Dietrich

And this is the same area of a heavily flawed A-Type. No dent row.

and this from a 935

.. and this is from a 57 cross

Just to clarify, this is the dent row I'm talking about> Why do all the above menioned models have this row? This is from a 935-4

Yes, Peter, it is. I have such an example in the article and that one was the key in clearly finding out that the beading flaws of the A-Type and the B-Type (late) are not of the same pattern. This must be a very late one and might very well be "Made in England" from the die where Prosper witnessed the sale. Dietrich

Prosper, the repaired die which I call the B-Type, has no beading flaws but the dent row and the knee flaw in the 6-9 o'clock area. I think that the reason for repair was to get rid of the big beading flaws. This happened, but other flaws were introduced, mainly the dent row. The models of the B-Type, which are the 935-4, 935 (magnetic and unmagnetic), incuse 800, 800, 800-4 and the very late (and again beading flawed ) unmagnetic ones and the first 57's ALL have the dent row and the 6-9 o'clock beading flaw BUT not the 9-12 o'clock knee flaw of the A-Type I personally think that it is no coincidence that all those models have common features (which, by the way can also be found on the 57 models!). I would be very ard pressed to believe that all those frames have been stamepd before 45 and not assembled later. However, going with that theory for a moment, what could be a possible explanation? The 57 pattern is the B-Type and shows all the features of the B-Type. The frame is comparable to the 935-4 and the others just with a less pronounced dent row as everybody can see for himself. Gordon, I know that what I think is a theory and yes, we might never know. A theory is formulated and then tested against physical findings. So far, nothing has contradicted the theory - which is not to say it might never happen. Also, the theory cannot determine the point in time when a frame was struck and also not the assembly date. It can only show the differences and the time of appearance. IF the 57 unflawed frame was struck before the flawed crosses of the A-type (which I consider war time and I think you, too) why does it not have the same minute flaws and the dent row? For me it's just not conceivable. 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

David, the 57 cross shown in post 22 is the second 57 model from S&L - the one with the dipping ring or ring into the frame. One cannot really compare the two crosses because the die is clearly different. The early 57's are made with the same die as the early post war models, such as the 935 (NOT 935-4). This can be clearly seen by looking at the dent row (lower ingoing 3 o'clock arm - a row of 11 little dents). All B-types have that row and this row can still be seen at the very, very late unmarked, unmagnetic heavily (beading) flawed crosses. But again, the beading flaw pattern of the B-Type crosses is different to the beading flaws of the A-Types (which are clearly pre-May 45). This can easily be verified by putting both pattern next to each other. If one pattern would evolve out of the other (later) one would have an amount of single flaws between the beading with one and more with the other (later one), since flaws do not disappear. Between the A-and B-Type, howeever, there are inclusive and exclusive flaw units which clearly indicates a different pattern. If, and only if, one would believe that all flawed crosses are post war, one has to face several problems. Not only flat out dismissing crosses with provenance, but also the following: - why are the 935's (NOT 935-4) unflawed but considered by nearly everybody 'post-war'? - why do we have unmarked, unflawed, unmagnetic S&L which are considered post war? We would also need to include certain models as pre-may 45 which are actually considered by some as postwar: the incuse 800, the 800-4. It is however remarkable that all those models have the dent row and NONE of the pre-May 45 with or without flaws have that dent row. All pre-45 S&L are either marked 800 or micro 800. All have the 9-12 o'clock beading flaw. ALL of them, no exceptionFlawed or unflawed. All B-Types, including the ones Prosper might rightfully call as "British made" have the dent row - none has the 9-12 o'clock knee flaw. I cannot believe this is strictly coincidence. Not when having looked at a lot of A and B-Types. And every single cross confirmed that. Every cross! I know it's complicated but I can't help it. There are a ton of S&L models on the market and most of them are post war! here I agree 100% with Prosper! And caution is absolutely necessary! Dietrich

I really don't want to have the last word since I was warned not to do so but I'm polite enought to answer a question: Isn't a Jester somebody to amuse the king? But also to show a mirror of truth. And if the king doesn't like it the Jester gets his head chopped off... or the king gets kicked by the Jester.....at least so it was in the funny movie "The Jester". Peace! Dietrich

