Craig Gottlieb-SA Birdshead Dagger

[David Guist]

Many of you wish this thread to contiue. Thats fine. Follow the rules as stated and every thing will be fine. Best regards.

[Jo Rivett]

Eichorn

Dagger collectors, i have a few questions for you, regarding the pommel.
In the sales description of these ...creations.., the same statement is repeated,
"this style dagger was a product of the Eickhorn company." and "Es handelt sich bei diesem Stück um eine typische Fertigung der Firma Eickhorn"

My questions:
(please see this image of the two Pommels side by side)

• Is this, Typical Eickhorn Quality ?
• Is this sub-standard of casting errors found on other Eickhorn Items ?
• Would members, who collect and have Eickhorn daggers, agree with both descriptions that this, sub-standard work was a, quote: "Typical Product of the Eickhorn company"
• Is the name Eickhorn usually associated with terrible casting errors, and no attention to detail?

[TxGauleiter]

It would be helpful if the proprietor of the questionable dagger, Craig Gottlieb, would address these questions to clear up the confusion and settle the dispute:

...but yes...this piece was restored and I wanted to make sure the collecting public knew that.

• are there before and after photos of the restoration?

... that this was some sort of very early dagger sold by Eickhorn as a special order..

• what makes this an "early" dagger?

I believe one of the photos is in one of his books, but I don't know which.

• would you be so kind as to find out which book and procure a photo? it would be a great addition to the continuity of the thread for those using it as a resource in the future..

there exists an Eickhorn factory list showing recipients of the SA version of this dagger, and as memory serves me, they are mostly industrialists.

• the nature of this statement suggests that youve seen this list. would you please share this list?
____________________

...I bought this from the LIVING veteran, who I audio-recorded, telling me his story of where and when he found it ...There's no debate here... I had a living veteran with a clear memory of events.

The first point is that you NEVER obtained the dagger from a “living veteran” at all; you stated to me that you obtained from a man you describer as a “Picker” – some type of general dealer, who occasionally lets you know when he has militaria for sale. Now that is a whole lot different to getting the piece from a “living veteran” – so your first lie is exposed....Your “Picker” friend claimed to have obtained it from the “veteran” – but absolutely no evidence was provided that could be checked. Eventually, after my hounding you to obtain some proof of provenance, the “Picker” provides you with some statement (or recording) – but there is not one verifiable fact that can be checked. In fact when I insist that you be put in direct contact with the veteran – the news comes back he “has died”. How very convenient, when the questions get awkward.

• this statement by Craig is very inconsistent with what Mr Stephens contends. He has shared his recollection, Craig would you please share your position? Your statement led us to believe this was your find direct from the veteran.

I realize that the nature of the questions could be uncomfortable if the seller has something to hide, but they are posed as a way to clear up what are obvious inconsistencies in the story. I am not antagonizing Craig, but truly, for the sake and health of our hobby, prefer that questionable pieces be delegitimized.

There's no debate here Fred

If there really is no debate, please show us the conversation-stopping evidence. Please, without dancing around and pointing fingers, address each one of these bullet points. Understand, that by not answering and dodging and evading the questions, many will find that (rightly or wrongly) evidence that the dagger is a post-war frankenstein dagger.

thanks for your cooperation Craig

[tanker]

Hello TXGaulieter
I got an infraction for the following post which I thought was very appropriate for the dagger discussion. No warning at all, just a premature infraction. I have pm'd the Mods numerous times, but they are refusing to listen to reason. This will probably get me booted for brigning it to the public but I am tired of it not beign addressed.
I like your post and HOPE it gets some answers. Thanks, Ron


""Post that got me the infraction""
You have the ultimate say in this, but this happens too many times. Craig list items and has questionable motives, doesn't provide real evidence and then steps backs and lets it appear he is getting pounced on and is the innocent person in this only trying to provide the collecting community a piece of history.
He is just as much a part of this discussion as the dagger. His actions/defence is (at least to me) one of the same. Ron

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Guist
Again this is about the dagger only not any person. Lets keep it thats way.

