Craig Gottlieb-SA Birdshead Dagger

[Craig Gottlieb]

You're confusing the issue. The "Industrial Dagger" is the one that I owned and sold - the famous Goering Industrial Dagger with replacement blade.



The "Birdshead" is a dagger that, based upon my experience, was an early Eickhorn product. Although a run was certainly made with SA emblems on the center of the crossguard, this was not, I submit, an "SA" dagger per-se. Rather, it was a presentation dagger ordered at the behest of someone, and bestowed upon captains of industry. I submit that it is correct that they were really never meant for "wear" in any official capacity, although most do have a "wearing" style scabbard.

The example purchased by me from the living veteran - the NSBO/DAF example, which exhibits THE "factory drawing" matched cross-guard, had a shorter-than-normal blade, and a "letter opener" style scabbard, suggesting that it was never meant for wear. The ONLY credible "red flag" that Mr. Stephens every brought up for this dagger, which I let him inspect during a visit to London, was a tiny pock-mark in the casting of the pommel. Not a big deal in my opinion, given other small casting flaws evident in MANY other objects from the period.

[Frogprince]

You're confusing the issue. ........... The ONLY credible "red flag" that Mr. Stephens every brought up for this dagger, which I let him inspect during a visit to London, was a tiny pock-mark in the casting of the pommel. Not a big deal in my opinion, given other small casting flaws evident in MANY other objects from the period.

Craig, You are partially correct in that I misspoke, with this being what I was making a reference to:

I know where there is one of the originals in a German's hands. He got it from his neighbor in Germany at the end of the war as a gift from the wife in his home town. They were the first Nazi Dagger given out in late 1933 to a handful of industrialists who were large contributors financially to the movement. The one I know of still has the original small chain link hanger. Each one I have seen or know of had an industrialist's name in an inscription on the blade.

As to your opinion of what are "small" ("a tiny pock-mark") casting flaws, I have to disagree - these are not "pin holes", they are large (and it's actually multiples). We don't see that kind of poor workmanship with your average Naval dagger pommel - so why is it OK with a supposedly high end named presentation piece with a Damascus blade?? And I would be happy to provide a better closeup (or closeups if that is permitted) to be posted for those who cannot see it well enough either here with post # 18, or on the Weitze website. Most Respectfully, Fred

[Craig Gottlieb]

Your lack of experience in other fields of militaria (both of the Freds) is revealing. So-called "flaws" appear in many "important" items, to include the highest political award (the Blood Order), as well as various Knight's Crosses, mis-spellings on important documents, etc. Visible to the naked eye, your attitude suggests they must all be fake because Germans "wouldn't do that." A very romantic, albeit incorrect view, of the level of precision and tolerances considered acceptable by German craftsmanship and standards. End of the line for me, my friends, as I don't have the time for this . . . "this" being an exact repeat of previous "arguments" that have been made by this duo, none of which gain much traction in serious circles. The banter is the same, just insert a different dagger.

[TxGauleiter]

...End of the line for me, my friends, as I don't have the time for this . . . "this" being an exact repeat of previous "arguments" that have been made by this duo, none of which gain much traction in serious circles. The banter is the same, just insert a different dagger....

....a different dagger, or a ring, or a visor, or a grouping of tunics... Its always something....

These arguments come up again and again because it seems like you pull these same tricks again and again.. You blur the line between known good and bad and create these vast areas of grayness between black and white where your products somehow always seem to exist.
You are attempting to discredit those that question you and indignantly walk away, yet you still have shown us zero proof that this dagger is of the pre1945 era. All signs point to this being a bogus piece. All you do is point out why you think those that disagree have an agenda or are wrong. How about this novel idea:

SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE, LIKE THE EICKHORN LIST, AND MAKE SURE THE LIST INCLUDES A CONNECTION TO YOUR DAGGER, IE MEASUREMENTS OR PHOTOS.

for time-management and psychological-preservation reasons, I am not able to fully engage in this discussion; sorry to disappoint...

Time management reasons? If you really want to save time, show us conversation-stopping evidence substantiating your claim of its legitimacy that justifies its $70k price. Simply stating that its original pre45 does not make it original pre45.

[schönbeck]

Nor a dealer or collector would want any item declared as a fake. Therefor it's better to show no so called evidence and slowly this dagger or any item discussed will be forgotten and also sold for a good profit.

We all know that several odd stuff exists. Just check the other thread with period photos of uniforms that no one would buy today. But still, if some one would give something to another very important person you sure would want to give them the best available. We are not talking about a HJ armband or a bayonet.

[Jo Rivett]

the fact that there exists an Eickhorn factory list showing recipients of the SA version of this dagger

Would you please, for once in your Life, back up what you suppose and claim in public.
We are seriously questioning a dagger that you have listed for SEVENTY THOUSAND, and all you can muster up is the same old story.."i don't have time for this" giving the reader the feeling that you have placed yourself on a higher pedestal above us, and we are not worthy of your Superior knowledge, well that's the feeling i get, and let me tell you, i am starting to feel somewhat insulted by your behavior on this thread. Many of us here, including myself, were collecting before you were alive Craig, and we have a very good idea of what was made, and to what standards, although you claim otherwise.

There is no need for this thread at all, if you, and your friends who Claim to have all this evidence, will step forward and enlighten us, and of course put your Facts where your mouth is. Stop pussy-footing around, and finally back up what you are claiming.

[Mac 66]

Would you please, for once in your Life, back up what you suppose and claim in public.
We are seriously questioning a dagger that you have listed for SEVENTY THOUSAND, and all you can muster up is the same old story.."i don't have time for this" giving the reader the feeling that you have placed yourself on a higher pedestal above us, and we are not worthy of your Superior knowledge, well that's the feeling i get, and let me tell you, i am starting to feel somewhat insulted by your behavior on this thread. Many of us here, including myself, were collecting before you were alive Craig, and we have a very good idea of what was made, and to what standards, although you claim otherwise.

