Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club
Nick

The Great RK debate ?

Recommended Posts

Dietrich, I'm almost as lost as you are ;) . When you made a reference to the difference in the beading flaws, when comparing a A- and B-type, I assumed you meant the flaws at the top of the beading, hence my question. Your additional images leds me to believe you meant the dent row. The differences in these rows are clearly visible, so that part needs no further elaboration. I probably got this all wrong, but isn't the dent row a charactaristic solely for the B-type? If that's the case, how is a comparison to an A-type possible, if it is void of this dent row?

KR

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting these pictures Dietrich ..without them , it could get confusing for many when trying to understand the difference between the Flaws and Dent row's . It should also be noted that the Type A (micro 800) Die Flaws can only clearly be seen through a Loup (split bead on 6 o'clock arm and knee flaw between 9 and 12 o'clock ) . Otherwise , someone reading this for the first time will assume that all Flaws can be seen without any magnification.

Here's my Type A (micro 800) without any visible "Flaws" ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I got it!

The comparison between the beading flaws of the A-Type and the beading flaws of the B-Type was a kind of lacmus test. It would have been very difficult to sustain the theory of B-Types as a 'new' incarnation of the A-Type IF the beading flaws of - let's say - a 80's made cross would be the same as the ones of a pre 45 A-Type.

Don't forget, the big debate was and still seems to be about the beading flaws and the occurance on different crosses, i.e. those with provenance during the war and the crazy 'english' made ones. When one realizes that the flaws have a different pattern it becomes clear that two different types of the same phenomena are present.

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that the Type A (micro 800) Die Flaws can only clearly be seen through a Loup (split bead on 6 o'clock arm and knee flaw between 9 and 12 o'clock ) . Otherwise , someone reading this for the first time will assume that all Flaws can be seen without any magnification.

Oh so true.

The split bead - as pointe out by Dave Kane - is a very nice indication for a repaired die. I would not think that one could duplicate such a feature. And there are others.

Here's the split bead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Split Bead (is only at 6 o'clock Arm) and other defect (or knee flaw) between 9 and 12 o'clock position on TYPE A

here's the knee Flaw ( they look like dashes between the beading) --

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can properly discuss this and be sure that everyone fully understands it without having magnified pictures of both the Type A & B flaws (in sequence) that we can refer to ....this way one can see the actual progress of these "flaws" .

Here's the 3 o'clock arm of my (micro 800) Type A with no Flaw at all -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I got it!

The comparison between the beading flaws of the A-Type and the beading flaws of the B-Type was a kind of lacmus test. It would have been very difficult to sustain the theory of B-Types as a 'new' incarnation of the A-Type IF the beading flaws of - let's say - a 80's made cross would be the same as the ones of a pre 45 A-Type.

Don't forget, the big debate was and still seems to be about the beading flaws and the occurance on different crosses, i.e. those with provenance during the war and the crazy 'english' made ones. When one realizes that the flaws have a different pattern it becomes clear that two different types of the same phenomena are present.

Dietrich

I think you're massively over-simplifying the debate. We haven't even discussed the "London" crosses. They are irrelevant because they are so easy to spot. The debate focuses upon the impossibility of establishing a timelime with regard to the flaws, ridges and dent rows. I still strongly suspect that if Steinhauer & L?ck repaired the frame dies, they did so after 1957, after the frame dies started to crack. You contend that this was during the war. That is the essence of the debate.

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're massively over-simplifying the debate. We haven't even discussed the "London" crosses. They are irrelevant because they are so easy to spot. The debate focuses upon the impossibility of establishing a timelime with regard to the flaws, ridges and dent rows. I still strongly suspect that if Steinhauer & L?ck repaired the frame dies, they did so after 1957, after the frame dies started to crack. You contend that this was during the war. That is the essence of the debate.

PK

If the die was repaired after 57 then the 935-4 which are alledged to be found in Klessheim are also post 57. And so are the 935, 800-4, 800, 800 incuse. Surely a possiblity if one discounts the Klessheim provenance.

One thing does not fit into this scenario. The difference in die use (dent row 57 less pristine than the others).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people discount Schloss Klessheim provenance...

Yes, I know! It could very well be that the 935-4 is already post war.

How would you explain the dent row and the difference between the 935-4 and the 57 as shown above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that it was agreed about needing magnification to see the flaws yet some people seem to be able to determine the 57 RK in question to be a second type 57 (which it is not) by eyesight from a low resolution scan.

How does one explain this one posted in the thread on 57 RKs by Naxos.

