Craig Gottlieb-SA Birdshead Dagger

[Erich B.]

Understood that it might be apples to oranges in this instance, but I would think that if regulations called for a black dagger for the Marine SA, the manufacturers would have offered the variation in their catalogues.
Also--I also posted in the thread started by 777.
Erich

[Frogprince]

...... 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......

Cogwheel, Not to get into a big discussion, but If you were die casting then a permanent mold makes sense. But for sand or investment casting the mold is a one time affair, that is destroyed when the item being cast is removed. But a pattern which can be a softer metal or even wood, unless it gets broken can last a very long time. So the Eickhorn casting shop which had been doing this kind of work for decades, had a sudden loss of personnel due to the war, and was using conscript labor? Of course I'm being facetious here, but it's to make a point.

And casting flaws have been happening for centuries. But if the caster really messes up he can just recast the item. And why go to the trouble of gold plating a bad casting with a lot of holes in it? And then mating it to a custom made Damascus blade with a personalized inscription? Regards, FP

[Jo Rivett]

If we stick to the basic item being offered here, and it`s accompanying description, enough holes can be found to sink this pelican into the swamp it crawled out of without the need for 100 opinions.
While we wait for the owner(s) to enlighten us (i have money on it that they cant) i can only urge you to all read this thread again, slowly, from the beginning, and it becomes clear that the joke is really on us for even considering to believe that something this horrible could have found it`s way into a presentation case accompanied by a Damast blade. C`mon, we are all grown men here, shame on us for entertaining this preposterous idea in the first place.

Poor Eickhorn, i bet the entire board of staff are writhing in their graves right now..

[F. J. Stephens]

Birdshead and Castings

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?

Cogwheel,

I will firstly add to a point made by Frogprince in his reply to you - concerning castings. The casting mould in loss wax casting (sometimes known as a "core box") is not a mould in the conventional sense - it only becomes such when the wax master is placed inside the box and the thermo-proof powder is packed in to support it. Two wax sprues (an "enter" and an "exit") are also included - to allow the molten metal to enter the mould and the liquid wax to be ejected at the opposite end as it is replaced by the molten metal.

So it would be true to say that when the metal has cooled and the box opened to retrieve the cast metal artifact - that the mould is "destroyed". However, the creation of the wax masters is also performed by a mould made from a master pattern. The master pattern is usually a durable but workable material (such as wood), and the master mould can be made of gypsium, or Plaster-of-Paris, etch. These moulds retain good detail, are simple to make, and the casting temperature of wax is much lower than that of most molten metals. So it is relatively easy to make duplicate waxes for multiple castings - and they would all be identical. It makes practical sense to do it this way - even for very short production runs.

Concerning the short size of the Birdshead blade - and therefore not "intended for wear" - I can only refer to the NSFK dagger, which I believe is shorter, and yet it is seen in wear.

Absolute adherence to the "golden ratio" is only a general guide. There are other factors which come into play - such as the complete length of the inscription, whether it is 1, 2, or 3 lines deep, and the actual shape of the blade. For example, the inscription on the RAD hewer is easily seen as being closer to the hilt, and it does not conform to the "ratio" at all (the difference being a ratio of 1 : 6). The ratio cannot be adequately applied to a blade of assymetrical shape (as indeed the RAD hewer is). I can only presume that the original design concept recognised this, and that the approved design concept placed the inscription in its current position as an acceptable expedient. (The other point is that as the RAD hewer was originally conceived as a "working tool" and not a dress item, that the inscription was kept up, out of the way from the business end of the weapon.

On the subject of a letter opener, I would rather think that the quality of work and adherence to classical design traits, might be influenced by the importance of the intended recipient. To provide another analogy; examples of the "Kindersabel" often display a high quality workmanship that is nearly comparable to the full-sized adult versions - and yet the child sabres are in essence "toys".

I hope that my answer has been helpful to you.

Best regards

Frederick J. Stephens

[TxGauleiter]

So the owner of the dagger has posted on this forum today but has chosen to stay silent on this topic in this thread. Direct questions have been asked, and gone unanswered. What are we to infer from this development? I have my own thoughts on this observation, but it is quite telling when the owner has chosen to deliberately abandon all defense. I suppose this is his acknowledgement that the dagger is a postwar frankenstein.

When challenged about the authenticity, the most obvious reaction would be to silence its opponents with concrete evidence, facts, and figures proving its legitimacy and embarrassing its detractors. Time, which was the alleged reason for not participating in this debate can no longer be considered truthful, since there is time to comment on other items by the same dealer in a different area of this site. So by choosing to not speak he speaks loud and clear.