There is no need for this thread at all, if you, and your friends who Claim to have all this evidence, will step forward and enlighten us, and of course put your Facts where your mouth is. Stop pussy-footing around, and finally back up what you are claiming.

I Totally agree, show us CONCRETE EVIDENCE !!!

[Bill101]

....a different dagger, or a ring, or a visor, or a grouping of tunics... Its always something....

These arguments come up again and again because it seems like you pull these same tricks again and again.. You blur the line between known good and bad and create these vast areas of grayness between black and white where your products somehow always seem to exist.
You are attempting to discredit those that question you and indignantly walk away, yet you still have shown us zero proof that this dagger is of the pre1945 era. All signs point to this being a bogus piece. All you do is point out why you think those that disagree have an agenda or are wrong. How about this novel idea:

SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE, LIKE THE EICKHORN LIST, AND MAKE SURE THE LIST INCLUDES A CONNECTION TO YOUR DAGGER, IE MEASUREMENTS OR PHOTOS.



Time management reasons? If you really want to save time, show us conversation-stopping evidence substantiating your claim of its legitimacy that justifies its $70k price. Simply stating that its original pre45 does not make it original pre45.

I


I could not have said it better myself. The question is why does management protect this
Shyster again and again?

And why do we as collectors tolerate this crap again and again from this person?
why is he even still in business?
Why wasnt he run out of this hobby years ago?

These are the important questions here IMHO

[F. J. Stephens]

Craig's Birdsbrain Dagger

Craig,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>
What experience do you have to determine that the so-called "Birdsheads" are early pieces - where is the period evidence?

Let us look at the claims you are making about the NSBO/DAF Birdshead – and compare them to some truths, because you have clearly forgotten (or choose to deliberately mislead) what was revealed at the time you obtained it.
<o></o>
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.
<o></o>
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.
<o></o>
You also describe the knife as: “which exhibits THE "factory drawing" matched cross-guard”. What “factory drawing” is this Craig? Where is it to be found? Can you show it to us? Or is this just another fib that you throw in to confuse the issue.<o></o>
<o></o>
You persistently make the claim that flaws are perfectly normal and acceptable on these high priced items – REALLY? That is certainly news to me. Of course that may be a good line to tell an innocent collector – to explain away some dubious feature on whatever item it is you are selling. So let us take a real look at the “tiny pock mark” which you say I commented upon when I examined the dagger.
<o></o>
I do not consider that these “blemishes” are in any way representative of normal quality on a cheap item – let alone on a supposed high-end presentation piece. And take a look at that detail where 25% OF THE WREATH AROUND THE SWASTIKA IS MISSING ! You are going to try and tell serious collectors that this is perfectly normal and acceptable quality for a piece of this supposed stature?
<o></o>
My evidence for this piece is not circumstantial – it is factual: you can see it; you can measure it; it is not a trick of the light. And there are lots of other flaws on the piece. So let us see if you can put up one verifiable fact to support the “authentication” of this item. You are good at mocking other people, Craig, but let us see how good you are on accuracy and truthfulness.

Frederick J. Stephens

[David Guist]

Hi this thread will be closed. If the rules are not followed. I will no got through this again.

[David North]

Dear David

With all due respect to yourself as a Moderator, for myself at least, I see here all the quite justified and absolutely necessary rules of the Forum being correctly followed and without any variance or aberration. A closure of this very important and somewhat worrying thread, which has potentially very serious ramifications, will perhaps be seen as some as a blessed relief.

I hope and again with all due respect, that you allow this thread to develop by it providing a platform and vehicle for those who have been asked the most simple, basic and rudimentary questions - to answer.

Regards,

David

[RevYJ]

Hi this thread will be closed. If the rules are not followed. I will no go through this again.

I wouldn't have given this piece a second look except for the stratospheric price and neither would many other collectors. But since it's earned such attention I for one am enjoying the discussion and eagerly expect more.

This is a big deal. No, strike that, this is a very big deal. Any piece with the slightest bit of doubt and with that many zeroes in the price tag demands vigorous debate.

Maybe a couple of entries were less than tactful or the author should have cooled down a bit before posting. But that's just the nature of the beast. And besides, much can and will be inferred from the individual respondent's tone. I say let them duke it out, and I'm guessing much of the readership feels the same way.

[David Guist]

Hi sorry it is the posts that you dont see. I do not have any interest in this issue as to it beeing real or fake. It does not bother me in any way whom is involved.As a moderator I remain neutral. But keep getting horassed as to takeing sides.The only thing I request is the rules be followed. Best regards.

[Frogprince]

I am not saying that it is, or has happened here, but with another topic a few years back there was talk of an “agent provocateur” who was deliberately trying to get the thread shut down. So I think that we as participants have to be careful in what we say so that it does not cause unnecessary problems. And I know (and believe me I know) that it can be difficult at times to keep things civil. But the thread is too important to have it end prematurely. FP

[Serge M.]

Dear David

With all due respect to yourself as a Moderator, for myself at least, I see here all the quite justified and absolutely necessary rules of the Forum being correctly followed and without any variance or aberration. A closure of this very important and somewhat worrying thread, which has potentially very serious ramifications, will perhaps be seen as some as a blessed relief.

I hope and again with all due respect, that you allow this thread to develop by it providing a platform and vehicle for those who have been asked the most simple, basic and rudimentary questions - to answer.

Regards,

David

I concur with the above concise and well stated post, and Rev's post along with many others who only want to see ....... The List.

Those casting flaws shown are not minor, I've handeled enough daggers to know that for my satisfaction.


-wagner-