Sa Presentation dagger by Carl Eduard

[Serge M.]

Welcome back Frederick.

Interesting read so far however here's what I see as the 'wall' facing the disbelievers;

1. First off you have to try to convince the believers that what they are seeing is not authentic.
You have to get us to believe that these crossguards were somehow switched postwar with epack SS crossguards.
The owner I got the Hansen 'Battle of Bulge' dagger got it right off the living veteran. Then you would have to convince me that the Kratochwill dagger was even disassembled ( I see no evidence of it).
Then you have to convince Witty that these things ('1' stamped SA crossguards) really didn't happen as he has stated they did.

2. Then you need to convince the majority that when Hitler came to power that the Red agitations had somehow stopped and they all became law abiding 'good citizens' of the new 3rd Reich, and by 1934 there were no more subversive activities by RF, SD and the like.
Unfortunatley the people who were doing the fighting against the Nazi regime have already disagreed with you, as would most certainly Duke Carl Eduard with the placement of the 1934 date on his presentation daggers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5kk...ed=0CEAQ6AEwBQ

OK - later switched crossguards with SS. No Proof.
OK - 1934 'Revolution' date not consistant with historic facts. -Soo Sorry G.I.-but it is historically accurate.

Now what is left? Ah Yes....that tell tale 'squiggle on the wiggle' in the Sutterlin script perhaps?

I, along with 97% of our colleages, await the proof. As they used to say; 'Where's the Beef ?'

Time to flop it on the table to see that Perry Mason 'Ah-Haa' moment.
I know...it's 'right-around-the-corner'.


Respectfully,
Serge

[Frogprince]

Serge, I understand what you are saying. But the “Red Menace” started much earlier, and did not pack up and leave town in 1934 (20,000 arrests between 1936-37). So these two daggers were like the gold watches given to guys who retired from the railroad after 30 years service? Fred

[Serge M.]

Serge, I understand what you are saying. But the “Red Menace” started much earlier, and did not pack up and leave town in 1934 (20,000 arrests between 1936-37). So these two daggers were like the gold watches given to guys who retired from the railroad after 30 years service? Fred

Fred, they could be. At this time we don't know and can only conjecture possibilities. Perhaps Hansen and Kratochwill directed the head bashing of Reds in the Dukes Dukedom?
Maybe NSKK Linke provided transport to the SA in the 'clean-up' process? The 'Red Menace' was very strong in Coburg and surrounding areas after 1918.

SA names are hard to find as the U.S. records on SA men are a lot less complete compared to the SS. A research firm I hired could not find those two names in the U.S. SA records. So anyone who can help out, let me know.

Now back to Duke Carl Eduard; It's my understanding that The Fuhrer was very much impressed with the early 'noble' support he received after the talk Hitler had with Duke Eduard after the historic 'battle of Coburg' in Oct 1922. So when the nazi's came to power Hitler made Duke Eduard an Honorary SA Gruppenfuhrer, Honorary NSKK Obergruppenfuhrer, and several other very high positions within the regime.

Speculating a bit further, it seems logical to me that Carl Eduard knowing first hand by being abused by the communists, and seeing how Hitler had scattered the rabble and made by all accounts an inspiring speech, Eduard sided with the guys who could 'get the job done'. As the SA grew it seems that Hitler could spare some brown shirts to 'work' the Dukes territory that was for a short period a Communist zone of govt. in Bavaria. Perhaps these daggers were really meant for what they say they meant; " for loyal collaboration in the fighting years of the national socialistic revolution ..(date)...".
Sounds to me that these daggers were a 'Gift of Recognition' for street fighting.

Duke Eduard was a 'front row' celebrity. Here is is sitting on the right next to the SS Gruppenfuhrer. He was known to give blades as presents to much higher personalities than these two SA and NSKK officers. I'll leave here now so Frederick has something to say tomorrow.

