Jump to content
News Ticker
  • I am now accepting the following payment methods: Card Payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal
  • Latest News

    Dietrich

    Active Contributor
    • Posts

      212
    • Joined

    • Last visited

    Everything posted by Dietrich

    1. Thank you, but this is not about who composes better or who can best you in a debate. I want to concentrate on the facts. I'm not aware of any 900/4 cross. Must be a new one! I never mentioned the 935-4. And i'm not admitting anything what you read into my last post. The 800 and micro 800 A-types are perfectly ok, with or without flaws. And you should know that. I'm talking about the B-types. Clearly wrong and not supported by any physical evidence. Only the B-Type was used after the war. But I will end it here. I do not see any purpose of the debate in the climate it has detoriated overall. I apologize to you if I made the impression of besting you in a debate and being a ######. I leave you the place uncontested. Dietrich
    2. I thought you can tell the difference between pre-45 and post war, based on this statement: But I see that is not so: Let me try to explain with an example where the problem lies. If you look at the 18th and 19th century and you are asked to categorize which possible occurance was in which century it will be very easy to decide with the Franco-Prussian war and the Second World War. Nobody would mix those up. With some things in 1890 compared to 1910 it might me more difficult but still possible. Really tough it gets between Dec. 1899 and January 1900. We have the same problem with the S&L. The determination between a flawed B-type and a pristine A-Type is a no-brainer. The difference between a flawed A-Type and an unflawed B-Type is tougher and when entering the mix of all the others that appeared late in the war or after it is even more challanging. If I would say that ALL flawed S&L KC's are wartime I would be very wrong and way out of touch with reality. However, I never said this. There are clearly post-war flawed crosses and they are very, very late! The flaw pattern is not the same as the one of the A-Type and - in addition - there are other flaws which are not present with the war time flawed crosses. It is a question of looking and determination what is what. Again, I humbly submitt you are wrong. There is a way to tell most of them apart but I agree that at this point in time some of the B-Types (800-4, 800, incuse 800) are in a grey area and I would advise any possible buyer to stay clear of those for reasons of caution. I also would not rely on the vendors to provide proof since this is easily done (or attemted) with fake provenance and possible COA's. The 25% rebate seller being a prime example right now. Dietrich
    3. Unfortunately a "maybe" and "perhaps" is not good enough. So the search continues. One day we will know. The picture which emerges from genuine oaks and swords in relation to award dates will help.
    4. So you know where to draw the line between May 45 and post war? Good for you! We know your opinion and I duly submitt that you are wrong. At least with the flawed A-Type. You brought the Rounder up, not me... I do not read this as accusing me of fake rehabilitation. I don't think you meant that! Absolutely wrong! At least in respect of the S&L Knights Cross. I still have to see a proven post war Godet set. Maybe you can provide a picture. Dietrich
    5. The only "documentary evidence" I have is that there is nothing today that documents the existence before 44. At least not in the literature and sources I have. But there is ample circumstantial evidence that there was none before 1944. Based on that I made my comment about the "21" in 1941. At any rate, I thought, based on your comment, you would have such a document showing the existence of the PKZ-# before 1944. Dietrich
    6. You can call it what you want, it's still a piece manufactured by S&L. In the sense of being an original piece of the time period of 39-May45 it surely is not one. It is a post-war example from the most prolific company in the field of the RK. My point is not to dictate how much they should cost or how much one need to pay for it. My point is that people should know what it is and what they are possibly buying. The Rounder is a fake. The flawed S&L was considered post-war, which it is not. The piece shown here is a post-war made example of S&L. By the way, not long ago this one would have been sold as a very rare and very early S&L (and they still are sold as such as a quick glance at a 25% discount site shows..) But if you want to call it a fake, perfectly fine with me. I don't want to argue with you. Dietrich
    7. You seem to have the missing link! So far, the assumption was that the PKZ-# was introduced (or mandated) from 1944 on. Numerous awards with provenance support this clearly. Where do you found the evidence that in 1941 the PKZ-# was already asigned and in use? Please share this info with us. It is really important! So far, we were only sure about the date for the inroduction of the LDO-number. Even in the archives of the PKZ/Ordenskanzlei between 1939 and March 1942 nothing is mentioned. Thanks for sharing! Dietrich
    8. If this piece is one of Klietmann's (him or her) pieces there's nothing to fear, I guess. http://cgi.ebay.de/ORIGINALES-Eichenlaub-m...1QQcmdZViewItem
    9. I certainly think that marks have a lot of relevance to an award date! I would be very suspicious about a set of oak leaves with 'alledged provenance' for an award date of 1941 and with a marking "21"? And yes, those are Erich Hartmann's EL and ElmS and they have impeccable provenance. They serve as a datum point and 'cognoscenti' - hard studied or self-appointed - can use them as such. Whatever the individual outcome might be. Dietrich
    10. Here are the oakleaves and the swords from Erich Hartmann. Awarded March resp. July 1944. Both are marked 900-21 which is correct for the award date.
