Craig Gottlieb-SA Birdshead Dagger

[Craig Gottlieb]

I will consult my dealer contract for the paragraph that deals with my obligations to answer your questions, and get RIGHT back to you.

[TxGauleiter]

I will consult my dealer contract for the paragraph that deals with my obligations to answer your questions, and get RIGHT back to you.

game. set. match.

there you have it, community.

[Frogprince]

For someone who has never handled either dagger and is relying on third and fourth party information, you certainly have very strong and voluminous opinions. You are certainly entitled to them, as I am mine.

While second-hand information typically can be classified as hearsay, rumor, unconfirmed reports, word of mouth etc. The reference to “third or forth party information” is supposed to be just what exactly? Also, while some things were obvious in that there are no TM’s of any kind. Especially with the better quality photo closeups of the “gold” dagger they told a story of poor to mediocre quality workmanship, with the addition of parts old and new that was not visible with the distance shots. Which “in hand” I think should have been immediately apparent to most observers. (And if it’s desired to revisit the “hands on” argument - I think that I might have some good examples where that did not work out very well versus photos.)

PS: Prior to this discussion I had never seen either of the daggers. Having no opinions either way. FP

[TxGauleiter]

I will consult my dealer contract for the paragraph that deals with my obligations to answer your questions, and get RIGHT back to you.

Translation:

There are no photos of the restoration, there is no name of the restoration company because there was no restoration..

The term "restoration" was used preemptively to explain the flaws of a cheap reproduction...

[Craig Gottlieb]

Mr. Gauleiter, you are calling me a liar, and not only suggesting, but stating emphatically that I am trying to "hide" the fact that this piece is fake. That is a very serious charge, and one that I would expect you to defend. You made a statement, so defend it. If you have no evidence, then I would say that your post is a flame our a troll, designed merely to make me look bad. The dagger is restored, I have admitted it before hand, which decreases the value of the piece. I have done the right thing, and to diffuse the uncomfortable situation, tried to brush off your comment and diffuse your personal attack with some humor of my own, but no more. As an aside, you are not entitled, Mr. Gauleiter, to know my private business, and I am not required to document with photographs everything I do. Absent of evidence, discuss the piece, not your whacky theories about my character.

[Craig Gottlieb]

And, let me be perfectly clear for the bystanders here: there are no photos of before and after because I didn't take any. I did not try to hide the restoration like many dealers would, and am now guilty of not taking pictures.

[Mr. Blades]

The Birdshead dagger has been featured in most TR publications and textbooks long before Craig Gottlieb got on the scene. Thus, many collectors, including myself, have considered this dagger as perfectly legitimate - and I still do. Those who strongly believe that this dagger is a fake certainly can't accuse Craig of trying to defraud the collecting community because he read the same books that I did.
To my knowledge there is no publication, past or current, that has in any way questioned this dagger's legitimacy.
And any legitimate dagger with this type of rarity would well be worth the amount asked for by Craig.

I personally don't think it is fair for anyone to make the assumption that Craig is selling a fake. There's just no viable evidence this dagger ever existed. Rare or not if it's not accepted by the collecting community at large, it's value is no more than that of a used tire.

[TxGauleiter]

I will respond shortly, cant at the moment

[TxGauleiter]

Mr. Gauleiter, you are calling me a liar, and not only suggesting, but stating emphatically that I am trying to "hide" the fact that this piece is fake. That is a very serious charge, and one that I would expect you to defend. You made a statement, so defend it. If you have no evidence, then I would say that your post is a flame our a troll, designed merely to make me look bad. The dagger is restored, I have admitted it before hand, which decreases the value of the piece. I have done the right thing, and to diffuse the uncomfortable situation, tried to brush off your comment and diffuse your personal attack with some humor of my own, but no more. As an aside, you are not entitled, Mr. Gauleiter, to know my private business, and I am not required to document with photographs everything I do. Absent of evidence, discuss the piece, not your whacky theories about my character.

I believe you are attempting to bait me into a reinforcement of my claims above with the hope that by my doing so, the entire thread will somehow be dissolved, cleaned up, shut down, or what have you, and know ahead of time, I will not take your bait.