Prosper, reading to your eloquent answer, sprinkled as usual, I still don't know what is what in your opinion regarding Klein? But for the record and in accordance to your first statement: Yes, the post war models are different to the wartimes. Since we both will not be in a position to buy a genuine set, it might be academical for us to. However, if you ever wnat to buy one, I'm happy to be of assistance. I like the jester thing! I go along with that. Dietrich

Prosper, I too will not continue this debate. If you think that you have seriously and firmly disputed the findings in the article we should leave it like that. I know it is not so and I don't have the patience to go thru everything again. Just as a final note: there are NUMEROUS flawed A-Types with provenance - but not even one B-Type (935-4 included). Thanks for wishing me luck for my jounalism! I might need it but I do not shy back in doing it. There will be valuable critique, there will be (hopefully only minor) mistakes, but there will be a lot of envy and bitter remarks filled with "I know it better". It happened to everybody so far (sometimes very, very unjustified and borderline ridiculous) and it will happen to me. All I can do is staying faithfull and honest! But you know, here are two important points for me: I don't do it as a source of income and I don't have to do it. I like doing it. Everybody can do it, if he want's to. And if nobody buys the book (which will not happen) it is no skin of my back. I still like doing it. And it will help a lot of people and even advanced people 'in the know' might see some new things. All the Best! Dietrich

Prosper, you remind me of today 12 AM. We also had some fire crackers with a short fuse. I'm terribly sorry that I 'scored a point' with you. For me it's not about 'besting' you. I give that point back, I don't need it. Even if I would have known for sure that it was a typo and not a mix up between me an Kimmel (don't know what it means but it doesn't sound good...), I would have corrected. Not to 'score' but for the benefit of other readers who might not know better and take it as correct. That's all! Since you turned up the notch of discussion a little bit let me say to you in all clarity that I don't like what you say between lines. I do not cast doubt on any fakes or whatever else you might say about me. What I do is to voice my opinion about a subject. If that opinion does not go confirm with what you know, believe or think, tell me and prove it. But don't call me a spin doctor. Stay factual and on the topic. If you don't know the facts, it's just rumors. I only said that the post war Klein's are different, which you confirmed by saying "Yes, Dietrich, we know that Klein's postwar Diamonds were different in various ways to their wartime sets. I said as much and so have other students of the topic." That's fine and correct. But then you say: "The point is that Klein apparently produced perfect replicas of the wartime type." Now what is it? Can't be both and it is NOT both! I only say that there are no perfect copies (which you confirmed). So why do you call me a spin doctor? This is uncalled for: "Anyone with a suspicious mind might wonder if you had been engaged as a spin doctor by various high end dealers! Maybe you ought to touch them up for some fees for your sterling efforts to get people to believe in questionable items. After all, it can only make their lives as dealers easier, knowing that they can continue to sell all this junk to gullible and trusting collectors" What is the deeper meaning of such a sentence? I just don't get it!!! And I don't think you are a clown, but do care about what you write. This is the essence of every forum. However, I will make it my MO in the future to ask poliyely if something you posted was a typo or just flat out wrong information. If you feel that I feel you are a clown, it's just your feeling. Dietrich

Regarding the mix up of beading flaws with the other flaws absolutely! Don't mix up a healthy dissussion with mix up's of terminology.

Please refer to my earlier post with the link to Gordon's explanations of the 'dipping ring' - post number 4,5 and 6.

