The issue of the evolution of German script and lettering throughout the NS period is an important one in our hobby. One of the most frequent debates held in these pages is that of the authenticity or non-authenticity of inscriptions engraved on edged weapons, metal ware and other objects which are claimed to have been made in the NS period in Germany.

I am not aware of a single volume addressing this topic, though a small number of articles are available online, mainly in German.

I would like to start a thread on this important subject here, which I hope will become a key reference for all of us on this key subject. I have been doing some reading on this and I would like to summarize my findings. I will refer to my sources as much as possible. And suggest further reading at the end.

From the early XIX century, German politicians, academics and publicists engaded in the “Fraktur-Streit” (Fraktur debate), that is, the convenience of officially adopting the Fraktur (gothic, often referred to as the German script, deutsche schrift) script or the more modern and easier to read Antiqua, but the Fraktur scrip is far more widely used. In 1911 the Reichtag narrowly rejects a proposal to make Antiqua the official script of the Reich. The proposal is rejected by two votes. In practice both scrips continue to be used, though the Fraktur/Gothic is used widely in schools, while the Antiqua is preferred by scientific writers and publishers.

In the 1928-1932 period the balance begins to change in favor of modernization. Designers influenced by the Hungarian László Moholy-Nagy at the Bauhaus in Dessau create modern typefaces intended to be "an instrument of communication" (Bauhaus later shut down by the Nazis as anti-German). In 1928 Paul Renner designs the modern, latin looking Futura typeface.

When the NSDAP takes power, the Nazis originally favor Fraktur, ban Jews from using it, and instruct for type writers to be designed with Fraktur laters only. In 1941, however, and motivated mainly by the difficulty among people outside of Germany proper to understand the Fraktur script, Martin Bormann issues the attached letter banning Fraktur and branding it as Jewish….(while using NSDAP letterhead in Fraktur script, as all previous editions of Mein Kampt had done!), instructing that from then on only the Antiqua was to be considered standard German script. The Bormann edict:



The change was by no means sudden, and several scrips co-existed for many months at least, including Fraktur, Antiqua, Grotesk and others (see image)

On 30 January 1934, one year after the so-called seizure of power, came into force the “law over the reconstruction of the reich”, which pointed the way towards state control of education among other issues, including a standarsization of writing style (verkehnsschrift). The image shows evolution of German scrip in the 1900 – 1930´s



See below several chronologically arranged images from Nazi children´s writing textbooks. Note the evolution in these NSDAP controlled texts away from Fraktur. These images are from the excellent website http://fotothek.slub-dresden.de/index.html?/html/ausstellungen/abc_13.html


First: 1936 text



Second 1939 text



Last 1943 text



Below an image of Futura font samples designed by Paul Renner in the 1920´s



Image of Grotesk typescript and others used during the NS period in germany



In 1945 the allies in Germany started again using Fraktur in official documents. IN summary, to start this thread we could conclude the following:

The Fraktur script dominated children´s books and popular writing from the 19th century to the NS period, while latin style script, Antiqua etc dominated in technical and scientific publications.

The Nazis originally supported the “German script” ad banned its use by Jews, only to do an about face in 1941 as they sought a typeset easily readable across the Grossdeutschen Reich.

Throughout the NS period there was a coexistence of scrips, with a dominance of the Fraktur in the early years, and a progressive evolution to latin scrips after 1941.

Best sources known to me:

A Chronology of German Typeface Development (English)
http://german.about.com/od/readinggerman/a/fraktur_2.htm
Article on the evolution of german script in the NS period (german)
http://www.gazette.de/Archiv/Gazette-Mai2001/Willberg.html


Please feel free to correct this with new data, add your own etc etc etc

another interesting example of the post-Bormann decree changes in type set

"Lucian Bernhard (1883-1972), one of Germany's main designers, had created Bernhard Fraktur (1913), and this was subsequently used in Der Völkische Beobachter, the central party newspaper and publication. It is ironic, Schweizer notes, that Lucian Bernhard himself was Jewish."
http://cg.scs.carleton.ca/~luc/fraktur.html

1934 issue of Völkische Beobachter


1941 issue of Völkische Beobachter

so much for the printed page.