I will however, address your response piece by piece without crossing any boundaries of the forum... here goes:

Mr. Gauleiter, you are calling me a liar, and not only suggesting, but stating emphatically that I am trying to "hide" the fact that this piece is fake. That is a very serious charge, and one that I would expect you to defend...

I do believe that by not revealing any of the things that you claimed you have to support the daggers pre-1945 authenticity, you are encouraging the speculation of its status as a reproduction. I have gone on record on multiple posts asking you to reveal the evidence you claim to have. You are the one ignoring the requests. I expect you to defend your claim that its of pre-1945 manufacture. Simply hoping and wishing it to be real does NOT make it real.

...If you have no evidence, then I would say that your post is a flame our a troll, designed merely to make me look bad. The dagger is restored, I have admitted it before hand, which decreases the value of the piece.

Yes, you claim the dagger is restored. The asking price is $70,000. I believe that anyone having a restoration on such a valuable piece would document the before and after status to protect you and the restorer in the event of an accident or mishap. I also believe that if you had the dagger restored, you could provide the name of the firm who restored it to corroborate the restoration. To this point, you have yet to produce anything that substantiate your claim. I find this judgement questionable, since if there was a real restoration, these things would be easy to produce. Assuming that there were never any pictures before, then at least share with the community the company that restored such a piece. Surely they wouldnt object since it would be quite a valuable piece of free advertising for them, wouldnt it? And how can I make you look bad? You can easily reverse that perception, (if its indeed important to you), by producing the evidence you claim you have! Your credibility is on display, and any evasiveness serves only to discredit you, not me.

...I have done the right thing, and to diffuse the uncomfortable situation, tried to brush off your comment and diffuse your personal attack with some humor of my own, but no more. As an aside, you are not entitled, Mr. Gauleiter, to know my private business, and I am not required to document with photographs everything I do. Absent of evidence, discuss the piece, not your whacky theories about my character.

I appreciate your attempt to diffuse the situation with humor, but may I suggest you diffuse it with facts and evidence instead? Furthermore, I cannot find evidence of any personal attack. I do believe that I have attacked inconsistencies in your story, but that has nothing to do with you as a person. I do not know you personally. I am attacking the discrepancies in your story.


You claim that I am calling you a liar. I apologize if that is how it came across. I do emphatically take exception to your tactics, but this forum is not the place for that.

__________________________________________________ _______________________


Below you will find your own quotes. Here you say that Tom Johnson discovered factory photographs:

...but for some factory photographs discovered by Tom Johnson years ago, debate would have continued as to whether or not this was a 3rd Reich period produced item, for the German market.

May we please see the factory photos? Where did you see them and how can we add those photos to the thread to substantiate your claim? Now, you said that they exist, where can they be seen?

below, you say that there exists an Eickhorn factory list showing the recipients:

there exists an Eickhorn factory list showing recipients of the SA version of this dagger, and as memory serves me, they are mostly industrialists. Two of the known daggers are presented to people on that list, if memory serves.

May we please see the Eickhorn factory list? Where did you see them and how can we add that list to the thread to substantiate your claim? Now, you said that they exist, where can they be seen? Are the factory photos and is the factory list the one referenced in post #327 by Mr Stephens? If so, that hardly constitutes "factory Eickhorn" material. What factory material do you know of?

Below, you tell us how the dagger came into your possession:

...I bought this from the LIVING veteran..

then you were corrected:

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.
-Frederick J. Stephens

then finally:

when I said "I purchased from a living vet" that was 100% true in my opinion. Yes, the money was given to a picker, but the picker gave me the veteran's name and telephone number...

It is this sort of reckless liberty you take with truth that creates doubt. It also doesnt help that when asked to produce the evidence you claim you have, you refuse to produce it. I am sure you can understand how reasonable people watching the thread develop would find it suspicious that a person who has the stuff you claim to have would refuse to produce it so as to protect their own reputation. If you have it, which you claim to have, please share it. It would legitimize all Birdshead daggers and help all Birdshead dagger owners in the process. Please be generous with the community with your information.

And, let me be perfectly clear for the bystanders here: there are no photos of before and after because I didn't take any. I did not try to hide the restoration like many dealers would, and am now guilty of not taking pictures.