[Jeremy92]

So the owner of the dagger has posted on this forum today but has chosen to stay silent on this topic in this thread. Direct questions have been asked, and gone unanswered. What are we to infer from this development? I have my own thoughts on this observation, but it is quite telling when the owner has chosen to deliberately abandon all defense. I suppose this is his acknowledgement that the dagger is a postwar frankenstein.

When challenged about the authenticity, the most obvious reaction would be to silence its opponents with concrete evidence, facts, and figures proving its legitimacy and embarrassing its detractors. Time, which was the alleged reason for not participating in this debate can no longer be considered truthful, since there is time to comment on other items by the same dealer in a different area of this site. So by choosing to not speak he speaks loud and clear.

IMO without a response from him, photos before and after restoration, and the so called list this thread is just a waste of space. Furthemore it is apparent to me that the existence of this dagger is based on a mixture of bs and hearsay.

[F. J. Stephens]

SA Birdshead List

IMO without a response from him, photos before and after restoration, and the so called list this thread is just a waste of space. Furthemore it is apparent to me that the existence of this dagger is based on a mixture of bs and hearsay.

Gentlemen,

That claimed list of the Birdshead recipients, from the "Eickhorn factory files" will be forthcoming, because I have a black and white copy of it. I am presently contacting the current owner, to see if he will release a 1st generation digital copy in full colour - which will be better for study.

I will keep you posted on this development.

Frederick J. Stephens

[ValhallaMilitaria]

If the proof of before and after of restoration can be provided then why isn't it? its possible that the seller is too busy...still, if it was my item and the whole matter could be simply laid to rest with a small bit of proof then I would jump at the chance to furnish it.

[Scott C.]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but Tom Johnson describes the "Special SA Presentation Dagger" in his Vol 1 of Collecting the Edged Weapons of the Third Reich, page 44-45 (third edition, copyright 1982). He presents it as authentic, but offers no period evidence of the dagger; he simply describes its physical features with conjecture on when and to whom it may have been awarded. The dagger shown is attributed to the Robert McCarthy collection.

In Vol 3 of the same series (page 91), Johnson shows a large, close-up color photo of the handle and upper part of the damascus blade, which bears an early raised Eickhorn double oval mark. He references his Vol 1 for "more details" (as mentioned above).

He has another small photo in Vol 4, page 102, again, referring the reader to Vol 1 for details.

[cogwheel]

Those who say that the birdshead didn't exist have the problem of trying to prove a negative. And it is a well known fact you cannot prove a negative. Those who say that it did exist point at existing examples which are real and have been owned by highly regarded collectors.
I can see a standoff that does not go anywhere, and pursuing this matter any further is a colossal waste of time.

[Jeremy92]

Those who say that the birdshead didn't exist have the problem of trying to prove a negative. And it is a well known fact you cannot prove a negative. Those who say that it did exist point at existing examples which are real and have been owned by highly regarded collectors.
I can see a standoff that does not go anywhere, and pursuing this matter any further is a colossal waste of time.

Well no proof that it existed sounds like proof that it didnt exist to me.

[Jo Rivett]

Those who say that the birdshead didn't exist have the problem of trying to prove a negative. And it is a well known fact you cannot prove a negative. Those who say that it did exist point at existing examples which are real and have been owned by highly regarded collectors.
I can see a standoff that does not go anywhere, and pursuing this matter any further is a colossal waste of time.

Cogwheel, There is enough here on WAF, (in sticky threads) of nice, rare items owned by "Highly regarded collectors" that is plain Junk !

Just because a "Name" owns something means diddly Squat, and to think otherwise is Ignorant, and has been the downfall for many a collector.

I could turn your post around on you, concerning these "highly regarded collectors" and point to Mr Stephens, who, as you would have gathered by following this thread, is batting for us And if you are looking for a, Highly Regarded, Respected, learned, educated and informed Blade collector, they do not come much better.
So it cuts both ways.

There is no stand off Cogwheel, A seller has produced an Item, worth a years salary in any working mans book, he has described it, and backed it up with a lot of words. Myself, and others, have asked to see the facts and Historical research behind this item, which according to the seller, he has. Cogwheel, if you had a years wages, to spend on one item, would you not want to see some hard evidence, and Period facts, even a period mention in some form? or do you trust these "names" so blindly that it is enough for you, when they point to an old book, that also has no facts or Historical research, and say... "Well he wrote this and that, so therefore it`s Original"
Do You ? would you take that gamble?

