PKeating

Sidenote: I seriously wish you the best of luck with the book, our disagreements over a few points aside. Contrary to what has been suggested, this really isn't an attempt to "get" you or anything like that. There are two distinct schools of thought regarding these flawed crosses yet, paradoxically, they are united in their lack of ability to prove their respective viewpoints. Your work in studying and identifying the flaws, dents and likely timelines thereof is really very, very good and highly valuable in the context of the study of the award in general. The debating point is merely the question of when the damage occurred and when the repairs were made. That's all. It has taken eight pages of argument to get to this point, and years of sometimes quite acrimonious argument on other forum websites. In my opinion, you ought to make it clear in your book that there are differing schools of thought and that, as things currently stand, the question remains unresolved. People can make up their own minds about whether or not they wish to 'invest' thousands in a flawed S&L KC. Some people will, and they will have no difficulty in finding others who share their optimism if the day comes when they have to get their money back out of their flawed S&L KC. Others will prefer not to include these crosses in their collections. I really do not understand why this latter attitude has provoked so much fury and hysteria during the past five or six years. Well, let me rephrase that: I do understand very well but I find it irrational as do others who share this point of view. It is almost fascist or Puritan, in fact, and tantamount to saying to people that they must agree with approved opinions or face exile from "the community". Quite a few of us were indeed 'cast out' by "the community", which is why websites like MCF and GMIC came into being. GMIC is a more civilised environment than MCF but they have both served the wider "community" since they came into being rather than the relatively limited interests served by the one-time "Big Two" forum websites. It has a lot to do with money, of course. The "Big Two" are very commercial in nature and any dissenting opinion that threatens the earning abilities of the dealers and others who support those websites or profit by them is very likely to be suppressed by whatever means necessary. As I previously remarked, this thread would not have lasted beyond the first page on the website where you are a moderator, my dear Dietrich. If at times I seemed to be unduly harsh with you, it could have something to do with the company you keep. But I have nothing personal against you at all. Pax vobiscum... PK

Regarding Steinhauer & L?ck, there have been a few recent attempts to instigate discussions with the firm and with individuals who work or worked for S&L but these came to nothing. This is understandable, given current, rather paranoid official attitudes to all things "Nazi" in Germany. S&L simply won't discuss it. They don't need tabloid attention. Even back in 1981, they entrusted the disposal of their KC dies to an outside "consultant". It has always been a 'delicate' subject but if anything, it is even more sensitive today. PK

I don't think anyone has tested flawed crosses. I expect someone will, one of these days. The question is, who will be brave enough to lend their examples for laboratory testing? Subjecting an obvious fake like the Rounder - Dang! Here comes that fog again! - to tests involving the removal of paint and metal is one thing but when it involves crosses that might be genuine, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Tricky question... PK

We're never going to go on a roadtrip together, are we? PK

Ah, so you have an interest in seeing flawed S&L KCs declared indisputably original, do you? So do I but the difference is that I am literally putting my money where my mouth is in maintaining the obvious conclusion. The S&L question has been resolved: flawed S&L KCs are questionable because nobody can prove when they were made or when the frame dies were damaged, repaired and damaged again. The thread is about KCs, as Stogieman has already pointed out, which is quite a broad definition. Questions have been raised about some K&Q KCs as well. This falls well within the remit of this thread. But if you have anything new to add to the S&L-oriented debate, go right ahead. Share your knowledge. That's one of the functions of forums. Can you post a picture or two of your cross, just to add some colour to the thread. Might as well have something pretty to look at. PK

The badge sold by Niemann is certainly not original and there were several discussions about it, some of them quite acrimonious. Nor, sadly, is the one Daniel Murphy shows. These have been faked since the 1960s. PK

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

Doesn't need explaining...

No

A "Rounder", for those who haven't seen one. I think you just scored an own goal, old bean. I rather like Dave Kane's rather spare but nonetheless eloquent riposte. All you have done is confirm that Hansen was prevented from publishing his material on the WAF, as anyone reading this thread you cite can see for themselves. http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...mp;postcount=14 Hansen was suspended because he had been trying to post the information subsequently posted by Peter Wiking. The version of Hansen's findings and remarks currently extant on the WAF website differs somewhat from Hansen's posting of his findings on MCF, where they were not subjected to any form of censorship. For anyone interested in reading Hansen uncensored, click here. Post #4 in the MCF thread started by Hansen is quite interesting. PK

I prefer not. PK

Revisionism... And some people did not take it at face value... Someone hit the Delete button several times in a row as Hansen tried to post his research and then Hansen was deemed "no longer part of the community", as your friend Mike might put it, and "expelled", joining a long line of dissidents. I have never had any reason to disagree with it. As we now agree, Dietrich, nobody can be sure of when any of the repairs were made to the frame dies. Of course, one can say that some crosses predate others, as you have explained very well to people, but we cannot be precise about the year or even the decade in which some of the 1939 pattern S&L KCs were actually made. PK

I don't. But who can say with certainty that they are not? I wouldn't want to "bet" thousands of dollars on it! I don't. But I have seen many things accorded "Schlo? Klessheim" provenance... I don't. But do you have any examples of such provenance that you would like to share here? Remember, provenance can seem watertight, as George Petersen thought when he purchased the two Paul Conrath formal RK documents "directly from the Conrath" family in a deal put together by two well known Hamburg dealers. They were very good forgeries, in original folders. That scam was conceived by a couple of naughty dealers and took years to come to the surface. I know of at least one RKT who has sold his KC to trusting, awestuck collectors several times over. I also know of an Austrian family who conned a fellow with a couple of fake documents for a KC awarded to an uncle. Of course, in 99% of cases, a verifiable line of provenance to the recipient or his immediate family-cum-estate is generally fine but just because some old geezer was decorated for valour once upon a time and has white hair and twinkly blue eyes now, it is no guarantee that he is not a con artist. Just saying something is so doesn't make it so, as you found to your cost in the case of the famous Freiherr von Pretzel cross all the way from the frozen snows of Stalingrad. There was a Rounder KC with provenance...not. Well, I should hope so because I have stated it often enough... PK

