Konteradmiral Jantzen

[Claudio]

Dear forumites:

I am preparing an inventory and trying to put in my catalogue all my medal bars. In order to do so, I would like to be sure to fill in the correct data about the above-mentioned Imperial navy officer.

There were some doubts about the fact that he never became "Admiral" during WWII and according to some data that I have gathered on him, there is no mention about his eventual promotion to "Konteradmiral":

Lebenslauf / Johannes Jantzen

*08.07.1880 in Hamburg geboren

12.04.1898 Eintritt in die Kriegsmarine

30.03.1908 Kapit?nleutnant

17.10.1915 Korvettenkapit?n

bis 07.1916 1. Offizier, SMS Berlin

bis 06.1918 Navigationsoffizier, SMS Westfalen

bis 07.11.1919 1. Offizier Ostfriesland, aus der KM ausgetreten

01.10.1939 Fregattenkapit?n (E)

01.08.1942 Kapit?n zur See

04.1938-09.1939 W.E.J. Schleswig-Holstein, Sachbearbeiter

09.1939-01.1941 Wehrbezirkskommando Kiel

01.1941-10.1944 Wehrbezirkskommando Hamburg-See, Kdr.

? 23.03.1945 verstorben

Can you help me? Any info on him is most appreciated! Many thanks in advance!!

Ciao,

Claudio

Edited December 15, 2005 by Claudio

[Guest Rick Research]

Jantzen did not make admiral's rank.

Oberleutnant zS 11.4.03 A

In 1909 he was skipper of the China river gunboat "Vaterland," and in 1911 skipper of the China river gunboat "Otter."

Between the wars, owner of the Firma Johannes P. F. Jantzen, "Export- und Platzvertretug" in Hamburg.

In 1914 he also held a Russian Order of Saint Anne 3rd Class.

[webr55]

How did he get his Finnish awards? He should be added to the Finnish list, right?

[Stogieman]

One sweet bar Claudio. One sweet bar!

[Guest Rick Research]

I don't know. His Colonial Medal is a mystery as well, since there is no bar on it. (That might be self-awarded for his China service just before WW1, for all I know).

George Seymour's research notes on his medals were NOT consulted by Herr Thies, or were lost by Herr Thies, or were discarded by Herr Thies, or Herr Thies never knew they existed (which everyone who KNEW the collection DID know), or Herr Thies simply did not CARE...

you get the picture.

Hastily sold, research results lost.

SOME bars I can reconstruct from either ancient xeroxes George sent me or from my own dimming memories of scores of medal groups over two and a half decades. But I don't have DUPLICATE notes of what George researched.

[Pete A]

How did he get his Finnish awards? He should be added to the Finnish list, right?

bis 06.1918 Navigationsoffizier, SMS Westfalen

That's how. Westfalen was the flagship of the Sonderverbande der Ostsee. And I was pretty sure that he was on the list, but looks like I have accidentaly left him out.

Pete

[Ulsterman]

I don't know. His Colonial Medal is a mystery as well, since there is no bar on it. (That might be self-awarded for his China service just before WW1, for all I know).

George Seymour's research notes on his medals were NOT consulted by Herr Thies, or were lost by Herr Thies, or were discarded by Herr Thies, or Herr Thies never knew they existed (which everyone who KNEW the collection DID know), or Herr Thies simply did not CARE...

you get the picture.

Hastily sold, research results lost.

SOME bars I can reconstruct from either ancient xeroxes George sent me or from my own dimming memories of scores of medal groups over two and a half decades. But I don't have DUPLICATE notes of what George researched.

All lost forever-such a shame and a loss of a lifes' work. Any chance Mrs. Seymour still has the notes?

Who consigned the medals to Thies anyway?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Ulsterman

[JBFloyd]

I believe this is a group I sold to George nearly 20 years ago. If it is, there was a photo of Jantzen in uniform as a konteradmiral (wearing a matching ribbon bar) and an envelope from Navy Headquarters addressed to Jantzen as a gunboat skipper (the envelope had 10-15 feldpost stamps as the package followed him around China).

[Guest Rick Research]

Thies strikes AGAIN!

[Stogieman]

OK, I'm confused....... everybody keeps refering to this as Konteradmiral..... but Rick says he did not attain this rank??