If you would, you would not be alone, i personally knew two people who in the last 10 years took their own life because they had been stitched up by so called "names". It happens all the time, but is not wise though. Homework should always be done, that's the fun part, and if you`re betting a years salary, Homework alone is not enough, a story is not enough, a blatant point to a picture in a book written by someone who is "known"..is not enough.

[Craig Gottlieb]

So the owner of the dagger has posted on this forum today but has chosen to stay silent on this topic in this thread. Direct questions have been asked, and gone unanswered. What are we to infer from this development? I have my own thoughts on this observation, but it is quite telling when the owner has chosen to deliberately abandon all defense. I suppose this is his acknowledgement that the dagger is a postwar frankenstein.

When challenged about the authenticity, the most obvious reaction would be to silence its opponents with concrete evidence, facts, and figures proving its legitimacy and embarrassing its detractors. Time, which was the alleged reason for not participating in this debate can no longer be considered truthful, since there is time to comment on other items by the same dealer in a different area of this site. So by choosing to not speak he speaks loud and clear.

I'm sorry, Mr. Gauileter, but you seriously over-estimate your importance to me. You sir are irrelevant to me, and so are your thoughts about this dagger. If you had a business to run, an infant son to take care of, out-of-town guests, international press interviews, an upcoming auction, you'd probably not have time for your antics either. Besides, as history has shown me and all but a small core of "believers," arguing with Fred Stephens and his crowd is a complete waste of time. I greatly respect and enjoy Wehrmacht-Awards.com and the outstanding people here, which is why I am a life member, a financial contributor, and why I post frequently, unlike other dealers. Mr. Gauleiter . . . as William Shatner said, move out of your parent's basement, and get a life.

[Jo Rivett]

I'm sorry, Mr. Gauileter, but you seriously over-estimate your importance to me. You sir are irrelevant to me, and so are your thoughts about this dagger. If you had a business to run, an infant son to take care of, out-of-town guests, international press interviews, an upcoming auction, you'd probably not have time for your antics either. Besides, as history has shown me and all but a small core of "believers," arguing with Fred Stephens and his crowd is a complete waste of time. I greatly respect and enjoy Wehrmacht-Awards.com and the outstanding people here, which is why I am a life member, a financial contributor, and why I post frequently, unlike other dealers. Mr. Gauleiter . . . as William Shatner said, move out of your parent's basement, and get a life.

Craig Gottlieb, judging by this post of yours, it is maybe not you, who seriously overestimate your Importance to the Hobby. Allowing yourself the Liberties that you do, every time a New and unique item surfaces. You have all the facts, each story and account, yet when asked to Historically add weight to your claimed "Gem" you get all nasty and leave the thread, only returning to post what you just did above.

We all have lives to lead outside of WAF, you are no exception here. I doubt if anyone should be expected to be online each and every day all the time, and post on a regular basis.

Look at this through "our eyes" would you, you are quick to post your new gems on a regular, daily basis, but as soon as the thread turns against you, or dares to question your Gems, you get nasty...unless, you have Period Evidence. Your desktop thread is a perfect example, you have posted pictures and period information no end, post after post, and really backed the desk set up, so why can you not do the same on this thread, why even post what you did above? you wouldn't even need as many words....

Please respond to the very easy to understand, Simple questions, posed to you on this thread. That is surely not asking too much is it?

If what you posted above is true, "I greatly respect and enjoy Wehrmacht-Awards.com and the outstanding people here" then you would surely wish to share your evidence with us, seeing as you Respect us....... No ?
Mr Gottlieb ?

[Frogprince]

I'm sorry, Mr. Gauileter, but you seriously over-estimate your importance to me. You sir are irrelevant to me, and so are your thoughts about this dagger. If you had a business to run, an infant son to take care of, out-of-town guests, international press interviews, an upcoming auction, you'd probably not have time for your antics either. Besides, as history has shown me and all but a small core of "believers," arguing with Fred Stephens and his crowd is a complete waste of time. I greatly respect and enjoy Wehrmacht-Awards.com and the outstanding people here, which is why I am a life member, a financial contributor, and why I post frequently, unlike other dealers. Mr. Gauleiter . . . as William Shatner said, move out of your parent's basement, and get a life.

It seems to me that the Argumentum ad Hominem approach (which on occasion I've seen before) might be the result of the formal education that I know about. But I was a little bit surprised that the Wikipedia entry that provided that information seems to be more about the desk set that is currently for sale than the man. And nothing about this dagger, or some others that were shown to be frauds. Why is that? FP


http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html