And finally there was light! That's the conclusion regarding flawed Steinhauer & L?ck Knights' Crosses: nobody knows if they are OK or not. Therefore...they are questionable. That's all I was ever pointing out! Q...E...D... PK

Mike, that's very touching but you're preaching to the converted in my case. I don't think Dietrich Maerz needs the sympathy vote, mate! I think he needs to back his assertions about flawed S&L KCs up with some hard evidence. He's the one stating with utter conviction that the dies were repaired in 1944 or thereabouts. I am simply suggesting that we do not know or cannot be sure when they were repaired. So, once again, those questions... PK

No response yet? Ah, gotta think about those questions, eh? I am beginning to experience an insight into how Jeremy Paxman feels as he barks at some dissembling politician or wideboy: "Just answer the question!" PK

Oh, but I am very familiar with the Steinhauer & L?ck KC... Predictably, you are quoting me out of context. My position on the repairs to the frame dies has been consistent in that while it is obvious that attempts were made to repair them, I tend to believe that the firm did this long after WW2, because the frame dies as used during the war represented a commercial asset of some importance. The "dispute" is not about whether or not repairs were made but when they were made. Now, please try to give me clear answers to my questions above. I am sure a lot of people are waiting. Thanks. PK

I am not accusing Maerz of anything. I am simply recounting what happened when Hansen tried to express his opinions and publish his research. I daresay that a thread like this would last about five minutes over there too. That is one of the aspects of all of these discussions, the marked tendency to censor or suppress any alternative or dissenting opinions if the individual whose statements are being questioned happens to be "one of the boys". The Chairman of GMIC and his management team have very generously supplied a level playing field, so to speak, for this discussion and all I am seeing from the visiting team, as it were, is obfuscation, claims to the gallery of unfair treatment, implicit accusations and persecution and, occasionally, blatant derailing tactics. So, here are some of the simple questions again: Dietrich, how do you know with certainty that Steinhauer & L?ck repaired their KC frame dies in 1944? How do you lknow that some flawed S&L KCs predate the end of WW2? PK

Ah! I was waiting for the derailing tactics. Look, Mike, Dietrich Maerz is not being persecuted in this thread. I am just trying to get him to give straight answers to a couple of quite simple questions and he hasn't managed it yet. When one sets oneself up as an authority on a subject, one must expect to be questioned. PK

Fair comments there from Rick and ekhunter. I didn't see the original eBay sale page and I think it was pulled quite quickly. Hansen has discussed it on MCF, if I recall correctly. The wording of his ad, as quoted here, seems rather pointed. He may have been taking a swipe. However, that is simply conjecture and not something I am inclined to comment further upon. Whatever the truth of his sale of the "Rounder" might be, it is irrelevant to the central issue and nobody disputes Dr Hansen's findings. PK

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

As the late, inimitable William C Stump used to say: believe it or not. Believe whatever you wish to believe. I reserve the right to consider all flawed 1939 pattern S&L KCs questionable. In fact, I consider all 1939 S&L KCs questionable unless they fall into the shrinking category of truly verifiable examples. But hey, that's just me. I could be wrong. I could be right. Who knows? PK

You should be glad that I am editing and moderating my posts. Anyway, thank you for tacitly admitting that you "think" the die was repaired during the late war period. I "think" it was repaired after the war, for reasons I have stated in this thread and elsewhere. It boils down to the question of probability versus possibility. It is possible that the die was repaired in 1944 but is it really probable? I think it improbable. You think otherwise. Even you have been unable, so far, to produce a single flawed S&L KC with provenance confirming it to be a cross awarded to and worn by a Ritterkreuztrager before 9.5.1945. When we showed an unflawed 1957 KC, you ignored it at first but when pressed, insisted that it was a post-1957 "second type" despite the fact that this was clearly not the case. You even cited another unnamed person who had high definition photographs of it to prove your assertion but, of course, that came to nothing in the end. I have to say that the criteria you employ in deciding what constitutes proof when composing your theses are, as the record shows, rather lax. I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible about this but how else can I say this? I think you tend to try to make the evidence, such as it is, fit the pre-conceived opinion rather than allowing the evidence to lead you towards a conclusion. This is why you took Brian Hildemann's story about his "Rounder" at face value, without exercising due diligence or even asking Hildemann the kind of probing questions that caused him to blow a fuse online and admit that he was lying, after offering several different accounts of his "Rounder" KC's history. I take no pleasure in this, by the way. I wish you'd just let it drop or, at least, stop peddling it here on this website where people are not banned for disagreeing with you. This, for me, is about as sporting as shooting a tethered nanny goat with a 10-bore elephant gun at close range. PK

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

I'm not "jumping around"! I have remained doggedly consistent for over five years, since this subject was initially aired in 2001. I think I have expressed the opposing view to Maerz's theses with absolute clarity and simplicity. There is no point in a point-by-point refutation of Maerz's theses because the simple questions I have posed address all of his points in a broad manner. PK