I humbly submit that you are NOT the first person which is 'literate' and has an 'analytical' mind who read the article. Judging by some of your remarks, I'm tempted to say you didn't read the article at all. You accused me years ago of unclear writing and so far you are the only one who did so. When I answered at that point in time that I might be better in German since this is my mother language you accused me of implying to you that I might be a better writer than you. I'm clearly not and I don't want to be. So for once and for all: I don't want to challenge your position or whatevere as a writer or publisher or editor or whatever. I openly state that I'm not into crafting texts that will stand your test of excellency. For me it's about content. The article is about a tricky subject and I write in a technical style. You don't like it, leave it. The content and the finding are the important pieces, not what you call 'unclear writing'. I also want to say that you are the first with problems of clarity regarding the subject. I did not write the article for a 'publisher' who is "linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate". I wrote the article for the community. I cannot follow your reasoning either. Do you think that if the publisher is "linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate" the text has to be the same???? But as I said above, I passed the test of several editors, not just the one you are refering to. Who, by the way, is no publisher nor editor nor did he change one word. But enough for me here for this topic. I just wnat to state again that I'm not challenging your writing skills. The topic is about the substance and this is clearly there. Dietrich

Prosper, I did not bring up the Rounder and I would like to re-phrase: for ME the topic is closed. And please do not hold me responsible for other peoples deeds. The individual you mentioned insults me on a regular base but I'm not reacting to it. As you know. Why should I? I'm also sorry if I made the impression I'm answering in a frivolos matter, trying to "best you', 'score points' or somehow do your person any bad. I also did not try to correct you and I didn't mean the oaks or swords or such as the highest award. I meant the Grand Cross, which is higher than the Golden Oakleaves with Diamonds, but okay. Back to the topic. The 57 cross you showed is the second pattern of the 57 edition from S&L and has a dipping ring. Of course, it's not the 'dipping ring' fake. Please see here : http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1525&st=0 Maybe my sentence was not constructed in a perfect sense, but I did not want to say that 935-4's are awarded. I thought the commata was enought to make the difference. I also did NOT ignore the beading flaws and I say it again: the pattern of the beading flaws between the A type and B type is DIFFERENT!!! Regarding the publishing of the article -even if you would, which you wouldn't - you are too late anyway. It has been published by the Militaria Magazine in Germany about a year ago (w/o editing but to good success) and just recently in the Military Advisor (also w/o editing). So far, nobody came forward with a contradiction or such. Quite the contrary. I'm getting lots of e-mails confriming the findings. I also thank you for your advise regarding possible subjects I should turn my attention to. I fear it's to late. The next work will be about the whole RK series including the Grand Cross and Star and it will not be a master piece of the english language, word for word crafted to sustain all attacks on semantics. But it will be equipped with nice pictures and explanations and it will be very valuable. And it will also include a very nice and comprehensible explanation of the A and B-type S&L. Dietrich

Yes Prosper, the beading flaws are irrelevant. The whole discussion was always around those flaws but evidently nobody looked at other tell tale signs. First of all the beading flaws between the A-Type (late 44) and the later B-Type (post 57) are different. It is not the same pattern. The flaws I'm referring to are the knee flaws (between 9-12 o'clock arm at the A-Type and between the 6 and 9 o'clock arm for the B-Type) and - more important - the dent row at the lower ingoing 3 o'clock arm. These flaws are only to be found at the respective type without any exception. That's what I based the article on and EVERY cross fits perfectly. The 57 cross you show is the second pattern with the dipping ring and is a complete different die - as the ring shows. However, the early 57 are made from the B-Type die but no beading flaws yet. The later B-Types have beading flaws and I show both in my article: the 57 cross and the later flawed unmagnetic. The key here, if you want to concentrate on the beading flaws, is to realize that the pattern is different! As I show in my article. Dietrich

This is the second pattern of the 1957 issue (dipping ring).... Again, the beading flaws are NOT the determination factor for A and B Type! [qotoe] Some of us well remember the vicious rows provoked by the initial suggestion that any S&L KCs with flaws clearly post-dated the introduction of the 1957 denazified KCs. Since then, there have been numerous attempts to revisit this debate, usually ending in recrimination and bitterness, enhanced by the emerging picture of a firm busily churning out 1939 pattern KCs after 1945, thereby raising awkward question marks over unflawed 1939 pattern KCs produced by S&L before they obviously broke the frame dies in or after 1957, probably by trying to strike frames from an overly hard white metal.

