Fake dagger authenticated by Wittmann.

[J. Wraith]

I sent an e-mail regarding this thread to Tom Wittmann and he will be forwarding a statement today and when it arrives I will post it. The decision to post any analysis by Fred Stephens is with them but that will be where the problem is. I will have it up when it arrives.

[J. Wraith]

Dear Forum participants and collectors,

Although it is an extremely rough time for me with the MAX Show coming
up this week, I thought it necessary to address the issue that has
been going on for a few days on this Forum regarding the Hanneman case
and the v. Below-Bothkamp, 2nd Model Luftwaffe dagger with artificial
blade, by SMF.

First off, Hanneman has initiated this issue on the Forum because he
lost a legal action which he launched in a British court. Under the
European legal system, if you sue someone and you lose, you must not
only pay your own costs, but also those of the defendant. In this
case, Hanneman was forced to pay approximately $90,000 over what I
would estimate a dagger valued at about $7000. These were not funds he
saved for his daughter's education as he stated, rather he is a
wealthy man with psychotic will to win no matter the cost. Although
the case was lost last January, he has chosen this time to re-ignite
the issue, probably because he knows that I am a principal in the MAX
Show, and I have little time to defend myself. In the last two weeks
he has called me at least a dozen times addressing me as a "fat F--k",
"a crook" and also threatened me. He would not stop ringing until I
finally refused to answer the phone. Hanneman is a Dutch kick-boxer,
well over six feet tall and extremely intimidating both physically and
in his manner. He is used to getting his own way. He conducts himself
as a bully in most of his dealings and even punched an English
collector at a show in the past. From my experience, he is not a man
that anyone would enjoy dealing with, especially in light of what has
happened recently.

For what it is worth, I had nothing to do with his losing the case, as
I was not given a chance to testify. The case was lost over the
charges. which in the eye of the British court, had no basis. He was
suing the defendant, John Atkinson, for fraud. There was no fraud, as
Hanneman pursued Atkinson for days, harrassing him to sell a dagger
that was not for sale. The dagger had been in his collection for many
years, having been purchased a decade ago from another British
collector who also owned the dagger since the 1970s. After constant
badgering Atkinson agreed to sell the dagger in exchange for a trade,
which I believe was a Government Official's dagger. Since Atkinson had
never made any claim as to the dagger's history, etc. (he never had a
chance to), there was never any warranty made, so therefore, no fraud.
After originally purchasing the dagger in 2009, Hanneman, later
contacted me and asked if I would write a C of A for the dagger. I
asked him to ship it to me for a look. After examination, my opinion
was that it was an original dagger.

However, since a suit was filed, it was necessary for Atkinson to
mount a defense. As part of the defense, the lawyers felt Atkinsom
needed an "expert" witness in the matter. Since we knew each other
from a couple of previous dealings, I agreed to help. I also felt that
since I had written a C of A, I should defend my opinion. Thus began
about a year or two of back and forth writings, as lawyers love to do,
as it nicely runs up the expenses.

The dagger is equipped with classic SMF mounts throughout and has an
SMF-maked, artificial damascus blade in "large roses" etch with a
raised dedication on both sides. The obverse reads, Oberstltn. von
Below-Botkamp, and the reverse, J.G.2 "Richthofen" 22.8.1940.

The Hanneman charges were that the dagger had a post-war blade and
there were various reasons why his expert on the matter, Mr. Stevens,
felt this to be the case. In a nutshell, the name "Botkamp" seemed to
be spelled wrong as the name is "Bothkamp", so the "h" letter was left
out. Secondly, the squadron name, "Richthofen" has quotes at the top of
the beginning letter "R", instead of at the bottom, which is mostly
seen in European print. Thirdly, the title, "Oberstltn" was not
correct as usually it is seen as "Oberstlt", without the "n' letter at
the end. And lastly, (this point was submitted after the trial began),
the artificial pattern seemed to be similar to other blades that have
been thought to be post-war.

When I originally made my opinion of the dagger I liked the blade very
much as it was simple and did not have the usual over-the-top, gilded
inscriptions we see on post-war artificial blades. Also, it was
produced by SMF, which is not a known marking on post-war blades -
usually they are makers like Lüneschloss and Weyersberg, to name a few.
Also, the mounts were all classic SMF, matching the blade. Since the
dagger has been in collections for many years, this told a lot about
the dagger, as post-war pieces always turned up with mixed mounts, as
the original producers of these post-war blades knew nothing about
specialty mounts attributable to individual makers. (It was not until
about 1998 that we began to learn these nuances). So, I felt the
dagger was fine and wrote the opinion. At the time, I did not know the
name spelling could be questioned, as I was not retained to research
the history of the recipient, but rather to give my opinion on the
blade's circa.

