Craig Gottlieb-SA Birdshead Dagger

[addyfie]

Posting for Fred, This is as big as i can get the image...... Hope its ok!



The image shown in Atwood, page 38. Note that the two line inscription is not correctly centred upon itself - the lower line being off-set to the left. It also appears that position of the inscription is also too low down on the blade - inscriptions are usually closer to the hilt, and not dead-centre on the blade length.

[David Guist]

We can debate back and forth on how well on not a piece was made for ever.But that does not prove any thing either way.There are just some items out there that we may never realy now if they are real or not.I know of at least one other item that has been debated like this for years. No one has ever proven it either way.The threads go cold and disapear in time.Untill some one brings the issue back to life some other time.I personaly would like to see some thing that shows us yes it is real or no it is not. Because debateing it isnt going to prove any thing.If theres any one out there that knows the company that made them and when please show us.If you have a period photo of one in wear please show us.Can any one please show us some thing that proves these are real or not.Best regards. It belive it will take more than a picture of an ugly bird to prove this either way.

[Jo Rivett]

addyfie, the eagle in the `65 book pic is the same, one puff wing, squashed Wreath.......

[Frogprince]

David, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree to some extent. How well something is made is used every day to compare a target item to known daggers. With “one of” types it’s harder because there is nothing to compare it to. But that doesn't mean that how something is made should be ignored, because with the Hühnlein daggers for example, they showed evidence of not etched signatures but rotary engraving like that from a Dremel tool. The supposed “Gahr” marks have never been seen with anything else - ever. The “800” stamp (those that were not cast in place) was done with individual “8” and “0” hand stamps. And the photo offered as proof showed a different chain set than those daggers currently in circulation. With the point being that after you’ve collected for a while you get a “feel” for what looks right or wrong. Which is not to say that we always see perfection from all makers 100% of the time. But some things just don’t seem to make sense in the context of when they were supposed to be made - especially for presentation pieces.

And we still haven’t seen the dagger Ron Weinand mentioned. So that’s an unknown. But we do have a “baseline” which is the Atwood dagger which in the photo has an eagle with an atrophied wing on one side. And it’s not just funky wings. Beside some squashed features, there are fairly substantial casting voids with the gold dagger. And the silver one in detail looks hand done and unlike the others pictured. BTW: The full inscription on the gold finished dagger is: “Dem Kameraden Hugo Hollweg für treue Mitarbeit - D.A.F. Ortsgruppe Solingen-Dorp”. Regards, FP

[David Guist]

See this can be debate forever. Some items are made very well and some are not. But both can still be originals. If you put two HJ armbands side by side one is a text book RZM band.The other was HJ made. One will look alot diffrent than the other But both are originals.I know theyer are some that are just dieing to prove these are not original and the othere way around. All I am saying is theyer may never be a way to do so that is satisfactory to both sides.Best regards.

[David Guist]

Realy this thread has run for a while now. It has been veiwed by many people. No one has shown proof it is a real dagger or a fake dagger.Best regards.

[F. J. Stephens]

Birdshead debate

Well Mr. Guist,

I am going to have to state that I am with Frogprince on this subject - and I do think that some valuable information can be gleaned when an informed mind looks at a clear photograph - the effects of casting, striking, natural wear and tear, hand engraving, forced alteration, and deliberate abuse etc. etc, can be identified.

It is rather rare for a period photograph to provide "absolute" information about any dagger seen in wear. Yes, we can recognise general patterns - perhaps even pick out a particular style of sword hilt - but the detail we are looking for (to pick out the features of "authenticity") are seldom visible in original photographs.

We know that the "Atwood SA Special Presentation dagger" photograph existed in 1965 - so does it exist now? Examination of the original print may give us further clues - because there is more than a sneaking suspicion that the photograph was actually taken in about 1965, and that it is not a pre-war Eickhorn factory file photograph. This is the information which might actually sway the balance of opinion concerning these so-called "Birdshead" daggers, because all the perceived intelligence about these pieces suggests that there is something "not quite right" with them.

WAF exists to help collectors - so it is in the public interest that these things be explored and commented upon, and the observations presented to the wider audience.

Frederick J. Stephens

[cogwheel]

Looking at the picture posted above, if there is any problem with the placement of the dedication I can't see it. It could not be placed further down because the dagger blade is slightly tapered. Moving it further up would not make it look right either. To me it looks good just where it is. But then I don't know the rules for placing dedications on blades. As for myself, I would have placed any accolades and dedications on a plaque attached to the presentation case. Placing the dedication on the blade is far too cumbersome and could only come from someone with a political mindset that excludd any practical solutions for just about anything.

[F. J. Stephens]

David Guist reply

Realy this thread has run for a while now. It has been veiwed by many people. No one has shown proof it is a real dagger or a fake dagger.Best regards.

Dave, I have just posted a comment, when I noticed your most recent reply. Yes, this thread has run for a while now - and there seems to be a lot of activity in reading it. You may not find this subject the most enthralling, but I suggest that a lot of WAF readers are captivated by it - and it is to them that you owe the allegiance of free debate, not any "sponsor to this site" who may be feeling a little uncomfortable at the moment, and making his presence felt.

