Niemann Swords and Oaks-Set

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I just recieved large frontal and back pictures from Detlev.

From what I can see from these pics.

The 900 does not overlap

It's a L/50 type Godet oaks with 21 markings.

Pieter

[Leroy]

This thread is an example of how dangerous it can be to try to determine things from photos alone.........................and how easy it can be to miss the (in hindsight) obvious and condemn a piece wrongly.

Indeed, very dangerous...however, the obverse (even from the available photography) could be determined as differing from the normal '21' marked Oakleaves, and, in the end, there were in fact true and significant differences, which some saw and some did not.

The '900' mark, from the standpoint of a virtually straight-on photo, had overlapping numbers. The angled photo revealed something different (but still hard to reconcile with the straight-on photo, which is USUALLY reliable). Without doubt, a "hands-on" was (and still is) definitely needed here to sort this part out. The "frosting" issue raised by DM (but contested by Pieter) poses an interesting question, all by itself, and would be interesting to have more views on.

The REAL problem here is that NO ONE (including DN, DM, myself, Pieter, etc., etc.) recognized or pointed out, from the outset, that this set COULD be one of the very seldom (as in "almost never") seen sets with an obverse associated with one type of marking and a reverse marked so as to indicate a different obverse. A problem compounded by showing here, at the same time, an artificially severely polished set of O&S by the SAME maker with the "right and normally seen" matching obverse and reverse...It's like going to a magic show and having your attention diverted so you "miss the trick".

Certainly someone should have suspected this and pointed it out. No one did (until DM at the end) so we have learned several lessons (which we should all have known anyway).

Interesting (and worthwhile) thread in my view.

[Dietrich Maerz]

.... and condemn a piece wrongly.

The piece was not condemned, it did not fit the description of the dealer who did not know what he had. All what was said is that the obverse of the swords does not correspond to the obverse of the oaks (which is still true). If both are "21"s they should (as -I am sure - you know .... or maybe not) do so.

I feel stupid that I did not see it earlier what it is but I feel good that at least I saw it at all. And I am happy that Pieter can confirm my statement from yesterday.

Of course - as it is always the case - now everybody knew anyway! ... and can post happily away ...

[RonE1964]

No need to point that out - it is well known!

I saw this Oakleaves as a Reproduction so as you can see it on page 251 in DM book but I saw directly that this one looks more as an L/50 Oakleaves then as an 21 Oakleaves but nobody reacting on mine message but I feel good that DM also saw this Oakleaves on the end as an L/50 Oaks so that mine opinion war good alone I thought that it was a Repro and that was my mistake on this point.

Kind regards, Ron Erlings.

[Leroy]

I saw this Oakleaves as a Reproduction so as you can see it on page 251 in DM book but I saw directly that this one looks more as an L/50 Oakleaves then as an 21 Oakleaves but nobody reacting on mine message ...

Indeed you did! Lost in the confusion (and perhaps a bit misunderstood).........

[rfleming32]

This has been a very interesting an informative thread. In the end, I believe Detlev and Dietrich agree on its originality from different perspectives. Detlev based his opinion on examples with a solid provenience and Dietrich more on the scientific method to reach a similar conclusion. I would love to see other pictured examples of the L50 oaks with Godet stamp from known provenience to round the thread out and show proof positive what many of us will never see or hold. These discussions are what makes this forum great and it has been a while since I have seen one so interesting.

Sincerely.
Ahab
Looking for the Great White Whale

[juoneen]

revisited 900 21 with speckling very similar ??


Comments welcome as these are similar , or are the different....if you compare closely many of the same marks , and bumps are evident in this set..also except for wearto these I feel they are very close , and i dont know how to post a side by side as some have done here, will someone please oblige for comparison, and if you need a clearer shot i can post another tomorrow. The wire bending down when on its face, and all I cannot tell the difference between the two respectfully i say , this is another you need for comparison, what say you dietrich...now that this info has come foreward. I am willing to weigh, measure, and check all dimentions if you really want to see how they compare. manana. juoneen

[juoneen]

closer look at 900 of the 900 21

[juoneen]

the 21

[juoneen]

[juoneen]

reference of marks positions for comparison



This set of oakleaves and swords have been deemed a fake by dietrich in a earlier thread last year. Talk about confused. It has the speckling supposedly only originals develop thru time. Mark was stated that godet never used this mark, whats the consensus, is it still the same or is there now reasonable doubt. Please clarify this clouded issue.

[juoneen]

[juoneen]

the seam for back sword attachment doesnt look new


The back of swords lamination soldering is same details , finely done, same side even scratches on left front sword near hilt on blade....anyone see the same thing i do, or am i the only one., ?

also on the 900 mark it appears the stamp bounced some when it was used, maybethe explanation for the 0's close together but those look very close also. are these the same dies ....? These were on the also deemed fake 5 marked cross..if these O+S are late war , couldnt this cross with the 5 mark be late war also?

[Ludwig]

I very much doubt the originallity of this latest set shown here.