Is there any new or definative information on the Carl Krebs "Fat Man" RAD hewer? I spoke to Tom Johnson about a year ago on this subject, and he said that while he personally leaned towards not supporting it due to lack of documetation, there were others, especially a collector in England (I can't remember his name), who do support its authenticity and had some very convincing arguments. Is the jury still out on this one?

Robert Iqbal ( Collector to Collector) has one on his site for those who can't quite bring the shape to mind.

DASH, first let me welcome you to the forum!
Do a search ("Find" button) I think to remember a very vivid and extensive discussion about this certain hewer.
I also think that Frederik Stephens, who did mention it in his book "R? R!" as a fake did a 180 degree turn and now believes it beeing period.
Due to several certain features of this certain hewer, including the spurious trademark which never did appear on any doubtless IIIR edged weapon by KREBS, I (and I think several other members here) still tend to believe it is a postware phantasy piece.
Regards,

AS I have stated before, I met a veteran at a show who had the box (APO mail from Germany to his hometown) of RAD Daggers he sent home from SOLINGEN during the war that had the following:
1. regular RAD EM
2. regular RAD Officer
3. RAD Officer with no motto or maker
4. RAD EM with motto on the reverse side
5. FAT MAN RAD
6. Two Dress Bayonets
All mint, unused.
He claims to have taken these directly from a factory and I have NO DOUBT that he did.
I still maintain that these were period production and never released.
JMO,
Ron Weinand

Thanks for the welcome and information. And yes, I do own one. If my memory is correct, I bought mine about 1961 from a walk in at a gun show along with a paratroop helmet (I was realy more interested in the helmet). I can't say that he "brought it back", but it didn't cost more than $40, my limit for a RAD back then. It came with a brown late style hanger in almost unused condition, with RADJ and Assmann marked nickel fittings. It is also flat die stamped with a RZM mark and 1944 on the vertical portion. The dagger itself is not mint, but in excellent condition with only some loss of plating in what would be the reverse side of the hilt ferrule area. It has a nice "feel" and the finish/quality is excellent and consistant with normal hewers. It has the normal RADJ and GES. GESCH. on the reverse (motto) side, and the crown, K and Solingen mark on the obverse side.

On a slightly different note, I purchased a RAD Sr. by Pack in the late 1950s with two hangers. The first hanger is standard, the second I can only guess is some sort of service or field hanger, and shows a fair amount of use. It is medium colored brown leather, with a 5cm x 8.5cm round bottomed shield shaped belt loop. From this, inserted between the front and back of the belt loop and sewn in are two 9cm straps in an inverted "V" with standard RAD/Luft. type sliding clips. The clips have the normal dull grey finish with only the slightest amount of a golden residue in the recesses and the loop areas, which I think is only dis-colored lacquer and not a onetime gold finish. It is die stamped with "LP By" on the reverse and the standard D.R.G.M. on the clips. Does anyone have any info on it, I don't think it is the only one around because of the reverse stamping.
Thanks again, Dan

P.S. Having sold most of my collection in the late 60's, retaining only about 50 daggers and other misc. stuff, I am one of those guys who wish they could re-think what they did. I am, however, amazed at current prices, the amount of available information, excellent reference material, the Germandaggers site, and the truly knowledeable people in the collecting community today.

Just a clarifying note on the RAD Sr. "service" hanger, the clips mentioned are the bottom clips, there are no buckles, sliders or any means of adjustment. Dan

Excellent points in this thread.
Back in the days were the vets were bringing stuff to the Gun shows one would see some odd items. Some we thought were post-war parts pieces, etc.
Many years later we find that they were indeed original and rare. Some were just never issued like the HJ "clip blade" knife. Ron, knows those very well. They were in the factory in April 45. Also HJ Leader's with longer blade and all metal scabbards.
Who knows what else? Our G.I's went in a cleaned out Solingen of all their completed edged weapons at wars end.

Great thread.

-serge-

The story of the Krebs "Fat Man" hewer being a post-war fantasy circulated because Lt.C. James P. Atwood turned up vast quantities of them which he released on to the market - and it was assumed at that time (late 1960s) that Atwood had been having them produced.

Initially I believed this story, having no other evidence to go upon other than the photos that were being circulated. However, having obtained one specimen, and examining it thoroughly, I have come to the conclusion:
a) That the item is authentic, and constructed to rigid working tolerances.
b)In my opinion the item is an early period production, having an iron hilt (later period pieces tended to have alloy hilts).

Wotan, you stated:

quote:

Due to several certain features of this certain hewer, including the spurious trademark which never did appear on any doubtless IIIR edged weapon by KREBS, I (and I think several other members here) still tend to believe it is a postware phantasy piece.

I must correct you on this point. The version of the Krebs trademark is one that was in use during the earlier years of the Third Reich. Carter records this version of the mark (as well as five other variations) in his "The Sword and Knife Makers of Germany, 1850-2000".

Another feature of the mark is that it is stamped into the blade, and not etched. This is consistent with blade proofing.

