ekhunter

Actually, some crosses made in the 20's have a silver content mark, i.e. (800). These are very rare, but they do exist.

Looks like a good Carl Wild!

Maybe it is just the angle of the photo, or the lighting, or my eyes, but it appears that the pin is really swollen in a weird kind of way in the middle. A straight on picture of the reverse would be very helpful. Thanks.

For me to pay that, it would definately have to be pretty minty! I've seen your name on the other site quite a bit lately.

Bill Shea has a cased 1st class Souval for sale. Not cheap though!!!!!!!!! They pop up for sale quite often on the forums and military dealer's sites. I remember about a year ago one dealer had 3 Souval 1st classes for sale. Just keep looking. You can PM me if you like, and I will tell you where you can further look to find one. Good luck, Russel.

An excellent example of a rare cross. Very nice!

Their has been an at length discussion on another forum about a cross exactly like this one. I'm afraid it's not real.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Looks like a Souval to me.

Well, this is the first Deumer screwback I've seen, and was surprised not to see the mark in the box. So let me get this straight. Most, if not all screwbacks lacked the box, or at least what you've seen. If this be the case, then a boxed marked screwback would be one super rare bird. Most of the pinbacks, and all three of mine have boxed L/11 markings, and I find the unmarked L/11's pinbacks are a lot scarcer. So it leads me to ask, why would Deumer do their crosses that way. Was it a period run or something? Very Interesting!!

Without the boxed L/11 too! Nice one!

The 'pillowbacks' will be a little harder to find, however, Detlev just sold one friday for $524.00(US). I personally collect AWS 'pillowback' variants myself, and I can tell you that it is an addictive endeavor that I do not wish on anyone, however, it looks like it may be too late for you, as you may already be addicted. Good luck in your endeavors.

AWS' are not common, but occasionally they come up for sale. I think Micha had one(AWS) for sale on this site a few months back. This is a real jewel you've got. Congrats.

I think I am the one that originally brought the K&Q's into this discussion. Minty, Hmmm! I'll only say that personally I find them ugly, no matter what year they were made. At least they (K&Q) were fairly consistent with their markings, i.e. no incuse 65's. That is a whole new thread there. Also, Prosper, please don't show that ugly 'Rounder' again. It's like seeing a picture of Rosie O'Donnell, when you expect to see Heidi Klum.. Back to S&L's. I think someone brought this up on WAF and I don't remember if anyone answered this question. Has anyone ever tried to track down former employees of S&L to see if they could shed any light on the debate. They might remember more than we think and could shed some light.. Anyway, back to flawed B-types. I think the market shows what the majority of collectors feel about these crosses. Some of those that have them, love them, so more power to them, but I just don't see a great demand for them today, and I think that about says it all.

The whole 'Rounder' affair has no doubt been a cancer to the collecting community. After reading about it and seeing it for the first time in Gordon's book, I found it to be a rather ugly RK that I ranked right underneath the K&Q. Thank God that by the time I came around to maybe purchasing one of these turds, it had already been exposed for what it was. Fortunately, it was exposed right after a Floch had burned a hole in my hand. That would have probably sent me packing to collect rocks, sticks, or something else. Back to the S&L's. I personally, only have faith in the unflawed A-types. If these were somehow ever proven to be post war, I would tuck tail and stay away from Third Reich for good, and return to Imperial Crosses forever. I use to be an owner of a 935 unmagnetic B-type piece. So I know a little of how they have fleeced a few collector's over the years. The unflawed A-type is the only S&L that I will ever own. But hey, that's just me, but anyway, I love a good healthy debate about these damn things. As I told StefanK the other day, I'm always learning something new every day.

First, let me say that I too feel that Tom Hansen has been vilified and raked over the coals unjustly for way too long while others have gotten away with some pretty nasty stuff. I personally don't like flawed S&L's RK's, and feel that all of the B-types(possibly excluding the 935-4) fall into a post war grey area. Assuming the story of Schloss Klessheim is true, then the 935-4 would be the first B-type, and the probable last wartime RK made. Assuming the story is false, then the first of the B-type (935-4) would be the first of the post wars. Correct? How many flawless 57 RK crosses are out there? One, two? Who knows? Who's to say that these weren't assembled with flawless pre-45 frames that were still at S&L, no one knows for sure. Just speculating possibilities here, so no need to eviscerate. I'm not implying that everyone agrees with the timeline that Dietrich asserts, and I never said I was one of those in the consensus, but I do believe that his theory does make some sense in a rather muddy field when laid out, and is a pretty good foundation for trying to lay out some type of time table on these S&L, RK's. It is however, an opinion.

Maybe 'Article' was the wrong choice of words. I think he may have meant a 'Thread' to lay it all out point by point. Article sounds soo formal!

I believe Mike is right. I think Dietrich's point, or points, are in the consensus, and many would like to see this come to some type of conclusion one way or another.

Very well said! I don't see how anyone would have any problem with this opinion or conclusion.

Unmarked too. That's nice, you don't see many of these unmarked.

I don't think anyone wants to hear that they paid too much for anything, so I won't be the one to do it. However, if you are happy with the cross, then that is all that truly matters. Have I ever paid over market for a cross because I really had to have it, of course I have, and I'm sure a few others have too. I don't recall this particular cross off of the top of my head, but I have the book at home. I'll take a look when I get home. In the meantime, could you post some photos of the cross.

frank1, just noticed this thread, after responding to your other two. It pains me to see you, or anyone else get burned by fake crosses. We've all been there. Before you think about buying another one, post it, or pm me, or anyone else here, and I'm sure they would be more than glad to help you. Micha is right. If you go to MCF and look at the database to compare known originals, then this should help tremendously before your next purchase. Good Luck! Russel

Sorry, this too is one of the so-called Latvian fakes. Probably made somewhere in eastern europe in the past few years. Their are quite a few of them out there now, and they come in many forms from ekII's to RK's.

Sorry, this is one of the so-called Latvian fakes.

We're on the same page there.