[Claudio]

That IS disturbing!

I won't even bother to ask Thies about it, because 1) he wouldn't even reply 2) Very likely I wouldn't even remember to have seen the picture and the envelope which belonged to Janzten. Too bad!

Regarding Jantzen's rank I am also a bit confused; was it or not promoted to Konteradmiral? Here everybody who can research his career seems to say that there is no confirmation from the Ranklists of the Kriegsmarine.

Man! I wish I had Jantzen's picture and why not also his ribbon bar! That would be great. But I won't dispair so easely. I am pretty sure, if it's out there, it might take one or 20 years, but sooner or later it will surface on the market and I hope to be around to snap it!

ciao,

Claudio

Edited December 16, 2005 by Claudio

[JBFloyd]

Did the Kriegsmarine have temporary/acting ranks that would not have appeared in the rank lists?

[webr55]

Jantzen was NOT an admiral. I had the same result about a year ago. He would definitely be in the admirals' bios series. The only thing I could imagine would be a posthumous, maybe even immediate-postwar promotion, but in that case, a photo would be rather improbable ...

... and even then, it is very unlikely that the bios series would have forgotten about him.

Edited December 16, 2005 by webr55

[Guest Rick Research]

Though Thies obviously "forgot" about Jantzen's partial ribbon bar, carelessly separated from the medal bar above--

see Jantzen's the lower row of two row'er matching here

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtop...st&p=123869

Nice, isn't it, that NOW all the "left over" "overlooked" ribbon bars split from the medal bar groups should be lumped together in a Grab Bag rather than sent to the buyers of those bars with apologies for the carelessness!!!!

[Wild Card]

All lost forever-such a shame and a loss of a lifes' work. Any chance Mrs. Seymour still has the notes?

Who consigned the medals to Thies anyway?

Gentlemen,

For the record. I first met George Seymour at the OMSA convention in 1981. Subsequently, we and our families became very close friends; made even more so when George moved from Texas to Vermont - less than two hours from my home. After that we often traveled together and visited one another at least every two months. I was sitting next to George when he died at the OMSA convention dinner in August of 2004.

With regard to the first question above, Pauline (Mrs.) Seymour never really recovered from his death and after a lengthily illness, died seven months later. In response to the second question, George left instructions with Pauline for the dispersal of his collection which have been followed. At the same time, and I think that I can say that I am as close as anyone outside of the family with regard to this matter, for a number of reasons that I cannot discuss, I can not go into the details of what transpired or the events that dictated it; but I feel compelled to state here that Mr. Thies is not responsible for the situation we face and I think that public criticism and comments by those who do not know the facts are unwarranted and now approaching poor taste.

I would just ask you to consider this. Keep in mind that it is in his best interest of the auctioneer and even a responsibility to the estate on his part to get the maximum amount for each item. Now, given a medal group to a high ranking officer - is that group going to command a higher price if it is so identified or left unidentified?

I will close by saying that if you have concerns regarding the dispersal of your collection, do not assume anything and make sure that someone who will likely survive you knows where everything is and what is to be done with it. This is all that I can or will say on this matter.

Thank you,

Wild Card

[Claudio]

Here are the two ribbon halfs that should go with "my" medal bar...

Ciao,

Claudio

Edited November 20, 2006 by Claudio

[Stogieman]

Claudio, you're missing the point...

As distasteful as most of us find what has happened, Herr Theis is performing the task he was hired to do by the current owner(s) of Mr. Seymour's estate. Nothing more, nothing less. He is doing as requested by his client, which morality and higher purpose aside, is exactly what any reasonable business person can be expected to do under these circumstances.

As long as we are on a morality kick, explain to me why it is any more moral for you, or Paul C, or any others to now publicly and privately collude to fix prices and reduce bidding on any of these lots?

IMO, you're all being very hypocritical. Theis is not breaking the law. You are. Collusion of bidders and price fixing is illegal in any country you choose to name.

[Wild Card]

Stogieman -

Thank you for your clarification of the situation of the situation in post #17.

