ekhunter

From what I understand there are not any EK1 or 2's stamped 800 in the 39 series other than Knight's crosses.

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.

Thanks Russel, i am on the WA Forun e-stand about every hour during the day ( i work online for my job) & when they have come up for sale there they seem to sell within minutes!

I have just looked at Bill's (great guy) but i have never contemplated paying that for a cased EKI in that condition, it would have to be realy minty, no offence to Bill, that is the going price it sems on dealer websites.

Thanks, Ant.

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.

Interesting Micha, have bought a few nice EK I's over the last few months but not seen a Souval for sale, could you point me towards one for sale? Thanks, Ant.

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,I have to step back......the unboxed stamp seems to be the normal one-I've done a research in all the internet forums and all

L/11 screwbacks have got this kind of stamping.Has someone got one with the boxed stamping?

Micha

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!

He did have one for sale and I think it went for a good price also. Thanks for the comments. I'm feeling better about picking up this piece all the time. Now to find a pillowback version.

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.

I really appreciate the comments from those in the know. With so many fakes going around and the prices this stuff costs, it makes you feel alot better when the items are real. I trusted the seller on this , got a fair price and I now have a piece that I'm really happy with. The way I look at some of these items is this: If you wanted a cross like the one I have posted here, where would you go to get one? It's not like a TV or another product. I know they are out there but not that easy to find are they? Each one is unique. Thanks guys!

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.

Can we get back on topic? This thread is about Knights' Crosses although the flawed S&L KC has really been done to death. What about mint Klein & Quenzer KCs?

PK

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.

Regarding #96: I have never been in disagreement with the opinions summarised by your post, ekhunter. As I said, Maerz's work has merit. He wonders why I refer to the "Rounder" issue. I think it is relevant in terms of establishing the stringency with which he treats some of the evidence upon which he relies when advancing his opinions. Had Dr Hansen been successfully silenced, I doubt if Maerz's "Rounder" article would have been withdrawn by its author. Once I gave Dr Hansen a platform on MCF to publish his findings, the cat was out of the bag and there was nothing Maerz or his fellow moderators over there could do about it.

PK

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.

What "consensus"? Are you trying to imply that everyone agrees with Maerz's assertions? The conclusion is that some people distrust flawed S&L KCs and others don't. That's it in a nutshell. Neither camp can prove its theories. The salient aspect, for me, is the aggressive and personally abusive manner in which the camp in favour of the questionable flawed crosses seeks to silence or discredit those who disagree with them.

Dr Hansen continues to be vilified, having been banned from the website on which Mr Maerz moderates the Iron Cross forum for trying to publish his opposing, scientifically-based findings about "Rounder" KCs while those involved in promoting these fakes or fantasy pieces remain in good standing there. These people include the individual who made up a cock-and-bull story - and later admitted in public that he had lied - to provide 'provenance' for a "Rounder" used as a cornerstone of Maerz's thesis in that article. He was then the target of smear tactics after he or his son resold the "Rounder" he purchased for testing purposes. The fact that he sold it for a fraction of the price of a real KC was naturally ignored by the lynch mob.

Why would I or any other fairly serious-minded person waste time arguing this matter on a point-by-point basis with people who are not interested in getting at the truth? It would be like arguing with Flat Earthers or fundamentalists of any kind. Futile! We have our take on it and you have yours. Why can't you just let it go at that? Buy as many dodgy S&L KCs as you like. Trade them amongst yourselves for thousands of dollars, euros or pounds. If you're all so convinced that Maerz is right, why keep hammering away at heretics like me? Just tell yourselves that I am mad and ignore me.

PK

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.

Why write an article, when points and arguments can be aired and discussed here in a more dynamic way?

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!

Many Collectors are reading this thread and ... I think

Dietrich has a great point. Instead of all the facts being clouded by jumping

around between the various Flaws and who held what or knows what ...and

since it's obvious his findings are being questioned here , I for one would like to see

an article written to refute his work on a point by point basis. This is the

only way to settle it.

Point by Point ..no other comments , no back tracking , no excuses ..this subject should be brought to a head now.

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.

[attachmentid=58806][attachmentid=58807]heres the back off the #20

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

[attachmentid=59156]what do we think off this one

3 piece magnetic marked 800

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.

[attachmentid=59154]just picked this one up

3piece construction magnetic silver content 900

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

That was my point exactly. It's as if after 45 it was all over. I don't have a problem with that. I too have at 2 1914 EK1's that are most likely from the 30's and I love them. I believe the firm of S & L from Austria made EK's after 45,with the same dies, same construction, swazticas etc. Correct me if I'm wrong. There's speculation other firms did too. S& L were a genuine firm during the war (maker mark #4). These crosses are not well regarded or considered genuine by most from what I understand. I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere and that is after 1945. I guess it makes sense as the world changed drastically after that. If I could get my hands on a 1870 EK made anytime before 45 I would. After 45 just doesn't seem right.

We're on the same page there.