What about engravings on metal objects, plaques, crossguards etc? My guess is the National Socialist preferences and instructions did have a bearing on this, but the artistic element in engraving made this particular medium more flexible, with EVEN more variety os styles.

When it comes to engravings made in block letters, the evolution from the 1910´s t the 1930´s seems minimal (images from Weitze.net as examples)

1918 example


1926 example


1936 SA example


1943 on wood


AND... 1941 engraving on Fraktur/Gothic style


Any norm on this? Artistic preference in each case??

No interest in this subject?

German engaving family dynasties like these, plus Sonlingen engravers and period jewelers
hold the answers ... I have proposed Martin Schuster another research paper on this subject, to be documented only form period sources. Lets wait and see. I for one am not satisfied with current lack of factual information




tinypic.com">

Gustavo,

I obviously didn't understood the proper meaning of your e.mail this morning.
I thought that you were talking about "personalised" daggers.
It is an interesting subject but mostly geared toward scholars and intellectuals, which isn't exactly the main blood of our hobby.

well, not sure I agree, ok, i dont

We see engraved inscriptions and serial numbers in all kinds of German edged weapons, Honor goblets, medals etc etc. and its essential in my view, to be able to have sound, factual information to base criteria for authenticity on. It is time consuming and it does require strong research (at German libraries) and writing skills to do this, so lets see if Martin is willing, and then, what he comes up with. I expect the result to be the kind of reference the collecting community has been missing on this subject up to now. As a GDC founding member from the UK wrote recently, I have little time for speculation...or for biased opinions based on personal preference, inflated egos etc

Gustavo:
IMO you have made a good start here on a subject that certainly needs further study and could be of benefit in understanding 3rd Reich engraving better. I suspect the process will be evolutionary and this thread will continue to grow over time.

IF the script/inscription case would be that easy I (and I think all other serious collectors) would be very glad! The fact is that it is very very difficult and most times even impossible to put a certain inscription FOR SURE into a certain period of some years. With for sure I want to express a feeling that you are sure you didn´t get a fake.
It is helpful how the inscription itself is looking like and if there appear ANY "red flags" in it.
Naturally, there have some fonts developed after the certain period. Mainly with the use of computers. These would be easily to detect. But I think nobody would get the idea to fake a 33-45 inscription e.g. in "ravie", wingdings" or "snap itc" .
The real hard (if not impossible) to detect inscriptions are -imo- those which are copied from eg. dokuments (could already observe several of those obvious copies) and other artifacts. If they are copied by a skilled engraver and either artificially aged by a skilled restaurator or -even better- got some years over them I think they are the perfect fakes. Do you REALLY believe ther are NO AROUND????????? I am not happy to write this as fakers might read it but lastly it is not my probem (as I avoid any inscriptions) but might be yours.
I am totally aware, that THERE ARE period inscriptions. No question. But I for myself want to sleep in peace, want to get my (very) hard earned money in items which I do appreciate without any doubts and questions and, believe me, they are also appreciated by all fellow collectors without any restrictions.
Gustavo, e.g. when you look at your second pic, the "Sütterlin-Schrift 1914-1934 is EXACTLY the same as the "Verkehrsschrift von 1934". Both are NEARLY the same as the "Deutsche Kurrentschrift um 1900". Handwriting with a normal developed mixture would be impossible to be dated or even scheduled. Just to show that it is not that easy.
In my thoughts I do not want to forget those laughable attempts in faking german incriptions by doing some (for the native speaker) obvious mistakes in grammar, syntax, phantasy letters (YES, they occur!!!) and much more.
All above are only my personal thoughts which I have made for myself over a long period of collecting, already long before this discussion, due to what I could have learned. Please understand that I do NOT want to force anybody to join my thoughts or to have the same point of view I have. But my thoughts are also that fakers and sellers of faked inscriptions would have a "much harder life" if inscriptions would be looked at with some more caution.