I researched the chargers made by Mr. Stevens. As to point One of the
misspelling. I feel that the name was misspelled accidentally.
Contrary to public opinion, the Germans were not always perfect. The
dagger was produced during the helter-skelter of wartime and mistakes
could have been made.The dagger was not a official presentation, but
rather something paid for by the officers of the squadron as a token
gift to their commander. For those that say this could not happen,
please examine the SS Himmler-Birthday Degen presented to
SS-Gruppenführer and Pour le Mérit winner, Wilhelm Reinhard. His name
on the magnificent damascus blade with Himmler's signature is spelled
wrong being, "Reinhardt". So, this is a documented example of
misspellings happening. If it could happen on a sword as important as
this, it could have certainly happened on a dagger whereby the cost
and ordering was done by some Luftwaffe buddies. As a side comment, I
can show you a lot of diplomas, baseball and bowling trophies, etc.
where my name is misspelled as "Whitman". Things like this do happen
in life - even in Nazi Germany.

Secondly, Mr. Stevens states that the quotes on the squadron name of
"Richtofen" can not be correct because the quotes on the beginning of
the word are at the top of the "R" letter and not the bottom. Well,
this is not always true. There is a well-known damascus sword
presented to Georg Keppler, leader of the "Deutschland" regiment
during 1937-and 1938. The sword appears in Johnson Volume one, printed
in 1976, on page 231. On the blade, it can be clearly seen that the
quotes on the beginning letter of the word, "Deutschland" are at the
top of the letter, not the bottom. This original sword was
veteran-purchased by old guard dealers and collectors, Chuck Scaglione
and Bob Sevier of "The Cracked Pot".

Thirdly, Mr. Stevens claims the abbreviation of "Obersltn" was not
used. I looked in the German Military Archives Library and found the
term used in this manner on many occasions.

Lastly, the etch templates that were used by the producers of post-war
artificial blades were the same templates that were used during the
period, so this argument means nothing.

Although the case never got to the point where Mr. Stevens and I could
testify, I feel that my arguments are sound and more than create doubt
concerning the plaintiff's arguments.

I am sorry that Hanneman lost this case, but I am also very
disheartened that since he could not get Mr. Atkinson, he has decided
to "punish" me. I had originally advised him to not press this issue
with the courts as I did not feel that this was a valid way to conduct
yourself in this hobby. If he felt he made a mistake, just learn from
it as countless others do - I have a whole closet full of mistakes I
made over the years. It is part of collecting. Whether the Bothkamp
dagger is really the issue or not, may not be the question here for
me. After reading some of the comments made on the Forum about me, I
must say it is very discouraging. I have spent the better part of my
life trying to promote 3rd Reich Blade Collecting as a legitimate
hobby. I have worked tirelessly to help thousands of collectors learn
the nuances and subtleties of the hobby. I was the first in the hobby
to even issue a written guarantee. Tom Johnson and I began the MAX
Show as an effort to provide a "pleasure camp" for collectors to
really enjoy the hobby - we further established rules where sold items
must be guaranteed for the duration of the show. I have written some
pretty good books on this hobby which collectors seem to hold as great
aids to the hobby. I produce at my own expense u-tube videos of the
shows that I attend so that other collectors can see what is going on
in the hobby. My email is open to everyone and I answer at least 50-75
emails a day on questions from collectors. I really feel disheartened
when I see people on this forum call me dishonest, a crook, a phony,
and money-monger. I wonder what I have done to them? I don't deserve
this treatment. I have done my best, since 1965, to try and better
this hobby. To accuse me of writing a phony C of A to pocket 500 bucks
is really hurtful. Why would I do that? And worse, why do people on
this forum seem to think that I would? It is not fair that we can be
put up like a target on a fence and everyone who wants to, using some
stupid code name, can piss on you. I think the forums are good thing
for exposing people selling fake items to new collectors, but because
of what has happened to me these last couple of weeks, this is the
reason I do not participate on Forums in the first place. I am an open
book with my business - anyone can write me and I would be glad to
help if I can. I like to be my own man. I am sorry for the length of
this digression, but I wanted to tell my side of the story.

Thomas T. Wittmann

--
wwiidaggers.com

[Tora_Tora_Tora!]

This from the starting page of Mr. Wittmann web site......