First of all I deeply regret that I could not enlighten you! But it might still happen! The cross shown - w/o having better pictures shows the typical start pattern of the beading flaw and I consider it a nice, pre-45 S&L A-Type. Since you condem all flawed S&L, I would be happy to buy that cross in case you ever want to sell it as a post war fake. Sorry for the typo... Here you mix up something. I'm talking about the little flaws in the knee area and the dent row NOT the beading flaws. It is clearly spelled out in my article. The difference between A-Type and B-Type id NOT the beading flaws! Again, a mix up in flaws. The late A-Type had beading flaws which were repaired. The resulting B-Type die had no beading flaws in the beginning but the dent rwo and the knee flaw. One should not mix those up. Beading flawed A-Types with late award dates - no award for the 935-4 Actually I don't see and actually it isn't the case. You can verify everything I wrote if you don't mix up beading flaws with the other described and documented flaws. A lot of people have done it before and so far evert piece has confirmed the article. I don't know but I can see the result! Dietrich

Klein of Hanau was of course no Austrian company but a German one. And the post war pieces made by Klein do not resemble the war time produced. Also, there are more real Diamonds around than awarded. A and B-Types. Dietrich

That is what some people do! Fortunately, others have a different approach and instead of using their feet to run around they are trying to use their brain to find out. The first step really would be to conclusevly verify whether Anneliese Klietmann really aquired the dies and really reproduced the oaks and swords. I'm not saying that she didn't but that would be a very logic starting point. That she sold those pieces is a fact - but were they 'Godets"? The notion or rumor about the 'perfect fake' will always persist. The oaks, the swords, the diamons or whatever other high priced items. The sad fact is this: If there is a perfect fake, nobody will realize it. If nobody will realize it - is it a fake then? Purely philosophical speaking. A portion of very sane scepticism is advisable at any rate when buying high priced items - especially when not priced that high.

Nick, thanks for confirming my faint suspicion. You are right, there's nothing more to be said about the Rounder issue. It was a long winding search, conducted by all with best intentions but also with some heart blood and emotions. It's done and we all should let is stay where it is. However, for some it will always be the center of their existence. The S&L is a far more complex issue IMHO. To start a possible discussion I humbly submit what I think happened and I would like to add that everything I will line out is substantiated by extensive research and can be veryfied by everybody on his own: - the frist die of S&L, which was used to produce the '800' and micro 800' has a minute flaw in the knee of the 9-12 o'clock arm - this die developed the famous beading flaw at the 3 o'clock arm in a progressive way. Different crosses always show the same pattern - later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm - mid to late in 1944 the die was reworked (repaired, most likely) and the B-Type die emerged. The date is supported by flawed crosses with provenance. - the B-Type die has no longer the 9-12 o'clock flaw but shows a different flaw in the knee of the 6-9 o'clock arm - furthermore, the B-Type exhibits a very distict flaw row (dent row) at the lower ingoing arm of the 3 o'clock arm All B-Types have those flaws! No A-type has them! Over the time of use of this die, the 'dent row' becomes less pronounced. Even the 57 crosses have those pattern and -of course - all the very late (80's??) also. Due to the multiple and credible evidence of the Klessheim found, the "935-4" is assumed the first B-Type and the only one with 'provenance'. No recipient of any 935-4 has been found (yet?). Also, the dent row of the 935-4 is very pristine under the microscope. Then the avalanche of models start: - 800-4 - 800 - incuse 800 - 935, magnetic - 935, unmagnetic - unmarked, unmagnetic In addition, and to add to the confusion, the B-Type also developed beading flaws at the 3 o'clock arm later on. BUT the pattern is different to the one found on the A-Type. Just the same weakness of the die showing at the same place but with different results. This fact threw most of the discussion off since, having a clear post-war S&L with beading flaws and a pre-45 with beading flaws was considered the same. Only investigation of the pattern and the other flaws (dent row, knee flaw) clearly shows that this is not the same type. Only if one believes in the possibility of flaws coming and going as they please, can one dismiss the flawed A-Type as post war. For me (and a lot of others) this is inconceivable and flat oput wrong! At this point the discussion is about which model of the B-Type is post war. Clearly determined to be so are the "935" (NOT the 935-4!!) and the unmagnetic, unmarked types. The others are in a grey area and - as I said numerous times - should be looked at with great caution. Again, here I was accused of pushing possible 'fakes' by not clearly stating what is post-war. I'm sorry, but I can't. Maybe others can, but then I would know based on what unshakable evidence? However, I would not buy one! The only other thing I can say is that, having had multiple examples of the 924-4 and 800-4 under my microscop, taking ton's of pictures, that the dent row of the 800-4 is very close to the 935-4. Based on that I would think that the 800-4 came shortly after the 935-4. But that 'shortly after' could already be 1946! 800-4 have been bought from Veterans as bring backs from Germany - as have all the other later models. The main thing about S&L is this: - they did produce a lot of crosses during the war - there's no doubt! - all of them are A-Types and IMHO all of the A-Types are absolutely good and pre-45, flawed and unflawed! It has been alledged that S&L produced crosses with the A and B type die after the war. This is not possible since it is one and the same die, just reworked. Multiple minute flaws at the beading sides are present at both types and are an undisputable evidence about the rework of one die. Everything I wrote above can be verified by looking at a particular S&L cross. This is not a thesis based on bin theories, soft silver, debris in the die, mother-daughter die or whatever other conspiracy theories. Every flaw, every detail can be found with 100% consistency at every time at every spot exactly where it should be. No exception at all. Dietrich