With regard to your point ?...Collusion of bidders and price fixing is illegal in any country you choose to name.?, you are 100% correct and I must admit to being guilty. I really had not considered this - shame on me. At the same time, as you may be aware, in another thread I have given my word to Claudio that I will not bid against him for Mackensen?s mini chain; and I am obligated to keep my word. I must admit that learning that Claudio has his group would have deterred me. That is why I asked him if he was going to be at the auction. If he was not going to be present, I would not know if the book bids were his or from a third party.

At the same time, please let me pose a question which applies to this particular situation and could very well arise in the future. I honestly believe that Claudio?s point was informational - I have his group and I hope to reunite it with his mini?s. Sure, there may be an implied ?please don?t bid against me?; but I think that this (potential reunification) is a situation different from the vast majority of ?please don?t bid against me? propositions . How would you interpret and feel about this?

Thank you again for the clarification and lesson in legal ethics.

Best wishes,

Wild Card

[Stogieman]

I don't know WC, We've all been at this for a long time. To me, it's a dichotomy of positions to on one hand imply that Theis is an idiot, unscrupulous, immoral when on the other hand we are guilty of crime(s) as well.

We're getting into a difficult area here. Who has the moral higher ground? The person who refuses to do anything that they feel is immoral, or illegal; or is it the person who performs the immoral and/or illegal act with the intent of correcting someone else's failing?

Do two wrongs now make a right? Does the moral obligation that (most) of us feel preclude our judgement of right and wrong?

My personal feelings are irrelevent, everyone knows the time, money and effort (as well as frustration) I've gone through to reunite broken groups. But where do we draw the line? The lesser of evil? For if evil is justified in the pursuit of a higher goal, than instead of discussing bid collusion publicly we should be discussing how we are going to steal everything back from all the scattered owners, auction houses, museums and countries for the express purpous of reuniting this history, this collection back to where it was intended to be by the original owner. Where do we draw the line? The little wrong is right?

I am (almost) as disgusted over this as I am positive you are. I looked back through all the catalogues this AM... I thought about the hours of discussion the League of Two Rickies? have had over this and the sad number of times it has happened in the past year. Makes me want to walk away while I still can.

But I simply cannot sit on the side and not comment on what I think is an illegal action on the part of some of our fellow collectors. I cannot tell you how many times I have bitten my tongue over these types of posts. After all, not saying it's wrong is the same as saying it's right.

I sit on the side line and I watch the anger and frustration in my friends and fellow collectors... I watch the scheming and under the table dealings and in my opinion, this makes us just as wrong as the folks who ordered it to be broken up in the first place.

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

Allow me two cents please. You are all collectors. You are not family members. Your 'right' to own the bar and the minis is in your mind and your mind only and is not a right you possess by any moral or legal ground.

Were my grandfather's items to be sold to the four winds I could care less what you collectors think about the morality of the act. Were I or my heirs to sell one of the most comprehensive groups still in one piece the last thing I would be concerned with is what 'collectors' had to say or think about it.

George 'collected' folks. He researched his items, he loved his collection but it was a collection and beyond him, not mine or anyone else's business of how they are dispersed.

As the grandson of a general I think was a great man I would be happier to know that twenty people got a piece of it and all knew and appreciated the man rather than the single eccentric collector who put it in his drawer and drew a few oohs and ahhs occasionally to brag about his latest acquisition. Believe me, as the grandson and having known other wives and children of medaled vets, I can assure you they wish the memory to live on in as many people as possible and not the eccentric guy who lives for the acquisition of it all.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Brian von Etzel

[Claudio]

I re-edited my post, because I want to avoid any polemics. After all this should be our hobby and I feel incredible that people have so much time to waste to make such polemics.

@ Stogieman: I am usually not so sensitive to critics, but in your case is not the first time that you attack me directly or indirectly, sometimes allowing yourself to give bad comment on some pieces I own. I always kept my mouth shot and I will, because I am here on this forum to have "a good time", since it's my free time I spend on it. If everytime I say something I have to fear that somebody is labelling me as hypocritical, than it's better that I leave this forum. That would be much better and easier for me, than to share my medal bars and always fear that somebody is criticising my items.

@ Brian: Not everybody has the priviledge to have such "interesting" ancestors, so it's not to bad if there are collectors like me that they really care about history. Do you know what it would be better for me? It would be much better that today's governments would invest more in preserving history and put everything in a museum for public display. In that case I wouldn't have to spend thousand of Euros to put together groups and could use the money to go on vacation to Brasil, Cuba or Thailand and have a good time.

