I was away for a bit and did not have the time or the opportunity to reply to Houston Coates' response to my line of thought before the previous thread on the Kaltenbrunner sword was closed.
I would like to do so now.
Houston Coates referred specifically to my observation that "Himmler's signature does not match." with a series of questions instead of an answer. I find that evasiveness curious from someone that knowledgable.
I will try to answer his questions in an attempt to illustrate my position instead of just telling you that I know and you won't find out if you are not the owner. Fair enough?
#1. Blade etches are made from wax templates on multiple produced items and individually inscribed at times for special orders. I can accept overlay if that makes it easier for some.
#2. Is there one original overlay (template). Probably not. Please see #1.
#3. Does a person's signature change over the years? It can to a degree. But the Kaltenbrunner sword was supposedly made sometime between the first SS Himmler daggers and the later SS 'Birthday' degens presented by Himmler. Himmler's signature on these different time produced blades look essentially the same. A quick look at Wittmann's book or other references will show that Himmler's signature did not morph into the one shown on this sword. This is very clear to those that choose to look carefully. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.
#4. Are special order blades all the same? Of course not. But in the same vein, "Is this a genuine special order blade?" That is the basic question so far unanswered here.
#5. Is everything in the books correct? No, but neither is someone's say so when their facts don't match the pictures. Look at pictures of known genuine Himmler blades with his signature and form your own conclussion. Again, don't take my word for it, see for yourself.
#6. Houston Coates pointedly hasn't addressed the very poor etch placement on the blade that I mentioned. Please refer to Wayne Techet's fine work, with a jaundiced eye if you must, to see why this poor rendering of an etch would fail to be accepted on a lowly dress bayonet. I believe this point would be hard to argue with any true conviction based on facts about the high quality of German etching exhibited on other special blades.
Lastly In courtesy to fellow forum members here we try to provide facts or open discussion of possible logical progressions that may need to be further explored in the search for truth. Declaring something to be righteous with secret knowledge or veiled innuendoes is not viewed as a positive trait here. I respect your knowledge, longevity in the hobby, your position of resident expert, etc. on another site and elsewhere but here we need open discussion and proof not just I said so.
In the search for what is right and true I have pointed out some inconsistancies for some prudent discussion of what was presented by Marvin. I feel that the undertone of Houston Coates remarks were a bit laced with condescention and certainly without providing a modicum of proof.
In closing this is my rebutal and not a provecation to any unpleasantries.
All the best,
Tony
I would like to do so now.
Houston Coates referred specifically to my observation that "Himmler's signature does not match." with a series of questions instead of an answer. I find that evasiveness curious from someone that knowledgable.
I will try to answer his questions in an attempt to illustrate my position instead of just telling you that I know and you won't find out if you are not the owner. Fair enough?
#1. Blade etches are made from wax templates on multiple produced items and individually inscribed at times for special orders. I can accept overlay if that makes it easier for some.
#2. Is there one original overlay (template). Probably not. Please see #1.
#3. Does a person's signature change over the years? It can to a degree. But the Kaltenbrunner sword was supposedly made sometime between the first SS Himmler daggers and the later SS 'Birthday' degens presented by Himmler. Himmler's signature on these different time produced blades look essentially the same. A quick look at Wittmann's book or other references will show that Himmler's signature did not morph into the one shown on this sword. This is very clear to those that choose to look carefully. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.
#4. Are special order blades all the same? Of course not. But in the same vein, "Is this a genuine special order blade?" That is the basic question so far unanswered here.
#5. Is everything in the books correct? No, but neither is someone's say so when their facts don't match the pictures. Look at pictures of known genuine Himmler blades with his signature and form your own conclussion. Again, don't take my word for it, see for yourself.
#6. Houston Coates pointedly hasn't addressed the very poor etch placement on the blade that I mentioned. Please refer to Wayne Techet's fine work, with a jaundiced eye if you must, to see why this poor rendering of an etch would fail to be accepted on a lowly dress bayonet. I believe this point would be hard to argue with any true conviction based on facts about the high quality of German etching exhibited on other special blades.
Lastly In courtesy to fellow forum members here we try to provide facts or open discussion of possible logical progressions that may need to be further explored in the search for truth. Declaring something to be righteous with secret knowledge or veiled innuendoes is not viewed as a positive trait here. I respect your knowledge, longevity in the hobby, your position of resident expert, etc. on another site and elsewhere but here we need open discussion and proof not just I said so.
In the search for what is right and true I have pointed out some inconsistancies for some prudent discussion of what was presented by Marvin. I feel that the undertone of Houston Coates remarks were a bit laced with condescention and certainly without providing a modicum of proof.
In closing this is my rebutal and not a provecation to any unpleasantries.
All the best,
Tony
Comment