    11. Actually Chris, the denomination 'fake' for the cross you showed might not be quite correct. It is a post war S&L B-Type so it comes at least from a company that produced the mayority of the crosses. Unfortunately they continued after May 45 and such pieces are now starting to fetch already hefty sums. The "935" post war S&L which was auctioned of yesterday in Germany at Andreas Thies brought over Euro 1,000.-! At least it was sold as such! Dietrich
    12. This was cleary the case. As one can see when comparing the time line between introduction of the L-numbers, the subsequent prohibition of the private sale of the RK and it's higher grades and award dates of L/50 pieces, especially swords. The difference between L-marking and PKZ-numbering occured later in the production cycle.
    13. Gordon, your book will again add so much knowledge to the common collector that it is just not fair to let all of us wait that long! I'm desperately awaiting it's release. Dietrich
    14. Prosper, ok, I misinterpreted your "will not change anything". I'm sorry, old chap. I'm glad that you stand fully behind research and publication of new findings and ideas! Glad that I know you better now in that respect. I do not understand, however, your remark about fabricated evidence, exposure of such and gagging of whistleblowers. Unless you really believe that all the threads about this subject at another side have been altered for whatever reason, including to show (now??) Hansen's position, I find this notion rather far fetched and the start of another urban ledgend. But let's leave it like that. And 'No", I will not give you permission to publish the article in question. I see the intend behind it and I cannot agree for the benefit of the collectors to have something published that is more than 3 years old and does no longer reflect the 'state of the art' as it is today. You know, research goes on and new twists and turns make 3 year old articles obsolete. This would be the same like posting old threads and old opinions of what one said in younger days about people and which no longer applies today. Something I don't like either. But you were already helping by letting the link to WAF stand were the results as I see it are clearly spelled out, including the statement of Dr. Hansen. Thank you for that - and let me say again - this and any other thread about this subject was not or will not be altered, censored, edited or whatever. Dietrich
    15. Yes, I read the letters and I also know the name. Dietrich
    16. Chairman, Thank you for letting the substantial part of the discussion stand as it is. I also apologize for giving the impression, I only show up when it's controversial and borderline. I appreciate, however, to have a discussion about this subject.. Prosper, you say, and I quote: "Approved wartime RK manufacturers: C E Juncker; Godet*; Zimmermann; Klein & Quenzer; Steinhauer & L?ck; Otto Schickle; Deschler & Sohn" and you add: "That's all, folks. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change anything." I beg to disagree with you. Not that I would dispute the current line-up you are giving, but I dispute your last sentence, which IMHO is a block out for further investigation. As you might know, there are several more traces of possible manufacturers. - the unknown cross with dead solid provenance in the DN catalogue - traces of Foerster & Barth crosses - Waechtler und Lange claim to have made RK's The approach to this puzzle can be twofold. One is - and that is the main stream idea - to dismiss this all as dealers pushing fakes or to dimiss it because of investment protection (keep the numbers low, my friends!) and 'fight' those ideas as 'ridiculous' and even call the people bringing up thoses ideas as 'scum'. However, that's the easy way out. The other approach is to try at least to find out whether there is some truth to it. Not by declaring a Foerster & Barth flat out a 'correct' cross, rather by doing research to find out about it. Maybe something comes up, maybe not. During that process one shares the findings with other interested collectors, thereby exposing oneself to critique, ridicule but also to other good leads and ideas. The pictures Brian are showing here are a good example of what needs to be investigated. This can only in the end have two possible outcomes: One can prove that there is a newly discovered RK maker and at least half of the people will not believe it (investment thinking, envy, political reasons, ...) and the other half 'believes'. Based on solid evidence, I might add. Or another set of solid evidence shows that is was a goose chase. Now one really is in for a treatment! Fake pusher, scum, idiot, "we knew it all along", "everybody with normal eyes can see that" - and all this from people, who could not or would not share or contribute anything during the process. The so called bystanders! I remind you of earlier books and publications on the subject (and the RK just serves as an example). Here and there one or the other maker is not mentioned, Klietmann has no clue at all, Nimmergut (just some years ago) really gives a strange picture, Lumsden was wrong, Bowen missed things. All idiots! Or people who tried to give something back to the hobby, something to build on and to expand on? I rather think the latter is the case! The world is flat! The sun revolves around the earth! ... and burn him at the stake! I'm sure you know of a lot of examples were common collectors 'wisdom' had to be revised. What is so bad about research? What is so bad about the outcome? What is so bad if one takes the energy and guts to prove oneself wrong (or right, sometimes)? Most of the energy is spend to dispute or ridicule the outcome. I wish more people would spend that energy doing research and giving something substantial to the hobby! I personally do not shy back to tackle such questions and I will continue to do so. And I know that I'm serving the hobby by doing so. I just wish that some people would really understand what the deeper meaning behind all this is - and it is NOT fake peddling or the desire to be ridiculed. Dietrich