This is a utopical thought of mine and, especially in Germany (but also in Switzerland), no authorities would care to invest money and time in such museums. Most the historical items are kept away in archives, especially Imperial German and 3rd Reich items, for the reasons we all know.

Sometimes I really think that collecting is mainly for satisfying personal wishes and all collectors are greedy to get more stuff (they wouldn't collectors if they didn't do that) and tend to be to emotional about the things they own. Also you my dear Rick (Stogie) are like that... if you are not, you wouldn't collect!

Sorry for venting my thoughts outloud (it is completely off topic!).

[Claudio]

What about the fact that many auctioneers during all these years have in more occasion tried to sell me fakes or their description on the catalogues let very much to be desired? I can only tell you all: all auction houses I have been dealing with, they tried to screw me at least once. There is no expeception among them: all of them made mistakes maybe not willingly knowing or purposedly described their items wrongly (see thread Kube and Reussisches REK 3 Kr X) to sell them better. How could an auctioneer in all his good faith describe a REK3 Kr X with a replaced crown as being in mint conditions / Zustand I ???. Is this not also kind of "out of line" or even "illegal"? I would say that is criminal to me. For me is like to play with the fact that they established a good relationship with a specific client and when the client begins to trust him, then mostly happens that they sell you a blatant fake. Never buy just because you think you can trust somebody. Actually you can't trust nobody in this field... Imperial or Third Reich! Beware!!!

Claudio

I don't know WC, We've all been at this for a long time. To me, it's a dichotomy of positions to on one hand imply that Theis is an idiot, unscrupulous, immoral when on the other hand we are guilty of crime(s) as well.

We're getting into a difficult area here. Who has the moral higher ground? The person who refuses to do anything that they feel is immoral, or illegal; or is it the person who performs the immoral and/or illegal act with the intent of correcting someone else's failing?

Do two wrongs now make a right? Does the moral obligation that (most) of us feel preclude our judgement of right and wrong?

My personal feelings are irrelevent, everyone knows the time, money and effort (as well as frustration) I've gone through to reunite broken groups. But where do we draw the line? The lesser of evil? For if evil is justified in the pursuit of a higher goal, than instead of discussing bid collusion publicly we should be discussing how we are going to steal everything back from all the scattered owners, auction houses, museums and countries for the express purpous of reuniting this history, this collection back to where it was intended to be by the original owner. Where do we draw the line? The little wrong is right?

I am (almost) as disgusted over this as I am positive you are. I looked back through all the catalogues this AM... I thought about the hours of discussion the League of Two Rickies? have had over this and the sad number of times it has happened in the past year. Makes me want to walk away while I still can.

But I simply cannot sit on the side and not comment on what I think is an illegal action on the part of some of our fellow collectors. I cannot tell you how many times I have bitten my tongue over these types of posts. After all, not saying it's wrong is the same as saying it's right.

I sit on the side line and I watch the anger and frustration in my friends and fellow collectors... I watch the scheming and under the table dealings and in my opinion, this makes us just as wrong as the folks who ordered it to be broken up in the first place.

[Dave Danner]

Claudio, you're missing the point...

As distasteful as most of us find what has happened, Herr Theis is performing the task he was hired to do by the current owner(s) of Mr. Seymour's estate. Nothing more, nothing less. He is doing as requested by his client, which morality and higher purpose aside, is exactly what any reasonable business person can be expected to do under these circumstances.

As long as we are on a morality kick, explain to me why it is any more moral for you, or Paul C, or any others to now publicly and privately collude to fix prices and reduce bidding on any of these lots?

IMO, you're all being very hypocritical. Theis is not breaking the law. You are. Collusion of bidders and price fixing is illegal in any country you choose to name.

I don't know WC, We've all been at this for a long time. To me, it's a dichotomy of positions to on one hand imply that Theis is an idiot, unscrupulous, immoral when on the other hand we are guilty of crime(s) as well.

We're getting into a difficult area here. Who has the moral higher ground? The person who refuses to do anything that they feel is immoral, or illegal; or is it the person who performs the immoral and/or illegal act with the intent of correcting someone else's failing?