Serge

[Frogprince]

Serge, From what I remember when I looked into it, he was at odds with the Reds, and had to abdicate. Lost his properties as the Duke. With under the Weimar constitution in 1919 all of the families losing their hereditary and legal privileges. But the Weimar Republic did not ban the use of titles and passed legislation to that effect. With the Duke eventually reaching an agreement on compensation for his lands, and I think one castle as a residence. But the Dukedom itself was long gone and he didn’t even join the party itself until mid-1933, with the appointment as an SA general three months later. And I will have to go back and see how good my memory is while we see what else can be added to this discussion. Fred

[F. J. Stephens]

Interim reply

Dear Serge, <O</O
<O</O
Thanks for the welcome back! This is just an interim reply to cover a few basic points that have been recently raised – not directly associated with the Carl Eduard daggers – bit I will briefly cover them all the same.

The two daggers submitted by Ivbaust and Eric von Rader look perfectly OK to me. Nice inscriptions, gentlemen. I agree with Frogprince’s observation that the inscription on the “Walter Kohler” dagger was probably done with a pantograph engraver using pre-formed stencils. The pantograph feature allows for the letters to be accurately enlarged or reduced according to the space available for the inscription. The first pantograph machine was constructed in 1603 by Christoph Scheiner, and there were various improved designs and applications in the following centuries. So such devices employed for engraving purposes would be well-known in the Germany of the Third Reich. The second example presented by Eric, looks to me to be a fine example of freehand engraving by a very competent jeweller/engraver.<O</O
<O</O

Regarding the presence of the SA Gruppe stamping “Sw” and “No” respectively on the two pieces described, (and commonly found with other abbreviated Gruppe names on other early pieces); I am unsure whether or not this application was performed at the factory of origin, or by some service within the respective SA Groups. I personally think that it was probably performed at Group level (just my guess), but if anyone has other information regarding this, then I will be pleased to hear it.<O</O
<O</O

The matter of the Roman form “I” on the Carl Eduard daggers (as well as the one shown on TW’s listing) takes some explaining, and I admit to being highly suspicious of it. Why, for example, does it not appear on the “Linke” dagger – which was the first of these “presentations” to be identified in 1968? I suspect some interference and stripping of the daggers has taken place, and if that is the case then some parts might have become mixed up with other pieces which were similarly being stripped down for some “remedial work”.<O</O
<O
Serge, regarding your post No. 136: <O</O
1. First off you have to try to convince the believers that what they are seeing is not authentic.<O</O
Serge, I do not have to convince anybody of anything – I have been asked to express my viewpoint, and I do state where I am making an opinion. If others have a differing opinion, then that is OK by me, but if they want to state that I am positively wrong – then I would wish to see their positive evidence.<O</O
<O</O

And....... OK - later switched crossguards with SS. No Proof.
Certainly I have no absolute evidence that the crossguards were switched post-war; equally I can find no rational explanation to account for the appearance of this Roman numeral on the Carl Eduard SA daggers, or also on the SA Rohm piece that TW features. To all intents and purposes it appears to be the conventional numeric marking used by the SS-Abschnitts. Three of these Abschnitt groups located across the Reich, were responsible for the distribution and sale of SS Clothing and Equipment, to include Service Daggers. The number codes for these SS Bureaus were: I – Munich; II – Dresden A 16; III – Berlin-Steglitz, and this accounts for the three versions of code number encountered on SS Daggers. So if you know of a reason to account for such a marking on an SA dagger, I would be fascinated to learn of it.<O</O
<O</O

I am pleased that “97% of our colleagues, await the proof”. So I will do my best to provide it – although it does take some time to write it all up as I like to double-check everything, but I will endeavour to get it posted as soon as possible. For the moment I will leave you with the above presentation, which I hope provides you with some stimulating “food for thought”.<O</O
<O</O

Yours<O</O
<O</O

Frederick<O</O
<O</O

[Frogprince]