The reason why Krebs should produce this version of the hewer is not known, although I speculate that it was possibly an original production run which was either rejected, or the blade specification changed, by the RAD authority.

I compiled a comprehensive feature about this RAD hewer for the "Armourer" magazine five or six years ago. If anyone has access to the article, I have no objections to it being posted up here on the site for further comment.

FJS

I agree with Wotan. I have never seen this particular TM on any authentic 3rd Reich edged weapon. I have however seen it on the "Atwood" 60's era parts RAD leader daggers that had the very thin blade.
IMO this makes the " Fat Man" questionable as a "period" piece. Now if I could see this TM on another period blade I might change my mind.

DASH, would you -plase- show us photographs from your hewer?
I have great respect to the knowledge and experience of very long time collector and dealer Ron Weinand.
Therefore I do not have any doubt about his statement.
BUT it would have to be much more detailed because there are a lot of questions:
Was there any proof that the lot was a totally true war souvenir, were there bring back papers with them?
Were all the mentioned items from KREBS?
Were all the mentioned hewers/bajonets complete and totally assembled and with scabbards?
Were all the mentioned hewers/bajonets maker marked?
Which special kind of maker mark did have those with maker mark?
Did all the mentioned hewers have the motto?
Did all the EM hewers have the RADL triangle proofmark?

All the fat man hewers I have seen had the RADL triangle. Therefore it would have to be a PROOFED and a by the RAD leadership ACCEPTED and OFFICIALLY ADOPTED model which I doubt because if official I would assume there would be much more around.
Nearly all those "fat man" which are around are without scabbards.
My theory (just an assumption due to the circumstances and the form of the blade) is the following: The form of the blade is a well known hunting blade of medieval times called (germ.) "Jagdpraxe". KREBS might have manufactured such blades for private hunting use in the beginning of the 20th century too. I think I have seen such blades in hunting catalogues of this time.
At the end of WWII such (plain) blades were found at Solingen or by workers at KREBS and "defunctioned" to RAD blades for souvenir hunters. Main quantity by Atwood lateron.

As the "normal" EM hewer has been so very heavy so that the much lighter officer hewers has been developed and also the EM hewers sometimes (later) were produced with lightwight grips to reduce weight, such a "fat man" would be absolutely contraproductive to any period development.

I also do respect Frederick J Stephens, who did foundamental work for our hobby, very much and will come back on his statement later, have to look through my files first.

I also want to mention that I have truely a lot of "wearing" pictures. I have TN leader wearers, RRPP wearers, even a water custom wearer. But I have never seen nor heard of a fat man in wear...

Regards,

Status:
The box HAD the veteran's name and address on the front and the APO return address. The blades were COMPLETE with scabbards.
In the box was the man's military bring back paper with the number of blades described:
1 bayonet, 1 knife, etc., so I have no doubt it was complete and as shipped home.
As far as maker's marks, etc., it was not important at the time (1960s) and I didn't pay any attention. Stupid me: he also had a PPS Police Bayonet that I passed up because it was different also (not part of the box shipment, but another lot of returned items by him).
I am not the only one who saw a Fat Man returned by a veteran, as another collector I know also saw one in a veteran lot.
Ron Weinand

I could believe that these were official RAD approved trial or prototype early Officer pieces somewhat like the full grip Eickhorns --rejected perhaps because of the weight and other factors-BUT--the TM--as far as I have seen --only appears on these and 60's fakes. IF this TM in fact did appear on early authentic pieces--Let's see one! IMO -that would end this debate that has been going on since the 60's--perhaps before.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:

the TM--as far as I have seen --only appears on these and 60's fakes. IF this TM in fact did appear on early authentic pieces--Let's see one! IMO -that would end this debate that has been going on since the 60's--perhaps before.

Amen !

It seams as if I have stirred up a hornets nest. I would love to post some pictures, but it will have to wait until I can get my daughters camera, and then learn how to post a picture. I may wind up having to email the pictures to someone. I have never had this dagger apart, but I filed a spanner screwdriver and took the grip apart (as this is my only hewer, is it normal for it to have bolts with spanner nuts like a S84/98?). Here are some observations (to be honest, I never really looked at the dagger this closely, never had it apart, and did not realize it was different when I bought it - I wanted that paratroop helmet):

1)Overall fit: blade to hilt, grips to hilt, hilt squareness to scabbard throat, scabbard fittings to scabbard body - all excellent.
2)Overall finish: Hilt (magnetic) casting and casting lines very good, nickel plating, except for worn spot, smooth and good quality.
3) Scabbard fittings appear to be solid nickel, stamped designs are crisp and fine.
4) RADJ triangle and GES. GESCH. on motto side (reverse)is etched, as is the motto.
5) Makers mark on obverse (imperial crown, fancy "X" shaped K, and Solingen is stamped, with Solingen curved like a rocker, near the hilt.
6) Only about 2/3 of tang is visible, and it has a 6mm number 10 forge mark.
7) Mid hilt strap, which has 1 of 2 blade attachment rivets, is stamped with a 3mm assembly number 5, which is also marked in black pencil on each grip.
8) No hilt washer.
9) This is only an opinion, but the dagger just feels good, when you insert the dagger into the scabbard, it literally leaps in with a clicking snap, like a door closing. Naturally, I am partial, but the more I look at it, the more I like it - but this has nothing to do with the basic question of authenticity.