A previous correspondent "hit the nail, on the head" when he stated that it is the sellers of these things who have to prove that they are "right and authentic" - and not ourselves who have serious and justifiable questions to ask.

Frederick J. Stephens

[F. J. Stephens]

Inscription Placement

Looking at the picture posted above, if there is any problem with the placement of the dedication I can't see it. It could not be placed further down because the dagger blade is slightly tapered. Moving it further up would not make it look right either. To me it looks good just where it is. But then I don't know the rules for placing dedications on blades. As for myself, I would have placed any accolades and dedications on a plaque attached to the presentation case. Placing the dedication on the blade is far too cumbersome and could only come from someone with a political mindset that excludd any practical solutions for just about anything.

Dear Mr. Vogel,

I will speak with you privately about this (and some other matters) - because I do not wish to get diverted from the main thrust of this feature, the so-called SA Birdshead Dagger.

So regarding the siting of the standard inscription on the SA, and SS daggers (and also the Feldherrnhalle) - is it not obvious to you that these inscriptions are invariably placed notably higher than the vertical centre-line on the blade. That is to say, they are always closer to the grip, then they are to the tip. This feature is consistent with all makers - it is not a random effect (check it out), and there is a reason for it; is known as the "golden ratio" by those fully trained in the classical arts. It is more pleasing to the human eye in its appearance and balance.

I am willing to discuss this with you off-line, and why it occurs.

Frederick J. Stephens

[Don D.]

you owe the allegiance of free debate, not any "sponsor to this site" who may be feeling a little uncomfortable at the moment, and making his presence felt.


Frederick J. Stephens

Mister Stephens, that comment was totally uncalled for. All David has said that no proof has been shown either way on the dagger. You make the leap that he is protecting a forum sponser from that? This is not GDC and that will not fly here. I suggest you keep the conversation on the dagger or you will not be posting at all.

[David Guist]

Don is correct. By all mean you are welcome to bedate this for years. Just saying it will take real proof from one side or the other to believe. I personaly am not takeing sides either way.Best regards.

[Frogprince]

David, While I don't know a lot about armbands myself, I understand the point made about RZM quality versus “HJ” which is I’m assuming is what we might call homemade. Using the same rationale, if we looked at an early 1930’s 98K bayonet by Eickhorn it has a certain level of manufacturing expertise seen in its fit and finish. But if we skip ahead roughly 10 years and put it side by side with a 1944 version by Eickhorn - they are quite different.

But there is only one reality with any of the daggers posted so far - which is that they are either period items (with a very notable lack of attention to detail as compared to a very large number of other known period daggers). Or they are postwar. Regards, FP

PS: Looking at how the photos are staged, and the wear/age marks seen with some of the blades (and scabbards), I’ve always assumed that “in hand” is how most of the photos were taken.

[DTS]

"I think that piece is a fake, and that Atwood deliberately fronted it in his book in order to legitimize it, and therefore leave the way open in order to introduce more of them into the unsuspecting and trusting collector market. And it is not the only item that he has done it with."

Frederick J. Stephens

In complete agreement. Half of the high-end stuff out there was produced/created/sold/ by Atwood. I wonder how many of these fakes or outright fantasy pieces are sitting in collections. Including my own.

[TxGauleiter]

...No one has shown proof it is a real dagger or a fake dagger...

exactly.

shouldnt the burden of proof be on those who suggest its value at $70k?

If youre going to ask me to pay SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS for this, shouldnt you be at the very least able to prove that its real? I think it a suspicious business practice of asking such vast sums of money for a piece that is so obviously questionable and to date hasnt been proven to be legitimate. Is this lackadaisical approach being applied to other pieces as well? Slap a price on something with no real regard for its authenticity and hope it slips thru the cracks? Just wanting a piece to be real and demanding that its real does make it real. (neither does an audio recording of a man claiming its real make it real!)

if youre going to ask a top dollar for a piece that, according to its proprietor has "no room for debate", shouldnt the burden of proof be on that person to prove its legitimacy?

If this model dagger was never produced during the era, how can I produce period documents that corroborate this? How can I produce period photos that prove that this dagger was not produced during the era? You cant prove a negative.

However, if this dagger was indeed produced during the era, then there must be evidence, work orders, pics, factory specs, etc.. Even colleague Ron said with conviction exactly what this dagger is purported to be, yet its proponents fall conspicuously silent when asked for proof of its legitimacy. In this case silence is deafening.

Due to the bastardization and corruption in the early days of the hobby we must now try to sort out the real from the fantasy. In many cases its obvious, and in many cases its difficult. Like any scientist or researcher, when there is a lack of hard evidence, all we can do is connect dots and look for trends and contextual clues.

With a distinctive lack of detail, disproportionate wings and body, and an obvious lack of overall quality when compared to other presentation daggers known to be authentic, all trends here point to this being a fantasy piece, and will remain so in the public mind until real evidence overturns the public mindset.

I am glad I am not stuck holding this bag!