[Jo Rivett]

Well here is how Eickhorn advertised themselves .. "..we hope to be able to convince you of the quality of our wares. Tradition, decades of experience and an Exemplary Factory have earned us a reputation. Our Export department covers most countries on Earth and proves the highest levels of productiveness within our company"

This does not sound like a sub-standard manufacturer to me. Hope someone can clear up why it`s a Typical Eickhorn piece.. are there any other Pointers to look for, that might obviously reveal Eickhorn as the maker, apart from the below-average craftsmanship.... ?(if he can even be tied to that at all)

[Frogprince]

That neither blade has a Carl Eickhorn logo that we can see is obvious. As is the fact that two entirely different accounts of the circumstances of the dagger’s acquisition have been presented.

But for the moment, I would really like to focus on the two different daggers that have two different sets of cast parts that we can also see. Clearly they came from different patterns/molds. Which is one of the hallmarks of some other known fakes where the counterfeiter had to create parts to complete a counterfeiting project. And the quality ranges from not first rate, to something that might be worthy of a recently imported brass vase with a lot of holes and distorted features. And what I would like to see are some of the things that FJS pointed out amplified, so that they could be examined in detail. FP

[Bob Hritz]

I would love to find a copy like Cogwheel's. It is very attractive and I would not be afraid when paying the price for a great copy.

I have not seen any for sale. Does anyone have any leads?

Bob Hritz

[David North]

Perhaps now, an otherwise very important thread that has completely lost the initial eclectic momentum and now, is becoming a tad boring, irritable and tiresome.

"Flogging a Dead Horse" comes to mind here.

For goodness sake, may the interested Forum Members please be provided with the answers to the unbelievably basic, simple and reasonable questions previously posed? How difficult can this be?

Regards,

David

[F. J. Stephens]

SA Birdshead dagger

Comparison of the NSBO/DAF “Birdshead” with the SA examples seems to run its course – especially as the NSBO piece is a smaller item – approx ¾ the size of the SA examples. As they are from two different sources, the only analysis could be made concerning the actual constructional quality – which is now visibly seen to be lacking. That piece never came from Eickhorn.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>
<o></o>
Regarding “period evidence” I have now acquired a photographic copy of what I believe is the document previously referred as the: "Eickhorn factory files document" concerning the SA "Birdshead" dagger and known recipients. I am contacting the owner of the original item to see if he will release to me clearer images in colour, plus answer some questions that I wish to submit. When I have analysed sufficiently, I will make my observations known.<o></o>
<o></o>
That there are known "copies" and "replicas" of these pieces is not in dispute. The burning issue, as far as I am concerned, is whether or not the piece ever existed in the first place? I think that a serious challenge can be made for a case against the dagger.<o></o>
<o></o>
Having originally started out in the 1960s, and completely believing that the image in Atwood was authentic, I was rather surprised to see this piece of photographic evidence - which was sent to me by collector Robert McCarthy in about 1969.<o></o>
<o></o>
I have enlarged the print, added a detail inset of the pommel, and some annotated markings relating to the "Alles fur Deutschland" inscription.<o></o>
<o></o>
My immediate observation was that the blade motto was in the wrong position – it appears to be too far down the blade. However, in reality, it is exactly centred on the blade length, the illusion is caused by the tapering of the blade towards the tip. Because of this effect, the motto should have been placed off-centre to the right, closer to the hilt and further from the tip. Correctly performed, it would give the impression that the motto was centred on the blade. This phenomena has been known in art, and architecture, and book design, for centuries – it is known sometimes as “the golden ratio” (generally equating to 1 : 1.618).<o></o>
<o></o>
This simple technique, for achieving the most aesthetically pleasing placement of the inscription on the blade, has clearly not been applied. A professional lettering artist and template etcher would have known about that fact, and presented the work accordingly. Take a look at any SA, or SS dagger and see where the motto is placed – it is not dead centre on the length of the blade. That is why there are genuine concerns about the authenticity of these “Birdshead” daggers.<o></o>
<o></o>
Frederick J. Stephens<o></o>

[F. J. Stephens]

Birdshead

I regret that the image failed to upload - I will try again.

