Transitional Henckels SS dagger for review.

[BobI]

Fred and Sergey,
Both of you are great guys, we all don't always agree, such is life. Both of you have been invaluable to collectors over the years.
Merry Christmas Guys!
Bob

[Jelle M.]

Hi guys,

first of all, thank you for all the input
Seems this is a very controversial dagger.
My collecting focus is mainly medals and autographs,
so for me other german collecting fields are a big minefield.
This particular dagger was offered to me so i decided to put it on review here
as i have little knowledge about the subject.
I liked the overall appearance of the dagger but had some concerns.
When compared to other transitional daggers, the runes
looked very different and i also didn't like the quality of the eagle.
I thought the darkening of the blade was patina.
I think this is a high quality fake dagger, and sometimes i wonder when they
will fake these into perfection cuz i'm sure the forgers read these forums too.

Thank you all

[Rheingold]

I'm unexpert too..but also for me the dagger is suspect...more pics would help but hte runes too fat,the etchings seem "light" ...the grip seems brand new and the blade doesn't seem to show the right crossgrain...that's only my poor opinion

Don't Need any further pics, this is a poor reproduction. If you compare the motto with one of a real henckels,you'll see the difference

Here is a damn nice one

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ENCKELS&page=2

[Serge M.]

OK Wags - you have delivered your wisdom:

Looks good, doesn't it. However, IMO, it's a fake. I believe it to be a Czech product.

Now why don't you follow up your pronouncement with some evidence? Please demonstrate why this piece is ACTUALLY A FAKE - in fact please reveal the evidence which confirms that it has emanated from the Czech Republic.

You have made similar pronouncements in the past on this WAF site - and destroyed some collectors' dreams - so would you please back up your "IMHO - In my humble opinion" assertion with some solid evidence which can be researched and checked - surely this it is not too much to be asked?

The collecting community is confused enough; without experts like yourself who make sweeping pronouncements of definitive "knowledge" - yet fail to explain why their knowledge can be relied upon.

I will look forward to your explanation.

Frederick J. Stephens

Frederick, you didn't have to wait long for my explaination. So, go ahead tell me please how I 'destroyed some collectors dream'? Since you made THIS dagger the issue, please now reply to my "IMHO" views on this SS dagger, and what you see makes this dagger 'good'.
And please answer the following two questions:
1. Is this dagger yours ?
2. If not yours, did you ever own it, or did you write a CoA on it for someone else ?

I look forward to your explanation.

Now, as I stated this dagger IMO is a complete fake. It's fake because I have had both authentic and this type of reproduction 'In Hand' to examine.

1. The blades are reproductions. On these versions, I call the Czech fakes, they can't get the white color of the steel correct as they did in Solingen. So they have a blue/grey tint that's in the steel.
2. The grip is a repro, as when examined it does not have the pore structure of known authentic example of Henckels 1938 & 1939 SS grips.
3. The SS runes are repro (clearly everyone has to see that as they are not even the better fakes.)
4. The eagle, although not a clear shot of it, I'm familiar with it. It's a newly made fake. But not a fake of known type eagle but a hybrid of 'Long Neck' and 'Upward Pointed Beak' versions.
5. The blade company logos are very light and are either Laser etched or photo etched. How you can tell on this supposed 'mint' dagger is the ridge line quickly starts to wear through the logo.
6. The clip hanger is fake. Has a wrong shape compared to period originals.
7. NONE....of these daggers have a real traceable provenance older than 12 years.

So Fred, Perhaps I'm mistaken. So Please state why, and point out features that make this dagger 'good'. Is this example by chance yours ?

-wagner-

[Serge M.]

Fred and Sergey,
Both of you are great guys, we all don't always agree, such is life. Both of you have been invaluable to collectors over the years.
Merry Christmas Guys!
Bob

Thank You Bob. Look forward to seeing you at the SOS.
Merry Christmas to You !

[F J STEPHENS]

Czech ss dagger ?

Serge,

In response to your reply, you seem to have erroneously presumed that I am trying to claim this dagger is “good”. I made no such statement – I simply asked you to explain why the dagger was faked (go back and read my text).

The reason I placed this question was quite simply that person submitting the original images was seeking guidance. They were acknowledging that they were not experienced in this subject, and were hopeful that someone much better informed would explain the situation to them with clarity.

Yes, I do know that you have some knowledge of daggers – but I also think that a one-line dismissal of the piece is not really helpful to the enquirer. After all, any person can say that some item is “real” or “fake” – and they have a 50-50 chance of being correct regardless of their knowledge. That is why I asked you for a more complete explanation – and I think it was a fair question to put before you.

In response to the two points you have put to myself:
1) No – the dagger is not mine (nor do I know who owns it).
2) I have never owned the dagger, I have not even seen it or handled it; I have never appraised it, or ever been asked for my comments about it.

So, just for the record, I too think that it is a reproduction piece. The steel of the blade looks to be of a lower grade than the original specification (hence the different tint/colouration), and with not the same surface hardness – the motto on the obverse and the trademark on the reverse showing notable signs of wear along the spine of the blade. The cross-grain on the blade appears unnaturally coarse.

Other parts; yes I agree the SS rune badge seems too fat and encroaches on the inner ring. The lower scabbard fitting appears to be asymmetric, and the screws not in proper alignment. So all in all it is a bad piece – and for the reasons stated above and elsewhere in this thread.

At least the enquiring collector now has some more substantial information with which to make his decision.

Frederick J. Stephens

[Skyline Drive]

Serge,

In response to your reply, you seem to have erroneously presumed that I am trying to claim this dagger is “good”. I made no such statement – I simply asked you to explain why the dagger was faked (go back and read my text).