Dear Mr. Stogieman, I think the facts are out and the thread is over. Dietrich PS: Sometimes, but only sometimes, I have the crazy feeling that some people are mixing the Rounder debate up with the debate about flawed S&L's. But I'm sure I'm wrong. I need a X-mas brake!

No, didn't read the text. Nothing even very well composed could make this set a good one. But I read it now and youy are right: a Schmarrn!

Absolutely not! Dietrich

I was one of the biggest believers in the Rounder and I tried all I could to find out the truth about this piece. However, I was not alone in this task. Gordon also shows the Rounder in his book as a presumed legitimate piece. And a lot of other people thought so too, including publications in Germany. However, nobody knew for sure. Everything was based on circumstantial evidence, such as possible pictures showing round inner corners and traces back to veterans and such. No hard provenance at all. It was always a question of believes and I made it always clear that it is just that, an unproven believe. A couple of years ago I published an article at a website which compiled all the circumstantial evidence and in this article I personally came to the conclusion that the Rounder is a legitimate piece. A - at that time friendly - collector started some SEM investigation and asked me to send my Rounder to him, which I did. Before that, I had one SEM test done on my own at the University of Michigan. Both investigations, using the same cross, showed paint compounds which were not of the same composition than other RK?s tested. However, there were some similar paint compositions with WW1 crosses. Also, heavy questions were raised regarding the quality of the beading under high magnification. The tests were inconclusive but gave a lot to think about. Parallel to that, another Rounder surfaced. This one had clearly a silver-plated brass frame but was marked ?800? which is actually against the German marking law and therefore a fraud. There were numerous other debates about quality, artificial wear, mysterious markings in the size of under 0.1 mm as a secret production date and a lot of heated debate. With the introduction of FTIR by a collector from New York a new avenue opened up. The paint of a total of 4 crosses were tested, 3 in England and 1 in the USA. All 4 showed basically the same result. The paint is epoxy resin based. The English company could not verify the exact epoxy resin. Epoxy resin itself was invented before the war in Germany but use in paint could not be verified. But the USA laboratory claimed to have nailed it down to one specific brand by Dow Chemical: DER 664 UE with a patent date of 1959. No further testing has been conducted since. At any rate, it is now absolutely sure (for me) and safe to assume (for me) that the paint is post May 1945 and ? having test results of 4 examples ? any ?freak repaint? or such can be excluded. I consider the Rounder now as a post war production. The fall out is actually what is so ?heated? about this debate. It is always very unpleasant to find out that one got a bad piece. I know of quite a few owners of the Rounder who could give the Rounder back to the source against a full refund, including me. Others want to keep it as a filler or reminder. So for me the case is closed, the mystery is solved