Flaws on lower arm, what looks suspiciously like a dent row, and a dipping eye

How does a newly cut "second 57 type" frame acquire a dent row and flawing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Dietrich Maerz's study of flaws and repairs but remain puzzled by the absolute confidence with which he asserts the originality of flawed S&L KCs. How can he be so utterly sure that the repairs he cites were made during the war rather than afterwards?

PK

Edited by PKeating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that it was agreed about needing magnification to see the flaws yet some people seem to be able to determine the 57 RK in question to be a second type 57 (which it is not) by eyesight from a low resolution scan.

It has been confirmed by somebody who has very detailled pictures of the cross in question that it is and always was a 2nd type 57 pattern.

Why the cross you show has some flaws is irrelevant for my purpose since it is clearly a 2nd pattern - also! I'm only interested in the evolution of the original die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon,

What do you think are acceptable war time crosses? Do you consider the 935-4, 935, 800, 800 incuse, 800-4 (all of them no beading flaws) as wartime? If only flawed crosses are suspect, all those models are good?

Dietrich

I'd like to ask you this question again. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been confirmed by somebody who has very detailled pictures of the cross in question that it is and always was a 2nd type 57 pattern.

Really !. Then it should pose no problem to post these detailed pictures here to prove your point.

Why the cross you show has some flaws is irrelevant for my purpose since it is clearly a 2nd pattern - also! I'm only interested in the evolution of the original die.

Neatly avoiding the issue of why beading flaws and dent rows associated with wartime type frames would suddenly appear on so-called "2nd Pattern 57" frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask you this question again. What do you think?

Not very scientific to base opinions of originality soleley on markings (and nowhere near enough research has been done on the markings/stamps that S&L used) . Combined with other factors - ie. a 935 only mark ,a non ferrous centre,a flawed frame etc then I would avoid, but I don't think we are anywhere near to establishing that there is anything inherently wrong with 935-4, 800-4 or incuse 800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been confirmed by somebody who has very detailled pictures of the cross in question that it is and always was a 2nd type 57 pattern.

Why the cross you show has some flaws is irrelevant for my purpose since it is clearly a 2nd pattern - also! I'm only interested in the evolution of the original die.

You seem remarkably sure of yourself, Dietrich. However, the cross in question does not look like a 2nd pattern 1957 KC to me. Gordon Williamson and I both know a bit about Knights' Crosses and we don't agree with you. Who is this person who has very detailed pictures of the cross and can we expect to see these pictures anytime soon? Or will you be keeping them in reserve for your reference book on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939?

PK

Edited by PKeating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very scientific to base opinions of originality soleley on markings (and nowhere near enough research has been done on the markings/stamps that S&L used) . Combined with other factors - ie. a 935 only mark ,a non ferrous centre,a flawed frame etc then I would avoid, but I don't think we are anywhere near to establishing that there is anything inherently wrong with 935-4, 800-4 or incuse 800.

I'm not basing originality on markings. I'm basing the types and the possible time sequence on the wear of the dent row - as outlined above. I was only asking your opinion about the types for better definition. We all know that unmagnetic for S&L is post war. So magnetic 935's could be pre May 45?

Here's the thread about the 2nd pattern 57 cross: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=196370

Edited by Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem remarkably sure of yourself, Dietrich. However, the cross in question does not look like a 2nd pattern 1957 KC to me. Gordon Williamson and I both know a bit about Knights' Crosses and we don't agree with you. Who is this person who has very detailed pictures of the cross and can we expect to see these pictures anytime soon? Or will you be keeping them in reserve for your reference book on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939?

PK

I don't know why this 2nd pattern is so important to you and Gordon. It doesn't matter at all. The big question is and always was which swastika models are pre or post war.

I will not show this or any other 57 cross in the book. I'm not interested in thoses. The only purpose of the 57 (1st pattern) was to establish a fixed point in time regarding the wear of the dent row. As such, the 57 is definetely weaker in definition as the one of the 935-4 and - strictly based on logic and a certain knowledge in machine tools - I consider those as a later strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we shan't be seeing any unflawed "1st pattern" 1957 KCs by Steinhauer & L?ck in your book? I suppose they are rather inconvenient, as they tend to cast some doubt on your thesis. Will we be seeing any flawed crosses with acceptable provenance?

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why this 2nd pattern is so important to you and Gordon. It doesn't matter at all.

I should have thought that was rather obvious. You are the only one here who is saying that it IS a second pattern 57. You still haven't given any solid argument for that.