The reason I placed this question was quite simply that person submitting the original images was seeking guidance. They were acknowledging that they were not experienced in this subject, and were hopeful that someone much better informed would explain the situation to them with clarity.

Yes, I do know that you have some knowledge of daggers – but I also think that a one-line dismissal of the piece is not really helpful to the enquirer. After all, any person can say that some item is “real” or “fake” – and they have a 50-50 chance of being correct regardless of their knowledge. That is why I asked you for a more complete explanation – and I think it was a fair question to put before you.

In response to the two points you have put to myself:
1) No – the dagger is not mine (nor do I know who owns it).
2) I have never owned the dagger, I have not even seen it or handled it; I have never appraised it, or ever been asked for my comments about it.

So, just for the record, I too think that it is a reproduction piece. The steel of the blade looks to be of a lower grade than the original specification (hence the different tint/colouration), and with not the same surface hardness – the motto on the obverse and the trademark on the reverse showing notable signs of wear along the spine of the blade. The cross-grain on the blade appears unnaturally coarse.

Other parts; yes I agree the SS rune badge seems too fat and encroaches on the inner ring. The lower scabbard fitting appears to be asymmetric, and the screws not in proper alignment. So all in all it is a bad piece – and for the reasons stated above and elsewhere in this thread.

At least the enquiring collector now has some more substantial information with which to make his decision.

Frederick J. Stephens

I am not speaking for Serge here but I think the issue is not if the dagger is a reproduction, but how to convey that information without providing the fakers a way to perfect their fakes. Rather than list the problems in detail like you have above, the same information could be pm'd or emailed to the party that posts the dagger. General comments like bad scabbard fitting, bad rune button etc. do not help the fakers, but you have told them specifically what is bad about them.

[F J STEPHENS]

Reply to Skyline

Skyline,

You have a very valid point - and it is one which other people have at various times addressed to me. However, my answer is this:

Increased information about the original pieces does NOT make it easier for the fakers - it makes it harder! And this is because they will have to put more effort, time, and money into making their pieces match the original standards.

Of course it is possible to make the perfect fake - all you have to do is replicate the process exactly, and with the same dedicated skill, and the same exacting procedures and technologies that were used to create the originals. Simple, isn't it - except that it all costs time, skill, and money; and that is a series of expenditures the fakers need to avoid if they are going to make any real profit out of their ventures.

I really do appreciate people's concerns about how much original information we should reveal - but the sad truth is that it is the lack of accurate information and knowledge that is the downfall of the collector. If he is denied access to the essential information, then the faker will catch him with a sub-standard product. We see the evidence of this time and time again - that's why the fakers survive.

Frederick J. Stephens

[Serge M.]

I am not speaking for Serge here but I think the issue is not if the dagger is a reproduction, but how to convey that information without providing the fakers a way to perfect their fakes. Rather than list the problems in detail like you have above, the same information could be pm'd or emailed to the party that posts the dagger. General comments like bad scabbard fitting, bad rune button etc. do not help the fakers, but you have told them specifically what is bad about them.

Mike, If you recall, Frederick has had this same viewpoint years ago, and apparently has not wavered. However, history has shown that indeed the fakers take this detailed info and incorporate into a newer updated fakes.

A classic case in point: When the newer books on medals came out that showed the detailed photos with exact measurement and weights of scarce and rare medals and orders, the fakers had soon stated to mimic them and they were soon on the market and fooling many a collector by: 'It looks just like the one in the book'.

Many a medal collector has left the hobby due to super-fakes that had entered the market due to exposure to actual minute detail of the authentic artifact for fakers to copy. Clearly, the authors had felt that their tome on the subject would help prevent fakes from being sold. And it did, but only for a couple years. But now the superfake medals are 'textbook'. Now the experts can still tell, but they have to be real experts. Before 'The Book' they didn't have to be, as usually the 'back was wrong'. The catch, the pin or hinge. With the internet they don't now even need a book.

So, I concur with your post. As history has already shown that to be a fact. Others can believe what they want to believe, and that it their right, but history has already spoken, and history doesn't care about some experts opinion as the realty is there for all to see in the marketplace.

As we are currently experiencing with SS helmets, some experts who have issued a CoA are now having a tough time admitting their error. The fakers are on top of the game, and they been at it a long time, why give them more ammo that they will later use against you ?
As you know, they are into some good fake daggers now too. Even fooling a '50+ year in the hobby Court Certified Expert', on a case I'm very familiar with on a variant SA dagger.

[F J STEPHENS]

Fakers and information

Well Gentlemen, what a depressing scenario. Must we withhold all salient information from the innocent collector, just in case the faker subsequently gets hold of it and thereafter starts producing even more “perfect copies”?

Every bit of information required to understand the manufacturing processes of daggers, or medals, etc., is already there on the internet. All you have to do is look for it. So what is the problem in making that information available to the collector?

The argument made by Serge - quoting the situation with medals:
“A classic case in point: When the newer books on medals came out that showed the detailed photos with exact measurement and weights of scarce and rare medals and orders, the fakers had soon stated to mimic them and they were soon on the market and fooling many a collector by: 'It looks just like the one in the book'. ”

Such an argument as stated above, is only valid in so far that if information is available, then some people will make abuse of it in the pursuit of their own aims.

However, in my opinion, that is not a good reason to prevent the same information from reaching the rest of the genuine collecting community.

I cannot see that the suppression of information is of the slightest benefit to anyone, except of course to the faker. It is the lack of widespread information that makes it easier for the unscrupulous to pass bad pieces without question.

Frederick J. Stephens