Do two wrongs now make a right? Does the moral obligation that (most) of us feel preclude our judgement of right and wrong?

My personal feelings are irrelevent, everyone knows the time, money and effort (as well as frustration) I've gone through to reunite broken groups. But where do we draw the line? The lesser of evil? For if evil is justified in the pursuit of a higher goal, than instead of discussing bid collusion publicly we should be discussing how we are going to steal everything back from all the scattered owners, auction houses, museums and countries for the express purpous of reuniting this history, this collection back to where it was intended to be by the original owner. Where do we draw the line? The little wrong is right?

I am (almost) as disgusted over this as I am positive you are. I looked back through all the catalogues this AM... I thought about the hours of discussion the League of Two Rickies? have had over this and the sad number of times it has happened in the past year. Makes me want to walk away while I still can.

But I simply cannot sit on the side and not comment on what I think is an illegal action on the part of some of our fellow collectors. I cannot tell you how many times I have bitten my tongue over these types of posts. After all, not saying it's wrong is the same as saying it's right.

I sit on the side line and I watch the anger and frustration in my friends and fellow collectors... I watch the scheming and under the table dealings and in my opinion, this makes us just as wrong as the folks who ordered it to be broken up in the first place.

Price fixing may be a criminal offense in many or most jurisdictions, but price fixing is an activity undertaken by producers, not consumers. The term you are looking for is bid-rigging. And in most jurisdictions, for bid-rigging to constitute a criminal offense, the conspirators have to control the bidding process. Agreeing not to bid against one another is not the same as everyone agreeing that to fix the bid price at X dollars, and then pretending to have a competitive bidding process but knowing who is going to win in the end. Nothing is keeping any of the many collectors who have never heard of GMIC and/or who do not collect over the Internet from bidding to their hearts' content.

"Theis is not breaking the law. You are." You may offer your opinion on whether you think agreeing not to bid against each other is good or bad, but you are not competent to call other forum members criminals.

[Stogieman]

My apologies if I have offended anyone. Clearly we have divergent opinions regarding this subject.

David, Thanks for correcting my words, clearly "bid-rigging" is the concept I was discussing. So there we have it, an Attorney has stated that since you "do not control the entire process" you're not breaking the law. But then, neither is Herr Thies, is he? It's always good to check with an attorney as they are able to differentiate clearly for all of us the difference between "moral" and "legal"....

Claudio, I cannot think of any piece, group or bar of yours that I have ever condemned. Any comments ever made on an item in your collection would have been made regarding the item, not you personally. In addition Claudio, I have no clue what you mean by the phrase "but in your case is not the first time that you attack me directly"... What on earth are you talking about????

Again, my apologies if I have offended anyone with my statements.

[Dave Danner]

My apologies if I have offended anyone. Clearly we have divergent opinions regarding this subject.

David, Thanks for correcting my words, clearly "bid-rigging" is the concept I was discussing. So there we have it, an Attorney has stated that since you "do not control the entire process" you're not breaking the law. But then, neither is Herr Thies, is he? It's always good to check with an attorney as they are able to differentiate clearly for all of us the difference between "moral" and "legal"....

Claudio, I cannot think of any piece, group or bar of yours that I have ever condemned. Any comments ever made on an item in your collection would have been made regarding the item, not you personally.

Again, my apologies if I have offended anyone with my statements.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic with the little "It's always good to check with an attorney as they are able to differentiate clearly for all of us the difference between "moral" and "legal"...." remark, but it sounds like you are.

How about this for a little "bid rigging" exercise? You and me and Ricky and Wild Card and Paul and Claudio and whoever wants to bid on some things from Thies all agree to form a bidding enterprise. We call it, for want of a better word, "Bob". We each contribute money to Bob and decide among ourselves what Bob is going to bid on, and how to allocate what Bob wins among the members of Bob. Maybe we don't have enough money among ourselves to ensure Bob is fully capitalized, so we sell shares in Bob. Bob isn't a conspiracy. Bob is a company. And Bob competes with any other Tom, Dick or Harry that wants to bid in Thies' auctions as well.

There nothing illegal about this, and what exactly is immoral about it?