I would also have thought that the fact that flaws directly attributed by you to the so called "Type B" (flaws, dent rows) showing up what are claimed to be new postwar made dies might be worthy of comment. Certainly doesn't fit it with the "Type A" - "Type B" - New Postwar Dies theory.

Thanks for the link to the WAF thread but I have no interest in reading anything on that particular Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here sipping my tea, looking at that 1957 cross, and it still has a "1st pattern" frame...without any flaws. I suppose it could, of course, have been assembled using leftover wartime frame halves from stock. There again, it seems odd to me that any objects made of silver were not taken from the firm during the first couple of years of the Allied occupation. It also strikes me as odd that a firm would stock perfect frame halves whilst turning out visibly flawed and. arguably, unsightly KCs for supply to the government during the war, especially as Dr Doehle and the LDO had shown themselves to be rather picky when it came to Germany's highest award for military valour. I would not rule out the possibility and cannot say with certainty that flawed KCs by S&L are all postwar items but I am very wary of them because of the existence of unflawed 1957 pattern crosses. which raise the distinct possibility that any S&L KC with those raised flaws on the frame beading must, by default, postdate the 1957 pattern.

I gather that the person whom Dietrich Maerz cited as having highly detailed scans or photos of this 1957 cross, proving it to be a "2nd pattern" cross with the "dipped ring", now states it to be a different cross entirely. It strikes me that there seems to be a tendency to overrule or ignore anything that interferes with Mr Maerz's carefully constructed theses about Steinhauer & L?ck KCs. His Type A and Type B designations are defined by the repairs the firm apparently made to the dies at some point. As I have opined, I think it more likely that they tried to repair their wartime frame dies after the war, because of the money they were probably making from supplying bent dealers with 1939 pattern KCs for resale to collectors as genuine crosses. I feel quite safe talking about S&L like this because I was with the man to whom the dies were offered in London in 1981 in a Greek restaurant near Clerkenwell. He passed on them because of the cracks and they were then bought by a top London dealer.

We can accept "Type A" and "Type B" but I would be more inclined to use the former term to describe S&L KCs with good provenance dating them to the pre-May 9th 1945 period. "Type B" would cover all questionable crosses, meaning 1939 pattern crosses that cannot definitely be described as wartime, flaws or no flaws. The "London" issue are simply fakes with no link to the firm other than the tooling.

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note that, if one goes with Keatings assertion that the die was repaired after the war, that all the B-Types shown in mayor publications are considered post May 45. Just for the record, I never said this since I don't know. For me and my humble opinion the die was repaired late in 44 or maybe early 45 and produced as a first model the 935-4 (which was found at Klessheim). After that the grey area starts. If one accepts two things (which does not seem to be the case here): the dent row and the different flaws as signs of a repaired die plus the digfferent beading flaw pattern between A and later B-Type. Neglecting this subtracts the basis of the discussion.

From earlier discussions I remember very well that Mr. Williamson had no problem with flawed S&L's (the Barkmann cross, I think) and also has no problem with the 935-4, 935 magnetic and 800-4 as expressed above - so in his opinion they are pre-45 and therefore the die must have been repaired well before May 45 to crank out thoses crosses.

If one reads thru the threat again one will see that I never had any problem with any flawed 57 type, 1st or second pattern. For two reasons: I don't care about 57 and all he crosses in the "grey area", i.e. the 935, 800-4 incuse 800 and 800 B-type have no flaws at the beading at all (other than the dent row).

The very late unmagnetic, flawed crosses and the ruined die Keating is mentioning was never ever under discussion by anybody.

This being a Gentleman forum I will humbly subtract myself from the discussion. Nothing that was expressed here has changed my viewpoint to which I'm entitled. I choose to stay with it in the the same way others do. Time will tell ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I do actually happen to agree with a quite bit of Dietrich's theory of the S&L die tooling. I do tend to believe in the repaired die theory, and that flawed pieces can be genuine wartime examples.

My entry into this thread was because the 57 RK in question which was once mine was being repeatedly, categorically and totally wrongly identified as a second pattern 57 when it clearly wasn't.

Apparently I was also stated elsewhere as having claimed it was a so-called B-Type when I said no such thing. What I said was that it was unflawed, and of course that would have made it a so-called A-Type.

My point being that if totally unflawed frames survived the war to be used on 57 model Crosses (however few of these frames may have survived is unknown) then the unflawed aspect alone cannot be considered a 100% definite indicator of any 1939 type cross with swastika being of wartime manufacture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't "asserted" anything. I have merely expressed an alternative possibility. Early flawed pieces could be wartime. I sure hope so! LOL! However, they could just as easily be postwar. Impossible to say.

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×