    17. But back to the subject of this thread. You say: "I am absolutely consistent in what I am saying here and over on MCF in relation to your articles promoting what I believe to be postwar crosses." I'm clearly identifying two types of S&L flawed crosses - the flaw pattern is different between the two types, wheras consistent inside each group, i.e. the ones with the dent row (B-Type) have always the same flaw pattern, which is different to the ones with the knee flaw and without dent row. And one is pre-45 and one is post 45. The A-Type is pre-45, the B-Type is post 45. Take the time, read it again (I know it's very boring, but thats just how a an engineer writes...) have a look at an A and B Type and you will honestly and clearly see for yourself. It is there for everybody to see! I might have been wrong with the two dies, I think now (based on discussions with Dave and Brian) also that the repaired die is the correct answer. Now, you believe (as I did believe in the Rounder, I guess...) and we both know now how believe can be turned into a wrong believe! So I could take the liberty to say that you, based on your believe, might declare a perfectly genuine cross post war or a post-war cross w/o flaws (i.e. a 935) as a genuine piece. Isn't that supporting fakes or dealers based on believe??? Isn't that the arch sin I'm accused of? You know, to believe is not to know. And I always said "I believe the Rounder to be genuine" as you have confirmed also. I'm convinced that if you study my article w/o having in mind who wrote it (just think that a good friend came up with it) you will see what is there! @ Dave: I thought at that point in time that you did receive the report. That's all. So you didn't and couldn't post therefore. Clear enough! Dietrich
    18. Hallo Prosper, Thank you for your remarks. I didn't really think that the "pseudo-academic" article was directed towards me. However, I thought I make a comment of my viewpoint regarding this matter. And yes, it is absolutely and undeniable true that "your (mine that is) articles about Knights' Crosses have been tilted towards convincing readers that Steinhauer & L?ck RK with beading flaws are wartime and that "rounders" could well be wartime" That is the purpose of an articel! To express one's viewpoint. In the case of the S&L I'm still convinced (and a lot of others, by the way) that I'm absolutely right. With the Rounder, I was alweays expressing my opinion, but also everytime giving my caveat. So I was wrong! You were never wrong??? Are you now "scum" (as I've been called lately) because you were wrong? At least once? I was proven wrong. By partially my own efforts, I must say. I did give my Rounder to Hansen to conduct (another) SEM test. Would I do that if I was peddling fakes or getting paid to push fakes (as had been alledged at another spot....) I did send my Rounder to Dave Kane for him to have a look! Now that is what I call suicide . Nobody, neither here, nor at other places, has the right to call me what I have been called in the last 2 days! And nobody should support that with a dual strategy either. If everytime somebody discusses a high priced or controversial item is accused by the usual suspects of fake peddling, dealer supporting, money making, or whatever - we, the whole community will suffer. Why? Because there will never be a consense and that is exactly what the real bad people want. Discord! Name calling (because it's so nice, the latest now is that I'm scum!), insults and building of huge walls! I've been also accused of not having the guts to post in my "defence" - as if there would be something to defend!. This is not a court martial, nor a public trial. It is only what some people make out of it! You certainly do not run to every spot where somebody might say something stupid about you and the masses declare a peoples court for you to come and justify yourself. And neither should you! I'm already guilty at least 90% because I'm a Moderator at WAF. That is enough to curse me and my family for the next 5 generations! I must be guilty! I guess you know that feeling, don't you? This is all nonsense! The Rounder is proven to be post-war, that's it. If it serves the peace in the hobby, let Hanson have the glory (not Allan). But remember, Prosper, it was at WAF that I posted his results after he was suspended! There was no need for me to do so! And I surely did not do it to please him but to let everybody know. I asked Dave Kane to post the whole report, which he didn't do for whatever reason. And no matter how often somebody says that the thread was altered to show what it is today - that is flat out a stinking lie! Nor more nor less. And serves only to what I said above: discord, fences, walls, fun for the fakers, meat for the masses! Dietrich
