Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club
Guest Brian von Etzel

Evidence of an Unknown RK

Recommended Posts

Guest Brian von Etzel

Please look at this photo on my web site.

Photo of RK

It is from a propaganda photo, wartime, of a cross superimposed wartime onto the image of an RK winner.

Hans Beerenbrock received his RK on 10/1941. Private purchase RKs were readily available. My theory is this one was private purchase but I have no further evidence or thoughts.

The photo on my web site is very large, download and check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, Knights' Crosses could be purchased by recipients but they were crosses produced by the firms given the contract to do so by the authorities before the LDO forbade retails sales. The rounded inner corners of the beading on this cross appear to be the result of filing to clear the swastika as they have an asymetric look.

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Presume you're suggesting this because of the flattish looking top left corner. Perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

IMHO not a Juncker. Ring looks different to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Here is the center of the unknown RK, unknown to me..., appears pyramidal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's always very difficult to tell anything concrete from photos

- especially old wartime ones which have been magnified and/or doctored by the press people at the time.

I've often taken photos of the same badge from slightly different angles, or with slightly different lighting, and the shape, detailing etc. can be changed so much as to almost make it look like 2 different badges. I took one photo of a badge which (inadvertently) made it look like rusted steel when it was actually silvered brass!

Photos can be tricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the filing along the inner corners is reminiscent

of what was done to the short-lived Ubergrosse.

many of those have several filed inner corners,

and since these were relatively early on in the

war, might tend to support your thoughts noted

above.

joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't have any knowledge of these so I cannot interject anything other than observations on this issue. The only real question I have is: Was DN's "Fake of The Week" indicitive of all "rounders" as they are called or was that a fake of that style? Seems to me that several people have put forth period fotos showing what appears to be this hotly contested cross.

For all the doctor's scientific training, I think there needs to be a sample that exceeds a few pieces....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

This is not a Rounder discussion. Rick, I'm trying to figure out what this matches. Does it match one in Detlev's book? Certainly not IMHO any of the ones we know now to be 'right'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Brian, my mistake. Like I said, RK's are outside my scope of knoledge unless they were made before 1919 ;>) Sorry!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

No problem Rick, Rounder dicussions are pretty much a waste of good zeroes and ones. I'd much prefer to look at evidence like this and place it to an RK.

But, as mentioned, it's not ENTIRELY impossible this was an EK wide frame. Maybe someone here can better identify. Period photos like this are far and few with this kind of detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that it would be an EK2 of any type. Brian, don't get me wrong: I actually respect most of your propositions. Pax vobiscum. This is an interesting one. I am sure there were firms who made KCs before Dr Doehle got heavy with them in March '41. You're right. This cross doesn't stand up to comparison with any of the crosses we accept as crosses made by the firms "on the list".

C E Juncker

Steinhauer & L?ck

Klein & Quenzer

Deschler

Zimmermann*

Godet*

Otto Schickle

*The same...probably Zimmermann dies.

I reckon it's possible that Paul Meybauer made KCs. I have a set of Swords by Meybauer, marked L/13. I think it's more than likely that that might have produced some crosses.

What say you, Brian?

PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

I think most likely an RK. Don't want to rule anything out of hand. It's hard evidence that convinces ultimately and this one might be someone's hard evidence.

I have more RK Luftwaffe original photos like this from the Prop. Ministry and a couple other shots of the same cross. But like any photo it gets a little dicey and your eyes get cross trying to match and mate so I'll let this one stand up for a little time until trying to tie in some others.

But yes PK, I'm thinking there must have been a few other makers who were making crosses in Imperial mode and went the next step to convince the powers their style was worthy of consideration or at least private purchase to men stationed nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would imagine there were firms trying to curry favour who must have made Knights' Crosses in the hope of impressing the PKF and LDO but in the end, only a handful of firms, as we know, received licences to supply Germany's highest decoration.

P

Edited by PKeating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular subject of who made RK has always fascinated me.

We know who received the Licence to make RK after 1941, and know some of the firms that produced it before 1941, as Prosper has mentioned. (I understand that Wachtler & Lange also made RK).

We know that Deumer were thought to have made them( but denied it.)

One author suggested that there may have been up to 88 firms that could have made the RK!!

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

And why is 88 firms so absurd? How many Imperial EKII makers who were/wanted to be back in business and had the tooling know how to get back in. But again, we need the photographic or catalog proof to verify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon it's possible that Paul Meybauer made KCs. I have a set of Swords by Meybauer, marked L/13. I think it's more than likely that that might have produced some crosses.

Just as a side note and I really don't want to start a Rounder discussion - my Rounder is marked "7" and there is another one. But that still does not mean that the Rounder is real or made by Meybauer. However, whoever put that stamp on was thinking it might be possible or it is even real.

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, 88 firms is a realistic figure.

Ever thought who provided firms like say Deumer, who advertised RK in their catalogue (but didn't make them?) with RK?

Did all firms make every award and badge produced during the third Reich period, or just manufactered a certain number and sourced, subcontracted out for the rest?

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

I think there is SO much left to discover. My happiest collecting moment was when our good friend Gordon posted the Legion Condor Tank Badge catalog photo of MY UNKNOWN LCTB! From it being declared a fake to the only one matched to a catalog without question was a great moment in collecting. Not long after that I bought a pilot badge from Detlev on a lark, an expensive lark, in that it was so nice looking I had to hold it and see. After a few very serious doubts from very knowledgeable collectors to one positive from Tim Calvert it was enough for me to hold on Tim's thumbs up. But ONE pilot badge like it? Yikes. Then, comes forward a grandson of a pilot who fought for the Reich from Italian birth, and, he was awarded that SAME pilot badge and produced photos to prove. Amazing, but we have not seen it all yet.

Now who's going to match this cross for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the cross in question. It is clear that there are very clear rounded corners, especially the lower two corners. I always had the theory thet it would make sense to have a 'rounded' frame coming of the die to avoid the nasty fitting process which caused so much trouble with some Juncker.

There are EK1's and EK2's which have that in-build feature.

Now the first question really should be: Is this a reworked type or a genuine frame of type Y? For me it's is pretty much clear that it is NOT a reworked EK2!

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Here is another photo I thought perhaps is the same cross. Different angle, lighting. This one on the Jabs photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

To help you with the Jabs cross here is one side by side with Beerenbrock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Coming back to the cross in question. It is clear that there are very clear rounded corners, especially the lower two corners. I always had the theory thet it would make sense to have a 'rounded' frame coming of the die to avoid the nasty fitting process which caused so much trouble with some Juncker.

There are EK1's and EK2's which have that in-build feature.

Now the first question really should be: Is this a reworked type or a genuine frame of type Y? For me it's is pretty much clear that it is NOT a reworked EK2!

Dietrich

Dietrich, not a reworked EK2 for me either, and considering the timeframe, no reason, considering the source, the Propaganda Ministry, no reason.

This appear to you to be a pyrmidal swaz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with the observation that these are not EK2's..... the frame/beading detail don't look like any EK2's I have handled, or seen in person/photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×