Also, having never seen one in a picture doesn't hold much water as they look the same as any other hewer when in the scabbard.

Hey, while I have everyones attention, has anyone ever seen a Luftwaffe type portepee with an overlay on the ball portion. It is almost like a sock with a hidden drawstring at the bottom, but made of strands of 2 gold and 1 pinkish red twisted vertical cords. The cords are attached/glued where the top spiral ends, and can be easilly separated to see the normal silver ball under it.

I will make every effort to get some pictures in, but it may take a while. Dan

One additional observation. We (I) did not put that much emphasis on trademarks back then. Sure we knew the basic ALCOSO, Eickhorn and WKC marks, but they were not a big deal. I am certainly no trademark expert - not even close. But I do have questions like everyone else, for example:

Tom Whitmann, who I have the utmost respect for, warns collectors in his Navy dagger book to avoid the Horster trademark without the circle or oval. Yet I have seen that trade mark on 3rd Reich period Horster products and publications. It is shown on page 226 in Tom Johnsons "Collecting the Edged Weapons of the Third Reich, vol 1", on a NSKOV bayonet, and again on a period Horster advertisement shown on page 833 of "German Daggers of WW2, vol 3", also by Tom Johnson. I never asked Tom Whitmann
to clarify his statement, as I am sure he has good reason for it and it actually doesn't matter that much to me. BUT

People may believe what they want to, but until the facts are 100% and documented, they are really only strong opinions and conjecture.

As I mentioned, I have only about $40 invested in this dagger, but I would dearly like to have the mystery solved one way or the other, but by fact if possible. Dan

Well what do you know, we still have an old "FATMAN" thread remaining with photos of Ron's Krebs!

http://daggers.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/812094573/...250023493#2250023493

An interesting post by "Duane" where he states what Heer Krebbs told Angolia about this hewer when he interviewed him for his book.

If this is the one that was faked by J. Atwood in the 60's...it's by far the best "Atwood" I've ever seen.
And I really don't care what others say, I like this quality fake with scabbard and Ma numbers. It will go good with my "fake" HJ "bowie" knife.

RON, IF YOU STILL OWN THIS "FATMAN" PLEASE PM ME.

Dan, how does Ron's example compare to yours?

Thanks,
-serge-

While I will(ok, always have thought)buy off that these were period. Issued??? ahhh well maybe maybe not. I've seen alot of stuff that has changed over the years so like Mulder "I want to believe" but looks like someones got some splain' to to Lucy. And not everything vets brought home were brought home. They were making money selling this stuff to collectors also. Fred, if your still reading this and you have your piece written up I for one would like to see what you wrote. Ok, now we have 2 variants does that shoot the price up. These pics are from Ron W. and Robert I. Rons is the blue background and Roberts is the black.

This pic is from Roberts site and his fatman.To edit a bit here Robert states he thinks these were post war made up. just so I am clear.
Bret Van Sant

If I can find my copy of my article I will post it. I have presently mislaid my copy, but I will endeavour to find it.

Regarding the stamped Krebs mark, I have to ask you Houston, how do you know that those pieces brought in by Atwood, with the stamped Krebs TM, are actually post-war production? Just because you haven't seen that version of the trade mark on any other Third Reich piece does not mean that it is spurious - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For the faker, it would have been easier to have etched the TM at the same time the blade motto was being etched. The fact that someone went to the trouble to invest in a stamp, and the means to embed it into the blade tends to weigh strongly in favour of authenticity in this case - in my opinion.

I concur with Fred.
I also don't recall Atwood blades with "stamped" blades. Maybe he did, but I believe all the ones I do remember were acid etched.

Can we get a close-up of the Krebbs mark on Bob's hewer?

-serge-

Come on Fred. I never said I know they are post war--and you don't KNOW that they are not. I said they are questionable- you classified them as fakes for many years-and now you have changed your opinion. I am waiting for what I consider proof what they are before I make a final conclusion. I don't have it --and you don't have it. You said those TM's existed pre-war-Let's see one!
Etched or Stamped? In fact there are fakes with stamped TM's. Conclusion? No conclusion just on this aspect.
Fat Man variations? There are in fact -several-two are shown above. Which is correct? There are also pieces with nickel alloy hilts-some with the motto on the obverse-some with no TM-some with no RAD approval. Which are correct and period? Are any correct and period? The jury is still out and has been for about 50 years. A new opinion, older opinion, or a recent opinion still IMO does not mean much. We wait for the proof.

HERE YOU GO FRED MY SIGNED COPY HOPE IT HELPS
DIPPY