Good points Wotan.

in the end, when we are discussing German engraving practices of the NS period, we are solidly in the realm of art, not science, and, therefore, complete certainty is not possible.

The objective I personally have in mind is to have a well founded, solidly documented from the period literature, set of boundaries, a solid and concrete framework to decide what is most likely authentic and what is probably not. With this knowledge in place we will be able to have much more informed discussions, and base our judgments on solid criteria rather than personal opinion. For all those of us who own inscribed artifacts, this information will be invaluable.

Would be interested what you all think of this incription, placed on a presentation hunting dagger. Published in one of the major reference books back in 1985, republished in one of the major reference books 2005. Each (every?) input appreciated.

Wotan--You knew what my comment would be- Since the presenting organizations ceased to exist by late 34-early 35 at the latest ( I don't recall the exact date)--What was the rank of the individual at that time?--and does it match?

Thank you Houston. There are at least two (imo sure) ways to detect such a fake: First the historic background (connex of time/rank/existance of organisation) like you mentioned and second the totally crazy syntax (Sturmbannführer HANS RATTENHUBER / in treuer Kameradschaft die Deutschen / Jagdschutz Vereins). This cannot be a "mistake" as it is simply crazy and not even bablefish.
How many of you silent observers would buy and appreciate such a dedicated weapon?????

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wotan,

Wotan--Can you explain further. I don't quite understand. There was a pre 1934-35 ADJV with several "branches" in different locations. There also were other Jadschutz Vereins/Clubs/Verbands? etc. that did not seem to be a part of the ADJV. So--can you explain just exactly what is not correct with the terms used? Thanks

Houston, i´s the grammar or syntax; you could write "...die deutschen Jagdschutz Vereine" or "....der deutsche Jagdschutz Verein" or "...der Deutsche Jagdschutzverein" but never the way it was written. Also the sense of the inscription cannot be right. If there was an assosiation of several small, "private" hunting assosiations it would be the "Allgemeiner Deutscher Jagdschutzverband" or later the DJ or Deutsche Jägerschaft.
Not so easy to describe but very easy when you speak german...

not really sure at what you are all getting at here. I have done some research into engraving during the 3rd.Reich period. There is no way you can tell if an engraving was done wartime or not. Unless there is some type of iron clad provenance that comes with the piece like a period photo or wartime reciept/order form...

I have met an engraver/silversmith in Warsaw some years ago. His Father and Grandfather were smiths pre, during and post war. He has learned from them and has many years of experience. You can tell if an engraving was done recently, lets say within the last couple years but there is no way you would be able to determine this guys work from 5 years ago or so to original period done engraving...And I'm sure there are many many like this man out there......
If you guys like your personalized daggers that's great but without that provenance it should be worth no more than any other piece in like condition..They are neat pieces though!!!
Maybe this chart will be of some kind of help..Scanned from 'Papers Please!'

Hi Gustavo,

I have been trying to upload a file with my commentary, but it exceeds the size limit. So I have divided into three parts, which I submit in succession. Hope that this adds something to the debate. FJS

PART ONE

I have been following the thread that you have started, concerning German typescripts for documents, engraving, dagger presentations, etc. etc., and I do agree that more needs to be done in understanding this area. There are a lot of fakes around, both made up totally, or "converted" originals with appealing inscriptions - and of course the problem is that the modern collector is not always sufficiently schooled in this difficult area of research to detect the differences.

I realise that it is easy for me, and other long-established researchers, to pontificate on these issues, but the real truth is that we (all of us!) still get caught, or deceived, by some of these items. So I agree - we must now address this issue in more academic detail. I defer to a previous correspondent in this thread, stating that such a study might be solely the province of "intellectuals" and therefore of limited practical value to the collector at ground level. I disagree with that concept - although I do acknowledge that this aspect of study may be seen as daunting. However, it is nothing that cannot be comprehended if you apply the right "mind-set". So I will put forward the case from my own viewpoint.