    19. Dear Prosper, the truth was already out before his posting, as everybody can see at WAF in the link that is posted in your forum. Even there, Dr. Hansen could voice his opinion while being suspended. Something very, very rare these days. And no, the thread was not edited or changed, as Dr. Hansen can for sure testify. The substance about the Rounder is correct, the conspiracy he surrounds it with, are not. And neither is the interpretation of the e-mail he so often refers to. It was an e-mail between Brian and Dave, so maybe they can say something - if they wish to. I'd like to make a comment on your "pseudo-academical articles", since I feel that I might have written one of them you call so. For me an article is good or at least worth while considering, if the content can be verified by everybody who took the patience to read and has the background knowledge to follow it's contents. Now every article that brings up a new thesis or invention or findings is only so long 'good' as long as nobody can clearly disprove it. This is valid for your articles, my articles and the one the Doctor just produced (who has no history reaching back decades, something that doesn't matter at all, IMHO). I know you are getting paid for your articles, I surely was not (nor in any other way reimbursed by favors or such ...) and I'm sure neither was Hansen when he posted at your site! I can, of course, only speak for my articles and I venture to say that the S&L article can be veryfied by everybody who owns or has access to an A-Type and a B-Type. It's clear as it can be and goes together with the time line, the Klessheim hort and the recollections of the former Prokurist of S&L. My theory goes along with every visual and factual evidence available. It checks out with the provenance of flawed crosses. As long as somebody cannot disprove it by other and better founded evidence (not just opinions and speculations of "what could have happened") it stands as what is known today. That is the strict and worldwide accepted standard of academical writings, whether one likes it or not. Wheras I do not claim that the S&L article is an academical work, rather a "reasonable conclusion". So, there are flawed A-Type crosses that are clearly pre-57 and even clearly pre-45. And I wish I had one! Some articles, however, do not give the reader a chance to verify the proposed theories. Those I would call also "pseudo-academical". Such articles, and they do certainly exist, are very, very dangerous and serve sinister goals such as disinformation or even fake peddling. The trick here is, I think, that one has to free oneself from preconceived ideas, hardened opinions, political aspects (Oh, HE did it, so it must be WRONG), where it is published (MCF, WAF, GMIC, magazines, Germany, France, USA, ....) and so on. That is tough, I admitt! e only must jdge by the content and it's merits regarding verification. That is the ONLY way we will make steps forward. If we don't do that, we wll circle around and around and that only help our common enemy - the fakers. I'm the first to admitt that I was wrong about the Rounder. I was the strongest, if not THE strongest, proponent of this piece. Based on what I saw, discovered, heard and discussed with many people. Now "everybody and his child" can see that this is a fake - it's sooo easy! Monday morning quaterbacking, isn't it? But there is still a lot to be discovered. The "when" for instance, and the "who" and the "where". So I was wrong, proven wrong by Allan's and Hansen's nearly parallel studies. So that makes me (and all the others, now a fake peddler and dealer slave and a dishonest person because I believed in the piece? Then, so my conclusion, we are all fake peddlers, because we were all wrong at some time. Everybody here and elsewhere! Anyway, I will continue to persue my studies, right or wrong, and I will share everything with everybody as I did up to this very second! There is a lot more to discover, as we all know. So brace for more hopefully not "pseudo-academical" articles! And I brace myself for more dirt and venom to be spilled over me. Comes with the territory! Dietrich
    20. Hinrik, this is not a genuine L/54 and for sure it's not worth the amount you mentioned. I'm sorry, but that is a fact. Dietrich
    21. Hi Hinrik, the cross you show is not a L/54, i.e. it does not exhibit the typical beading/date characteristics of a genuine Schauerte und Hoehfeld. This should also answer your questions regarding the inscription... Dietrich
    22. Martin, Nimmergut COA's are not always what one hopes they are...so that alone really should not make one buy or not buy a piece. Better pictures really would be helpfull! Dietrich
    23. Hi Martin, it's either a very early one or a very late (i.e. post war!) one. It is nearly impossible to tell from the pictures but I stick my neck out and say "early". Reason: brass, nice ring ring finish, patina. Better pictures of the lower portion of the 3 o'clock arm would be very helpfull. "800" stamped? Dietrich
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.