorry Mate-

Regards,
-wagner-

[John Brandon]

I don’t want to keep brining this one to the top, but I don’t agree with some the comments that have been made. My understanding of the logo in question was that there are 4 (main) different Eickhorn trademarks used on Daggers from 1933-45.
1. Squirrel inside oval- "Carl Eickhorn Solingen" 1933-35.
2. Squirrel in outline- "Original Eickhorn Solingen" 1936-41. (Original above squirrel)
3. Squirrel etched in Silhouette "Original Eickhorn Solingen 1936-41. (Original above squirrel
4. Squirrel looking at tail "Original Eickhorn Solingen" 1941 type (all below squirrel)

The FO that was subjected to some doubt is in fact OF for “Otto Frank” The name on the rear of the cross guard.

Your observations concerning the actual period of the dagger- more likely to be 1938 - seems accurate. The color of the steel of the blade seems to be more grey like the later RZM period items, than the high gloss polish finish of the earlier period."
How can that be seen from a couple of pretty poor photos that I put up. I never spent the time I should have to take better pictures, but I never for one minute expected so much criticism

Not once did I state that it was a presentation piece, nor did I state that it was awarded to, or by Huhnlein. I simply stated that it had the engraving, which I still believe to be period. It is possible that Mr Otto Frank (whoever he is) met Huhnlein at some point, even at the Olympic Games perhaps? and decided to have his NSKK dagger that he so proudly wore engraved as a memento to that occasion. “Kameradschaft” with an un-necessary gap between the S & C ? That I cannot answer, as it is one word in German and English. Seems a pretty dumb thing to get wrong if made for deceiving, don’t you think?
The only part of the engraving that is on show is the OF to the front, the rest is on the reverse. Along with some very nice consistent wear marks on the scabbard.

Nobody will ever know the true story, and personally I don’t want to know. It’s not an important dagger, just something a little different. I know there are people that know far more than I. Wagner, I know that you are one of them. I am not an expert, and have never professed to be. There are those that have more knowledge than others, and I listen, but we all have our opinions. I’m happy with it. It will stay where it is

[John Brandon]

Sorry missed a few. Here, also is the SS one you were talking about

[SpenceMortlock]

I must say that John Brandon puts a good argument, and I for one am inclined to believe his side of the discussion. The nitpicking on the engraving is interesting at best. There could be any number of reasons for the engraving not being absolutely perfect in style, but to then state that it all must be a fake meant to deceive seems like a vast leap of judgment.

I always have a problem when I hear comments along the lines of; "stated my concerns to a World Class specialist on third Reich engravings", "He gave a very detailed account to me of the engraving however I don't yet have his permission to disclose", "Now I have the permission to state the opinion of my friend" These sort of comments, when not from ones own knowledge, but on reliance from "a friend" seem a bit like hiding behind what is known a reliable source in the media, we all know just how reliable such sources can be especially when it is the author stated friend. I think it may be time for the "Friend" to be identified, and perhaps sign up and put his or her expertise to the fore to be examined by one and sundry.

The detractor also states; "Do a "search" on the progression of Eickhorn Logos all the way to late 1939 when the war stated when they went to just RZM and no company logo just number codes" Well I think Mr Brandon has done a search, and even provided photographs to dispel that statement!

I have nothing to gain from either liking of disliking the dagger, but this seems like a "dagger expert" set in his thoughts and beliefs, who can not see, what is in my humble opinion, a good dagger and is set on seeing faults.

Sincerely,

Spence