" Unlike some of the unscrupulous personages who haunt our hobby, we will give you actual accurate values of your artifact along with our approximate buy offer, subject to our "hands-on" examination."

Does anyone knows if he was informed about the existance of this thread?
I think that would be proper to hear straight from him his point of view.....

[Tora_Tora_Tora!]

This from the starting page of Mr. Wittmann web site......

" Unlike some of the unscrupulous personages who haunt our hobby, we will give you actual accurate values of your artifact along with our approximate buy offer, subject to our "hands-on" examination."

Does anyone knows if he was informed about the existance of this thread?
I think that would be proper to hear straight from him his point of view.....

Apologies guys,I written the post without seeing the last one posted before mine.

[The Red Baron]

Wittmann's position seems well defended.

[Jeff V]

A well written response by Tom, but, at the end of the day, is the dagger original. It seems unlikely that all three oddities in regard to the inscription could have occurred on one blade. It would be nice to see Fred's expertise on the dagger.

[Serge M.]

It would be nice to see Fred's expertise on the dagger.

Perhaps Frederick can also post that rare Small 'A' Eickhorn SA dagger that Witty retuned to him for a refund at the MAX show.

-wagner-

[Frogprince]

Wittmann's position seems well defended.

He has certainly presented his side of the story, although as a once fairly serious sword collector I might have a difference of opinion with part of it. In his own book page 324 he describes the Damascus bladed sword as being based on the Prussian Currasier’s sword, which is true enough for the design of Luftwaffe General Officers sword. But not so for the Alcoso example - where based on some past experience, the clamshell part and knuckle bow bear an uncanny resemble to the British 1796 Infantry Officer’s sword. And this would have to have been almost three years after the introduction in 1935 of the SS Degen with Keppler taking command of SS.VT-Standarte 3. in September of 1938 - if I got the dates correctly. Has anyone ever checked to see if Georg Keppler was awarded the Honor sword, and the date? FP

Dear Forum participants and collectors,

Secondly, .................. There is a well-known damascus sword
presented to Georg Keppler, leader of the "Deutschland" regiment
during 1937-and 1938. The sword appears in Johnson Volume one, printed
in 1976, on page 231. On the blade, it can be clearly seen that the
quotes on the beginning letter of the word, "Deutschland" are at the
top of the letter, not the bottom. This original sword was
veteran-purchased by old guard dealers and collectors, Chuck Scaglione
and Bob Sevier of "The Cracked Pot"....................

Thomas T. Wittmann

[The Red Baron]

He has certainly presented his side of the story, although as a once fairly serious sword collector I might have a difference of opinion with part of it. In his own book page 324 he describes the Damascus bladed sword as being based on the Prussian Currasier’s sword, which is true enough for the design of Luftwaffe General Officers sword. But not so for the Alcoso example - where based on some past experience, the clamshell part and knuckle bow bear an uncanny resemble to the British 1796 Infantry Officer’s sword. And this would have to have been almost three years after the introduction in 1935 of the SS Degen with Keppler taking command of SS.VT-Standarte 3. in September of 1938 - if I got the dates correctly. Has anyone ever checked to see if Georg Keppler was awarded the Honor sword, and the date? FP

Honestly, at this point, regardless of the daggers originality, I think Wittmann has shown he was asked for opinion, gave that opinion and had legitimate arguments to back it up. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

[Frogprince]

When Fred posts his CoA, perhaps he can also post that rare Small 'A' Eickhorn SA dagger that Witty retuned to him for a refund at the MAX show.

-wagner-

Wags, If we are going to go down the "baggage" path which is NOT MY WISH, I knew Tom Wittmann from shows where he set up for years. Also visiting with others, but have never met personally with RobNL, Frederick J. Stephens or some of the others posting here. I'm also not selling anything, including books or COA's. Being just a long time collector, who especially with TR collecting, has been seeing it going sideways for years that really bothers me - because the next generation is right on track to inherit a complete mess that could very well discourage them from a hobby that I find educational and interesting.

With the following an abstract of a for sale item that is currently on-line.

"Last update: 9/27/2014 SA Birdshead Dagger  

"This piece will be featured in Tom Wittmann's upcoming book on SA daggers, along with a close-up of a document that survives from the Eickhorn factory, showing this dagger type and some information about it.  A rare and desirable piece offered at a significant discount, due to the disclosed restoration. This piece comes with a copy of the Wittmann expertise (not pictured). Please contact me for further details."