[Jo Rivett]

Whilst we patiently wait for the owner to come forward with what he claims to have as evidence, i shall allow myself a few more questions:

• Are there other series of Presentation daggers, Miniatures or even letter openers that also display horrid Casting flaws and what can only be referred to as an Abomination of a Hoheitssymbol on them?

•Are there other series of unique daggers that have not a shred of period evidence to go with them? I don't mean single oddities like the Fake Olympic knife, or Fake DJ knife, i mean like these, a whole series, for the SA (in gold and silver) , for the NSBO for DAF and probably more that have yet to surface.... (Including the fact that some of these are advertised as Non-wearable and have no hanger fittings, and some have hanger fittings and some people even know what the correct hanger should look like... so they can be classed as a series .)

we wait, patiently, to have our questions answered......

[Erich B.]

One that comes to mind is the Marine SA dagger--there is no period description of a special dagger indicated for the Marine SA, no listing in any period dagger producer's catalogue nor notation in the price list of gold fittings or black grip/ scabbard being available options, no mention from the OSAF in the SA Verordnungsblatt, no listing in the RZM price lists, Uniformen-Markt, or anywhere else I've been able to reference. Likewise in the numerous period SA uniform guides the uniform and accoutrements are described in great detail but the dagger is only noted as being a standard model. The only period suggestion of a different colored dagger is a color plate drawing of a Marine SA uniform in one edition of the Organisation Book (I don't remember which one, but it was a late 30s printing) which I am sure must have been an illustrator's mistake, since it is not described in the text area whereas the rest of the uniform is.
Erich

[ivbaust]

One that comes to mind is the Marine SA dagger--there is no period description of a special dagger indicated for the Marine SA, no listing in any period dagger producer's catalogue nor notation in the price list of gold fittings or black grip/ scabbard being available options, no mention from the OSAF in the SA Verordnungsblatt, no listing in the RZM price lists, Uniformen-Markt, or anywhere else I've been able to reference. Likewise in the numerous period SA uniform guides the uniform and accoutrements are described in great detail but the dagger is only noted as being a standard model. The only period suggestion of a different colored dagger is a color plate drawing of a Marine SA uniform in one edition of the Organisation Book (I don't remember which one, but it was a late 30s printing) which I am sure must have been an illustrator's mistake, since it is not described in the text area whereas the rest of the uniform is.
Erich

Erich, there´s a recent thread "NSKK Marine daggers", in which member "777" just posted this photo

[cogwheel]

It would be important to know just how many of these daggers are in existence today. From what I gathered, there could not have been more than 5 or 6 birdsheads made with a blade dedication (does anyone know?). The dagger has a design all of its own while most award daggers were usually enhanced existing organizational daggers. Because of its small size with an unusually short blade I could only come to the conclusion the birdshead was never intended to be a dagger worn on the belt. There is no other dagger in the entire TR dress dagger inventory that has a blade of similar small dimensions.
In addition, considering the tiny amount of birdsheads produced over time (one at a time) I seriously doubt that a permanent mold was made to facilitate larger scale production. Thus, the casting flaws described in this thread could have happened just as well during the TR period.

Mr. Stephens: Is it possible that the 'golden ratio' on a blade inscription is determined by the distance to the ricasso instead of the hilt? And would those considerations even be given to a letter opener?

[Frogprince]

Erich, there´s a recent thread "NSKK Marine daggers", in which member "777" just posted this photo

However, it's not quite the same thing as a dagger coming from the factory that way. In the examples posted in the thread it looks like paint has been applied post manufacture, being on top of the original factory finish. And to add to the list of “series” production of (supposed) TR blades with no documentation. My contribution is the “Marine” HJ knives with the blue diamonds.

But to get back to the “SA Birdshead Dagger” with the “.......... tiny pock-mark in the casting of the pommel.“ If that is a “tiny pock-mark” (singular, ie: one) I would hate to see what he thinks a big one looks like. FP