Stogieman

This is an example of a badge from an unknown maker that is accepted as an authentic, period badge. examples utilizing the very unique pin/hinge attachment have been seen as pilot and observer, Prussia. Here's an example of the exact same maker, Prussian Observer. Again, note the pin/hinge attachment. Often these badges are found with tiny silver plates attached in/above the crown well with an "800" content mark. Or the pin marked "800". Or a combination thereof.

No-one has answered my question.... why has the exact same technique not been used to date the flawed crosses? If this has been done, why are the details not put forward? It seems to me that despite much rhetoric and supposition, the bottom line here is that there is no definitive answer on these flawed crosses other than the fact that they create an awful lot of questions and much doubt. There's an uninitiated, non-collector perspective for you. There is a similar debate regarding people heavily invested in Imperial Aviation Badges.... much conjecture, but nothing definite! No precise facts. No provenance for the questionable pieces. And much frustration for all....

Hi Mike, pretty sure the title of the thread is "The Great RK Debate", so there should not be any issue discussing anything to do with the RK's. My interjection was directed at one comment by Prosper. I don't think there's been anything other than lots of questions. The reason the Rounder becomes important in the context of this debate is the fact that clear, expensive, testing showed beyond a reasonable doubt that a cross ("The Rounder") was fake.... Frankly, I'm surprised that no mention has been made of similar testing of "flawed" crosses. It seems to me, if the issue was as critical as many feel, that the process could be employed again. Or, has it, but the data not published? Inconclusive?

OK, at this point I would like to interject a little bit of history. Dr. Hansen took a cross (known as a "rounder") and proved through sound science that the materials used to manufacture and paint it were clearly postwar. I have no issue thus far, and commend him for investing his time, his money and his brain. Clearly here was a piece that was being flogged off on collectors world-wide as authentic when it was not. Dr. Hansen then placed the cross on eBay and cited a book by Gordon Williamson as the "proof" of the "authenticity" of the cross. It was NOT CLEARLY stated in the listing that the cross was most assuredly a "Post-WW2" cross. The implied appearance of the eBay listing was "Here's a cross that is identical to the example in noted author's book on the Iron Cross". OK, he doesn't exactly state it to be real; but he doesn't exactly state it to be fake, does he? It was (and remains) my firm opinion that there was a an attempt to offer a piece to unsuspecting and/or uninformed eBay buyers. This is a constant modus operandi of dubious sellers (NOT necessarily the constant action of Dr. Hansen). I am sorry, but placing a known copy for sale without clearly identifying the piece for what it is and then alluding to a reference (that Dr. Hansen had already clearly, publicly stated his disagreement to) is not the sort of thing I could condone. If I sell a "crown" Imperial Pilot Badge that I am clearly opposed to as authentic, but cite a (previously published and wrong) reference from an accepted "expert" BUT I sell it at about a third of the value of the authentic badge...... this is morally acceptable?? Not for me. When many of us called Dr. Hansen's behavior out on the carpet, his original rebuttal consisted of "It's not mine, I gave it to my son". Many of us felt this was a morally incorrect action as well. The "discourse" took a rather ugly turn at that point and there's no need to re-hash all of that here. It's done, it's over. But the facts of what happen remain etched in stone. I wish to be clear. I think Dr. Hansen's research is commendable and his findings appear to be soundly based in science and I have no issue whatsoever with this aspect. However, I (continue) to feel quite strongly that Dr. Hansen's activity after the fact were morally unacceptable to me. This is my opinion. Not the opinion of this website, the moderator's, the administrator or anyone else. However, I also feel that to not interject the history clouds the issue(s) being stated here by Prosper. Yes, perhaps Dr. Hansen has been "punished" for his actions too long.... but it was his direct actions that tainted his character. Again, the science he used was sound. The results I cannot dispute. However, it was tainted, IMO, by the sale of the item after the fact. Now, since I left another site over this issue and have not returned, I cannot comment about the efforts to "silence" the research and/or debate. Also, I have no dog in this race. I do not, nor ever will, collect KC's. My sole issue, having followed the entire debate since its' inception, was "hey, that wasn't a nice thing to do". Remember, not saying it's wrong; is the same as saying it's right.

I've been through all my archive photos and cannot find anything other than an original photo of the one sold by Detlev. I thought that this was refuted as an original over at WAF, possibly by John Donovan (??) There's one additional example for sale in Canada with a Certificate from Detlev Niemann, available at eMedals: As we can see, there's some distinct differences. I do not know if this is because there's multiple makers, or if perhaps one is real, the other not. Given the rarity, it is difficult to discuss these badges as most people have only seen one or two, if very lucky. I look forward to anything that can be done to enhance everybody's knowledge and understatnding of these items!!

Thanks for clarification of the time line/construction materials, which is right.

And I still think some way better photos are needed than what has been shown in this thread....

Interesting one

More:

Some additional examples from my archives:

Hi Daniel, I don't think your's, or Detlev's is legit. I believe that the damaged one was ultimately shown/accepted as post-ww2. On the very few that have been shown on the forums over the years, the colors were very different from the one(s) shown, as was the stitching in the head (??) Looking through archive material now....

You can find an identical bag for almost every single Model 1957 3. reich award. All identical markings. There is some debate concerning authenticity, but nothing I have ever seen substantiated in any way. Marcus Hatton has an extensive collection of these and may be able to add additional items. Try sending him a PM

Two things strike me.... the oakleaves are absolutely an add-on to the original star. The presence of the four large rivets is interesting and unlike any other star I've seen. I'd like to see many different additional photos before reaching any conclusion.

Now that's a rather special piece. I can count on one hand the number of silver medals to the Merit Order I have seen. Gold? Forget about it.....

Jacob Lesser.. nice piece. Now, if you wanted, one of our members has a very reasonably priced case for it on the sales table!

Typical 1957 packet, usually attributed to Assmann & S?hne

Or.... maybe fear made him lower himself a bit to show proper respect... ;>)

The other really troubling factor is the lack of the wreath mounted on the bar itself... While not 100% positive indication, it's a good clue as to whether the bar really came that way.

Hi Don, as I said.. there's really no way this can be determined by a photo. You need weight and to check the ring (?se) for marks. If there are no marks on the medal suspension, then you must check the weight. They come in these variations: Unmarked, real gold: 22K 18K Marked 333, real gold: 8K Gold ones will weigh about 15 grams. Silver Gilt ones will weigh substantially less, about 13 Grams Here's a better idea of the color a real gold one should be...

MVO 4 is silver MVO 3 is gilded silver, separate flames Swords may be added to each (Bavarian Military Merit Order) MVK3 is copper MVK2 is silver MVK1 is gold Swords may be added to each (Bavarian Military Merit Cross of the Military Merit Order)

When I get one of these, I have tried very hard to keep the serial number under 100.... but reviewing one of Ed's other recent postings about "actual awarded" I balked at Alexei's number 85, second award. Two reasons. It wasn't boxed (my other picayune detail) and about 2X higher than what we know has been awarded so far... I know, odd.... but an un-serial numbered piece always had the potential to be something awarded, in my eyes..... but when I know up front it came out of a bank vault.... my interest wanes.

Hi Joe, did you check variations? there should be several 1.kl. types listed (???)

A rather scarce pair Doc..

OK, who has their Nimmergut handy? This makes exactly two (2) first class crosses I've seen...

Hi Mike... botom line... BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!