I find it questionable that there be no before pictures when a potential $100k dagger is involved, but as the owner thats your call. Would you please share who carried out its restoration so that it can:

a) be corroborated, and
b) we might be able to take advantage of their services for our own daggers?

There are over 450 posts of facts and comprehensive, exhaustive analysis to discredit the dagger, and a few quotes from you refusing to admit what seems obvious to the objective. You no-doubt have motivation to disbelieve, but I do not, and in light of the facts produced by others, and the lack of facts produced by you, the reality comes into focus.

In summation, in order that all this be cleared up once and for all and that I might offer you a public apology, please address the following points:

• who is the firm or individual who restored the dagger
• may we see the Eickhorn factory photographs
• may we see the Eickhorn factory list of recipients

Gottlieb, I look forward to your honest and direct answers.

[TxGauleiter]

Absent of evidence, discuss the piece, not your whacky theories about my character.

by the way, you misspelled "wacky"

[TxGauleiter]

I have done the right thing, and to diffuse the uncomfortable situation...with some humor of my own...

by the way, I am not uncomfortable..
are you?

[cogwheel]

Gee, I am getting those pesky emails that someone keeps torquing up this topic after I thought that it had been pinned into oblivion. As an observer on the sidelines I feel cheated over the lack of substance and the realization that this thread is all about personality clashes. I'm also disappointed in Craig for letting himself get suckered into this quagmire which turns out to be a no win situation for all participants.

[TxGauleiter]

As an observer on the sidelines I feel cheated over the lack of substance...

lack of substance? are you serious? did you not read the last 450 posts? there is exhaustive substance..

...and the realization that this thread is all about personality clashes...

all about personality clashes? this is all about the dagger.. do you realize that Craig said he has factory photos and a factory list of recipients? he also admits its restored, yet wont reveal who restored it or substantiate in any way its restoration?

..I'm also disappointed in Craig for letting himself get suckered into this quagmire which turns out to be a no win situation for all participants.

no win situation? this is an easy win situation.. all Craig has to do is show us the factory evidence he claims he has, and prove there was a restoration carried out..

[busterz111]

I am trying to stay out of this but The comment by Cogwheel is absurd.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Yeah, I have a habit of getting sucked in. But, since the grand-standing seems over for the moment, I will answer AGAIN.

1) I will not tell you who restored the silver birdshead dagger, because people who do that often prefer to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. It was restored, I admitted it before there was a peep about this dagger, and that is enough for my integrity.

2) If you want to see Tom Johnson's factory photograph, ask Tom Johnson. It's been published somewhere, if memory serves me, as has the list of recipients. Other people confirm they have seen these, like Ron Weinand, so ask them.

3) If you cannot discern what I meant when I referred to the living veteran from whom I purchased the OTHER NSBO/DAF Birdshead (through a picker, but with whom I had dialogue via telephone more than once), then I assume you have an agenda here. It is not an unfair assumption. The point was the piece had veteran provenance. Why would I have tried to "LIE" to Fred Stephens here, who I told the entire story to in person. Nobody has ever accused me of being stupid. This is truly a first.

4) I did NOT take photos of the restored dagger before and after. I'm sorry I did not, but such has never been a requirement before. There is no conspiracy here to "hide the poor quality" - the dagger is far nicer than many other production daggers including genuine Feldhernhalle daggers, so you should question your assumptions here.

The fact of the matter is that the SA BIrdshead is a dagger type that every dagger expert believes in, with the exception of Fred Stephens, who is a self-acknowledge skeptic. Tom Wittmann believes in THESE TWO that are the subject of this thread. Tom Johnson, Bob McCarthy, Ron Weinand, Jason Burmeister, and a host of other dagger dealers and collectors that you don't even know the names of. People with hundreds of years of experience combined.

Cogwheell: I have to get sucked into a conversation like this, because to allow Texas to continue on this one-man tirade, will leave casual viewers that don't have time to read 40 pages of silliness, with the idea that "Craig Gottlieb was called out on another huge thread, didn't care to defend himself, so must be a crook." Anyone who recalls the Oakleaves from 7 or 8 years ago, will only remember that "Craig had a questionalble set of oakleaves" and NOT that they were deemed by every expert who inspected them to be 100% authentic.