While more sophisticated machines are available now, in the 1930’s there were 2D and 3D pantographs, 'industrial' size ones, and the one that engraved the Lord’s Prayer on the head of a pin. With various and sundry machines in use along with the legacy machines of an earlier era. Agreeing with Mr. Stephens that with the second example it looks like the freehand engraving work of a jeweler/engraver who knew what he was doing. With the first example looking more like that from a pantograph stencil with the caveat that it (IMO) was done more freehand style without the benefit of a fixture to lock the stencils in place. But then in looking at the two “e” s in “treuen” I changed my mind. Now thinking that the letters may have been traced, which could have simply been a piece of paper with the inscription already laid out to guide the pantograph operator.

One dagger says: “die nationalsozialistische Revolution 1930 - 1934”. The other “die nationalsozialistische Revolution 1928 - 1934”.

With a question to the 97%: Besides the “gold watch” theory for four and six years of service. What other explanations are there that fit in with the historical facts as we know them in relation to the timing of the “die nationalsozialistische Revolution” ? Fred

[JR.]

So what was the motive for this master forger to do these blades 40 years ago or perhaps longer ? Financial ........monetary.............fame ............ something to do with his idle time on the weekend? What was this scam artist's name, and where did he hail from ? How long did it take him to invent and complete these forged blades ?

[Ron Weinand]

J.r.

J.R. is CORRECT. When SAs sold 40 plus years ago for $15 plain and $20 with inscriptions, who would have wasted all that time back then and, try to find a buyer. Sometimes logic escapes the forums IMO.

[Ed Sunday]

J.R. is CORRECT. When SAs sold 40 plus years ago for $15 plain and $20 with inscriptions, who would have wasted all that time back then and, try to find a buyer. Sometimes logic escapes the forums IMO.

How humorous and true that statement is I couldn't agree more !!

[Frogprince]

So what was the motive for this master forger to do these blades 40 years ago or perhaps longer ? Financial ........monetary.............fame ............ something to do with his idle time on the weekend? What was this scam artist's name, and where did he hail from ? How long did it take him to invent and complete these forged blades ?

JR. Who said these were new (invented?) dagger blades? Motive - money. You want better examples? How about all of those “Dutch” Heilman daggers made by that jeweler in New York 50 plus years ago? Those took a lot more time and talent than simply inscribing a blade. But do I have to know his name? Or the exact dates he made them to know that they are fakes?? And how long (comparatively) do you think that it took to do the work to inscribe the blade??

J.R. is CORRECT. When SAs sold 40 plus years ago for $15 plain and $20 with inscriptions, who would have wasted all that time back then and, try to find a buyer. Sometimes logic escapes the forums IMO.

Ron, Who wasted all that time back then? It was guys who had the time and saw an opportunity for profit. Do you want more examples? In some of TMJ’s early books he has some bizarre examples of work by guys “upgrading” their possessions. Some had talent, and some did not. But what they created still made its way into print. With otherwise non-collector grade items historically being prime candidates for upgrading to "rarities". I will ask you this also. How long (comparatively) do you think that it took to do the work inscribing the blade?

How humorous and true that statement is I couldn't agree more !!

Ed, I don’t know what is so humorous about this whole discussion, I really don't. So maybe you could share what you think is so funny? FP

[F. J. Stephens]

Closing Argument - part one

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Part One)
<O</O
<O</O
Gentlemen,

<O</OI will present my closing argument against the support for the Carl Eduard daggers. I take no pleasure in demolishing the reputation of these daggers, particularly so because Serge (Wags) owns these daggers, and he is a personal friend of mine – and a good friend at that. Sometimes we have had to “agree to disagree”, and have done so without any disruption to our friendship and trust. I have no doubt that we will happily have a beer or two together, the next time we meet up.<O</O
<O</O
<OBACKGROUND OF CARL EDUARD:


</O
It is worth pointing out some background details that affected the life and times of Carl Eduard. He was born in England, at Claremont House, near Esher, Surrey, 19 July, 1884. His full name was Leopold Charles Edward George Albert, his father wasPrince Leopold, Duke of Albany, the fourth son of Queen Victoria and Albert, Prince Consort. His mother was the Duchess of Albany (née Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont). As Charles Edward’s father had died some four months before his birth (March, 1884), he immediately inherited his late father’s titles, and was styled: His Royal Highness Prince Charles Edward the Duke of Albany.
<O</O
The Royal Households of Europe at the time were all closely linked by marriage, and in 1900, the sixteen-year-old Duke of Albany inherited the ducal throne of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha from his uncle Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The title would have normally passed the Duke’s only son, Prince Alfred ("Young Affie" and therefore Charles Edward’s cousin), but he had died in 1899. Under the rules for hereditary titles, the next in line to the dukedom was Arthur the Duke of Connaught (Queen Victoria's third son), but he renounced his claims to the duchy. Arthur's own son, Prince Arthur of Connaught (who also renounced his claims), was attending school at Eton with Prince Charles Edward, and threatened to beat his cousin up if Charles Edward did not accept the duchy. While at school his mother would write to Charles Edward instilling in him a profound sense of duty and obligation. With such strong influences from both his mother and grandmother, the young boy had no choice but to take up the seat of Coburg in order to save that line of Royal blood. Thus Charles Edward inherited the dukedom of Sachs-Coburg and Gotha somewhat by default.


<O</O
Kaiser Wilhelm II, was a first cousin Charles Edward, and took a paternal interest in his cousin’s progress, and offering guidance. Charles Edward had now Germanicised his name to become Carl Eduard Georg Albert Luitpold Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. Such was the Kaiser’s concern for his young protegee that Carl Eduard became affectionally known as the Wilhelm II “seventh son“. Wilhelm also arranged for the introduction of his neice, Princess Victoria Adelaide of Schleswig-Holstein, to Carl Eduard, and ultimately oversaw the marriage which resulted, 11 October 1905, at Glücksburg Castle, Holstein. The union was apparently a happy one, producing five children – three boys and two daughters. Four of these survived World War Two, (the second son, Prince Hubertus, elected for a career in the Army and was killed in a plane crash in November 1943 near the town of Mosty – then in Russia, but now in the Ukraine).

<O</O
At the time of the marriage of Carl Eduard and Princess Victoria Adelaide, political matters were changing in Europe. A number of European countries were seeking change and independence, and it all exploded in 1914 commencing with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo (then part of Austro-Hungary, now part of Yugoslavia). The intrigues which precipitate this event are perhaps more suited to a different discussion of European politics; suffice to say that the “knock-on” effects ultimately have some bearing on the three daggers under discussion, and so I will orientate my argument to encompass that feature – which is what we are really all interested in.


Part Two to follow<O</O

[Craig Gottlieb]

Serge: We don't always see eye to eye, but that is one beautiful dagger you have there. Sort of reminds me of this one I had (which I would love Fred to comment on):



The dagger is listed here, in my archive. Maybe the dedication on this dagger is relevant to the discussion, or maybe not.

http://www.craiggottlieb.com/engine/...Filter=Gallery

A few notes from the 10 page thread I just got done reading:

Although the Kampfzeit is traditionally considered to have ended in 1933, many died-in-the-wool Nazis didn't feel it was over until Rohm was out of the way, in 1934. That said, Serge's dagger gives me no concern in this respect. In addition, I see no reason why a man's rank had to be proceeded by his organization (or followed by it) as suggested by Fred. That element is "missing" from most presentations I am aware of, to include SS Honor Degens (heck, it's an SA dagger, so it's sort of redundant to say "SA-Standartenfuhrer" right? Regarding the group mark on the crossguard, I have no explanation for that, but it doesn't bother me. Just another mystery that may never be solved.