Firstly, I must say that Wotan is absolutely right - there are many grammatical and syntax howlers in the fake inscriptions perpetuated by non-fluent German-speaking purveyors of some of these items. Forgery, "tarting up", and embellishment of war souvenirs is invariably done for a specific purpose. That purpose is defined in six letters - P-R-O-F-I-T. So for many of us, who have some limited command of German (enough to book the hotel room, order a meal, or engage in some small holiday conversation)m then that is OK for our travel needs. However, when assessing some interesting inscription or text, the finer details of past or present participle, verb or adverb, are often beyond the non-German speaker. We need help!

So the first rule in any subject of a questionable etching or engraving is: Does it make sense? If we can't be certain, then let us see who can help us.

At this point I would like to suggest that we appoint Wotan as the Official Translator for the Dagger Section of GDdot.com. Wotan is clearly a knowledgable and enthusiastic collector, and as a natural German speaker he has a good understanding the subject matter, a clear comprehension of the terminology involved, and (more importantly) he can express it well in English - which is of great benefit to the rest of us. So Wotan, can we tempt you into this aspect of the research?

Part Two to follow.

PART TWO

To return to the main theme of Gustavo's thread, the second matter now concerns the examination of etching (or engraving) features, That is to say the actual physical appearance of the individual letters of an inscription. In my previous life - when I was actually allowed to work for a living instead of being side-lined off as a redundant dinosaur - I was a printer. 45 years in the trade and trained in some old style disciplines. One of these was a basic understanding of lettering and type-faces. To accurately gauge this area we do need the collaboration of professional Typographers; but until we get one on board in this forum I will do what I can to acquaint you all with some of the details that I learned half a century ago.

Gustavo has detailed some good sources for further reading - and I recommend that all enthusiastic participants in this thread do read those details for further background information. Gustavo presents as an opening piece the letter by Bormann, and the claim within the text that the use of the Gothic Script (i.e. Schwabisch-Jewish; Gothic or Black Letter - whatever) was not a suitable type font, and that a more easily readable (Roman Antiqua) style be used. I wish to firstly dispense with the anti-semitic slant that the Bormann letter implies.

The use of the "Black-Letter" (Deutsche-Schrift - among other names) may have originated with Gutenberg and his production of the 42-line bible circa 1452 - but that isn't the absolute definition. At that time, the production of all books and manuscripts was mainly in the hands of the monks and monastries. Thousands of monks were deployed, daily, writing up illuminated scripts for bibles, treaties, documents, etc. etc. These books and similar productions were executed with flat-nib pens, which give the characteristic thick vertical strokes, and thin angular strokes, so common with Black-letter and Fraktur-type faces.

When I was at Printing College in the 1960s we were given lessons that covered the origin of printing and typefaces. Gutenburg's contribution was not that he invented printing (he didn't, the Chinese had a system centuries previously); what Gutenberg invented was moveable type. That is to say, individual type letters which could be grouped together to form words, sentences, paragraphs etc. And then printed onto page sheets. (I appreciate that this might seem somewhat different to the original theme of Gustavo's thread, but if you stick with me, then I hope I will make the connection clearer).

As the monks and monastries producing such volumes were already using such a "Black letter" style, Gutenberg made his type font look like this, so that the printed page might look like it was a hand drawn page - after the basic printing the page would then be handed to an "Illuminator" - an artist who would add the colourful images and highlights that adorn Illuminated Texts.

