Bill Garvy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 "925" Silver mark on above Knight's Cross. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 "925" Silver marked Oak Leaves obverse. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 "925" Silver marked Oak Leaves reverse. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 "925" Silver marked Oak Leaves and Swords obverse. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) "925" Silver marked Oak Leaves & Swords reverse. . . Edited July 24, 2005 by Bill Garvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris S Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Gentlemen,If I may ask you for information on this piece, it is not made of silver and appears worn.The frames are split just like other old cross's I have. But, is this because it is a made for tourist piece or a genuine older item? as somebody once said to me...its a bit tatty to be worn by a KC holder.ThanksChris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris S Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 It appears to be painted...repainted....Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris S Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Split FrameChris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurence Strong Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Nice RK's Gordon and Bill. Thanks for showing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris S Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Thank you gentlemen, I guess no comment is a comment.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 Thank you gentlemen, I guess no comment is a comment.Chris←Looks like a pretty typical mid to late 80s piece, second type core and dipped eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 Another nice early one with unfinished eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 800 silver marked frame and loop. Note pointed ends to loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 When contacted for a Knights Cross in the 80s, a certain Luedenscheid firm asked whether it was the new type or old type with swastika that was wanted. Here is what they were selling then. Note the use of the new frame tooling with dipped eye and also that the 1939 date has that flat look found on the 1957 versions, indicating that they had actually made a new "swastika" type centre tool after the war.←Ack, how did the world of collectors miss THIS post without comment! After all the rhetoric about war/postwar this cements it for me and confirms my original contention. They REPAIRED their die and postwar the core WAS different. I hope Dietrich and George see this one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 (edited) Ack, how did the world of collectors miss THIS post without comment!? After all the rhetoric about war/postwar this cements it for me and confirms my original contention.? They REPAIRED their die and postwar the core WAS different.? I hope Dietrich and George see this one!!!←Brian,I certainly don't weant to start a renewed discussion about this subject but allow me kindly to ask why this cross (which is absolutely nothing new - I quoted Gordon in my article about this already) is proof that the die was repaired? Whjich - by the way - really doesn't matter to me, i.e. repaired or new! And I don't think so! I mean the post war all have a new core. But if you believe that it's also fine with me.Dietrich Edited September 5, 2005 by Dietrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Why ask only half the question Dietrich? Forget the repaired die.Concentrate on the core. This is a different core. You tried to make the 'conclusion' the 'second die' was postwar. Without any proof I may add, this is concrete evidence of the postwar SL with a different core. That's the issue. Don't skirt the obvious please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Brian,so this cross is pre-45? Flaws all over the place, B-Type, no flat core numerals, rather the usual!I don't think I came to my (and only my!) conclusions lightly. And I don't skirt the obvious also. Ther are also unmarkes Zink core B-Types with the 'regular' core. War type? I don't think so.Dietrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Brian,I did not make the conclusion that the B-type is post war. You are trying to put this into my article. I clearly said, that the 935-4 (which is the last S&L RK with solid provenance) is a B-Type! Therefore, the B-Type was in use during the war, i.e. at the very end. All the models after that (800-4, 800, 800 incuse, 935, unmarke, zinc core, ...) might or might not be post war, but surely some are! I don't know the cut off point and I never pretended to know. All I know ist that the 935-4 is the last with provenance.Dietrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 You mean, it's the last you KNOW of with provenance.Since no one noticed the A versus B types there could literally be HUNDREDS w/provenance that simply went unnoticed as A versus B.Again, another nuance you skirt, yes, lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Brian,it was always clear that the 935-4 is a late war cross. Just because nobody did pay attention to the A and B Type before the determination doesn't mean anything. It was long before that that the 935 - as an example- was deemed post war. The B-type discovery just confirms it. And the above shown cross confirms it, too.I'm nor skirting anything here. I showed you a B-Type cross with war time core that is clearly made post war. Or don't you think so?And again, so far the 935-4 is the last S&L with provenance, found at Klessheim together with Lazy 2's. The flat numeral core you refer to above is just another example of the business behaviour of S&L in the post war years. You cannot believe that this was the first done on purpose after the war and everything else was left over stock?Dietrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Again, I'm not challenging you in an ungentlemanly manner, mind you, but I think you skirt what we know versus what you think you know versus what wasn't recorded when provenanced crosses were sold over the last 60 years.Since you've so recently determined the A and B types, of which we are grateful, it is extremely premature to declare what is and is not 'known'. Certainly the majority of RK 'collectors' do not belong to these forums. You might think so, but, not...What we do know is that a postwar SL cross Gordon shows above is postwar. Why do I 'know' that SL made postwar crosses w/ the original cores? I do not 'know' this and neither do you. What was cobbed together with leftover parts is anyone's guess. Certainly the dagger collectors jump to the 'parts dagger' argument everytime they see something not quite 'perfect', why not SL RK's...But not to digress, Dietrich, you do not know that B Type 800 marked SL's are postwar, nor is it a 'gentlemanly' thing to suggest they are in a grey area as has been written. These premature conclusions from evidential oxygen and hydrogen, eg air, do not sit with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Brian,I do not know whether B-Type "800" crosses are post war and I never said so! If somebody ask me of my opinon I would tell and have told exactly this: The last B-Type with provenance I'm (and a lot of others...) are aware of is the 935-4. And there are post war manufactured S&L crosses, B-Types mind you, IMHO.If you elect to believe that all the 935, 800, unmarked, Neusilber, zink and heavily flawed are made from left over parts, okay. The post war crosses start somewhere, that's sure. With the 800? With the 935? With the Neuliber Zink? I don't know! Safe is only the 935-4, IMHO.Dietrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 You're stretching to extremes to back up your earlier statements. I'm not suggesting pure ugly SLs are wartime. You should halt the provenance talk until you get someone like Detlev to produce detailed enough photos of crosses he's sold over the years to determine what is and isn't A and B type. I've said over and over and you refuse to acknowledge that the A and B type is only weeks old knowledge. Therefore it is impossible to conclude Detlev and Weitze have NEVER encountered a B type with provenance. That is as extreme as some of the statements that I think pure crud SLs are wartime. Please don't make an arguement for yourself by trying to suggest I'm believing in extremes. You have a weak case with your conclusions and aspertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Brian,then let's leave it at that! Wait for provenance of the 935, 800, and all the others. Till then, my opinion stands for me.Dietrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naxos Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 [attachmentid=35996]A very nice late Steinhauer & L?ck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now