Now that's just one side of the story from the dealer selling the item - but I think that you may remember my opinion of that group of daggers, the aluminum hilted "Olympic" knives etc. that have been discussed at length on this forum, and some others. It's your call. Fred

[TPK]

So honestly unless an item is textbook will there ever be 3 or 4 people who view an item with the same outlook. Even textbook items fellow collectors disconnect on. Also I think Tom position is well defended that it was his opinion which was what was asked for. TPK

[Barry Brown]

He has certainly presented his side of the story, although as a once fairly serious sword collector I might have a difference of opinion with part of it. In his own book page 324 he describes the Damascus bladed sword as being based on the Prussian Currasier’s sword, which is true enough for the design of Luftwaffe General Officers sword. But not so for the Alcoso example - where based on some past experience, the clamshell part and knuckle bow bear an uncanny resemble to the British 1796 Infantry Officer’s sword. And this would have to have been almost three years after the introduction in 1935 of the SS Degen with Keppler taking command of SS.VT-Standarte 3. in September of 1938 - if I got the dates correctly. Has anyone ever checked to see if Georg Keppler was awarded the Honor sword, and the date? FP

Fred, I owned that sword many years back and did some research. The sword was not presented to the well known Georg Keppler, but to Ritter von Hengl . Hengl, an ex WWI vet', was co-opted by Himmler from the Bavarian LP to set up and train (in police barracks) an "SS political readiness unit Munich" (PBM) in the summer of 1934. This unit, with others, expanded to become SS Deutschland.
von Hengl was not a member of the SS but held the rank of SS Ostubaf commanding the first battalion of the regiment. Following a sharp disagreement with Himmler, regarding SS supply and logistic failures, von Hengl left the regiment in October 1935 to join the alpine troops of the Heer. The subsequently famous Georg Keppler took over from von Hengl.
The sword was presented by the officer corps of I/1 SS Deutschland as a mark of esteem for Ritter von Hengl's leadership qualities. von Hengl's son supplied me with much background, including a wartime picture of his father wearing this sword when a General of the Wehrmacht in occupied Norway.
When I owned the sword I too puzzled over the "Anglo/American" position of quotation marks, as opposed to period German usage, but had no doubt as to its authenticity. It has only been featured in early hobby reference books as, "Keppler's sword". Fred, sorry to be long winded, but I noticed that this sword had been brought into the thread a couple of times and I just wanted to add my 2 cents!

[Serge M.]

Fred. Over the yeats i have agreed with you on some points and disagreed on other. Here is presented are rare opportunity for forum to decide. So we have two experts that gave opposings opions on this dagger. A acid etched example is a tough call for me. However there are other examples out there that IMHO should not be as difficult to judge. I feel it would only be fair to give a overview that might be easier for the members here to judge. One where Witty and Fred were calling it the other way. NO BASHING or airing baggage. Lets see that SA dagger that Fred called good that Witty returned.
You know the dagger im talking about.

[Jo Rivett]

..i`d like to know where Craig Gottlieb fits into all of this. He just has to fit into this somehow really doesn't he? it`s just one of those threads...

[Frogprince]

Fred, I owned that sword many years back and did some research. The sword was not presented to the well known Georg Keppler, but to Ritter von Hengl . Hengl, an ex WWI vet', was co-opted by Himmler from the Bavarian LP to set up and train (in police barracks) an "SS political readiness unit Munich" (PBM) in the summer of 1934. This unit, with others, expanded to become SS Deutschland.
von Hengl was not a member of the SS but held the rank of SS Ostubaf commanding the first battalion of the regiment. Following a sharp disagreement with Himmler, regarding SS supply and logistic failures, von Hengl left the regiment in October 1935 to join the alpine troops of the Heer. The subsequently famous Georg Keppler took over from von Hengl.
The sword was presented by the officer corps of I/1 SS Deutschland as a mark of esteem for Ritter von Hengl's leadership qualities. von Hengl's son supplied me with much background, including a wartime picture of his father wearing this sword when a General of the Wehrmacht in occupied Norway.
When I owned the sword I too puzzled over the "Anglo/American" position of quotation marks, as opposed to period German usage, but had no doubt as to its authenticity. It has only been featured in early hobby reference books as, "Keppler's sword". Fred, sorry to be long winded, but I noticed that this sword had been brought into the thread a couple of times and I just wanted to add my 2 cents!

Thank you Barry! That makes more sense than the other published explanation. With the picture of Ritter von Hengl wearing it in Norway ‘sealing the deal’ IMO for the sword being period. Although I have to say that I also had some confusion because Tom Wittmann said that the maker marking (not pictured that I can see) was from 1937 until approximately sometime in 1939. Best Regards, Fred