So the reference in Bormann's letter about "Schwabisch-Jewish Texts" is, I believe, slightly mis-leading. Gutenberg may well have been jewish (I don't really know), but the font style that he copied as hard type was already in use by the Catholic monks making illuminated manuscripts. It may be fairly argued that the use of "Roman" or "Sans-serif" typefaces may be much easier to read than the archaic versions of Black letter and Fraktur. I would suspect that, knowing of the entrenched mind-set of many Germans - parochial communities (just like elsewhere in Europe) and not wanting to accept much in the way of change - that changing the practices of past centuries was not always welcomed. After all, National Identity was being challenged here, even though the newer typefaces were a great improvement on the legibility of the old styles. It is my opinion that Bormann's reference to "Schwabisch-Jewish Texts" was more likely an attempt to denigrate the acceptability of such type styles - in favour of the newer versions that the establishment now favoured.

In a society within which oppressive racial laws were legally established decrees; and that anti-semitic sentiment was actually taught in schools; then it becomes easy to demonise anything on the basis that it is "jewish" or "non-aryan" - or otherwise "not of your own". The fact that Bormann's intention (and also that of Max Amann) to restrict the usage of Fraktur and to introduce a more clear-face type font into the mainstream of German culture was probably a sensible and practical aspiration. It is just a pity that they chose to justify the reason with such a flawed definition of the antecedents of the lettering form.

Part Three to follow.

PART THREE

To bring this debate into the areas of Third Reich collectables, we are now looking at what might be seen as appropriate, or recognisable styles of font, lettering, engraving, etching, etc. etc, as might appear as a presentation on a blade, or on fittings, document, or elsewhere.

There are modern, post-war versions of the old type fonts, and usually a good typographer will recognise these as being of a modern period. So that is OK, providing you know what the subtle distinctions are and are able to recognise them. This, of course, is the real challenge. You have an item with an inscription, firstly you have to find out if the inscriptions makes sense, and then see if it relates to identifiable individuals, dates, events. Then you have to check if the font used is correct for the period - and if not, can it be proven?

To commence my observation and contribution to this thread, I append an image of a sword blade, with a notably distinctive inscription. I do not know the source of this item, or who owns it now, the photographs are third or fourth generation copies. The inscription purports to state that the item is a gift from the 11th Army to General Field Marshal Erich v. Manstein on the occasion of his 55th birthday, 24 November, 1942, whilst based in "Osten".

Without bothering to look up the biographical details, concerning where Manstein was on this date, is it his correct birthday and would he really be 55 on this occasion?. I would ask Wotan if he would look at the inscription, and see if he senses anything odd about it. Is the grammar correct? Are stated facts confirmed? What is the gut feeling about this?

For my own point, I can only offer some slight observations, but these are that the blade seems to be artificial damascus (based on the intense repetitiveness of the small rose damascening, it would appear that the damascus design is intself an acid-etch pattern). Artificial damascus decoration does not condemn the piece - but I believe that I may have seen an identical form of this damascening on other, questionable post-war blades.

The formation of the lettering appears to be distinctive, in that I do not recall seeing exactly this style of the Fraktur font in any pre-war publication, or authentically etched on to a blade at that time. What are the differences? Well, it may be an optical illusion, but the physical letters appear to much thicker than the style that I have noted on other pieces. The gold plating of the letters does not seem to be the normal type of fire-gilding that I have seen previously - it looks more like conventional electro-plating (but this could be a trick of the photograph - it being copied from another copy and not the original print).

The feature, however, which really makes me wonder about the font within this inscription, is that I think I recall seeing it elsewhere. It appears to be more similar to the "Letraset" form of transfer characters - a system which evolved in the 1950s, and which provided transfer letters - alphabets of typefaces which could be transferred onto paper or film to make up an ornate title or heading. It was primarily used in the Graphics Art industries. This style of lettering as seen in the photo of the blade looks very much like that post-war typographic version, and less like the pre-war versions.

I could be wrong, and I hope that there is someone out there with greater typographic knowledge who can point out the pluses or failings of this argument. Because this is what we are up against - we really do need to know when and where these alphabetic distinctions occured. It will not totally resolve all the issues involved, but it might go some way towards making informed decisions about whether or not any typeface/dedication could have been formed during the period claimed, because of the particular style of the lettering.

FJS

Photo image to follow: