PKeating

Why do you want to know? PK

I see that the cavalry has turned up. Sorry, gents, but Dietrich is the 'challenger' here. I am not about to reiterate posts ad nauseam on demand. However, I will address his latest post. That was never in dispute, as far as I am concerned. Sorry, I don't follow your logic. If we have flawless 1957 crosses, then it surely follows that the flaws observed on 1939 and 1957 pattern crosses might well have occurred after the introduction of the 1957 pattern. OK. Given that no "B-Type" is considered to have direct provenance to a recipient of the KC, it could be that all B-Types are postwar. It could also be the case that flawed "A-Types" are also postwar. How do you know they aren't? You're the one making the assertion but, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, no "A-Type" with RKT provenance has been produced to back up any of your assertions. The only S&L KCs I have seen with RKT provenance had no flaws. Who "testified"? Who are these people and where is the evidence? This is your opinion. The unflawed 935-4 "Schloss Klessheim" crosses might just as easily rank alongside unflawed 1957 pattern crosses in terms of your "timeline". More than a few objects have been attributed to "Schloss Klessheim" without any hard proof to support the claims. It renders more crosses less questionable. It is also 'collector-friendly' in that it seeks to remove the question marks hovering over flawed S&L KCs. Your theses might be absolutely correct but you can no more prove them than I can prove mine. For this reason, I see no point in wasting time writing an article about the topic. I will simply be preaching to the converted or provoking those who take an opposing view. My view is shared by quite a few people. Others reserve their opinions. Your camp is determined to establish your opinion as fact. The interesting thing, for me, is the effort you and your supporters appear to devote to attacking me for not falling into line and agreeing with you. PK

That looks OK but could you post the reverse? Some of these were cast while others were struck. Regards, PK

Mr Maerz continues to ignore the central question focusing on when the dies might have been repaired. I did not assert or allege that the dies were repaired in 1962. It was merely an illustrative figure of speech and, in fact, the dates cited therein were 1944 and 1964. He spends a paragraph reasserting statements with which, I think, I have expressed broad agreement. It is merely the basis for his persistent assertions that the dies were repaired during WW2 that concerns me at the moment. I am involved in this debate solely because I find misinformation hard to tolerate. As for writing an article about Ritterkreuze, why would I bother? It's not actually a priority topic for me. I am working on other projects. I think others before me, and before Mr Maerz, have covered all the essentials. Mr Maerz's reputation as an authority on the subject was based on his revelatory thesis about "Rounder" KCs and KCs bearing the PKA code '7'. His thesis on S&L KCs is really more of a study of flaws imparted to the frame halves by damaged and repaired dies. It has merit, as I said, but does not prove that flawed S&L KCs predate 1957. Regarding the publications for which I have written or edited, I sense a challenge to name some of them. OK: they include: The Times (London); The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; The New York Times; The Australian; Welt am Sonntag; various editions of Vogue magazine; Vogue Hommes International; Paris Match; Esquire; Graphis; Nylon; Sleaze Nation and the new men's review Paradis. Topics cover quite a wide range. That's just some of the mainstream stuff. I have never been swayed or corrupted by a shampoo manufacturer... I don't need any free shampoo because I can always steal my wife's. PK

The strike quality of these 'ersatz' or 'economy' EK2s is indeed very sharp compared to some of the tradition crosses. I have a couple: an unfinished one showing the sharpness of the details to advantage and a nice EF example. Either made in the last year of the war or in the early 1920s. Here are a couple of old snapshots of the unfinished example next to a "KO", which was one of the best of the wartime crosses in terms of strike quality, before the dies began to wear out. PK

I think some of Mr Maerz's work has merit but I am puzzled that Mr Maerz should find it so hard to substantiate the "timeline" basis of his theses in terms of during and after WW2. It is one thing to identify earlier and later KCs by S&L through the flaws and imperfections imparted to the frame by dies that cracked, were repaired and continued to degenerate. It is reasonable to describe these as Type A and Type B crosses if one is taking a repair to the frames as the median. However, the question remains as to whether Steinhauer & L?ck repaired these dies in 1944 or 1964. I do not understand how Mr Maerz can make such an assertion when the damaged frame dies have been at the centre of the whole S&L KC debate since it was first pointed out on the internet, on the WAF back in 2001, that there could be a problem with flawed 1939 pattern KCs by S&L. Mr Maerz has made the point that his findings were published in two magazines and will shortly be included in a book. The magazines are supported by advertising from militaria dealers, as is the website where his findings were initially published. I know that Dietrich Maerz tends to find any advice I offer him offensive by default but he really ought to be careful of some of the people he trusts and he should get his work proof-read and fact-checked before publishing it. He aspires to be a writer: as both a writer and an editor, I can tell him that serious scribes are usually quite thankful for the input from proofreaders and editors. Unfortunately, as I remarked previously, his work has so far been published in media whose editors appear to take a rather random approach to checking the copy they receive, as a cover-to-cover read-through of any given issue usually shows. PK

I suspect that the Spanish street scene could be a backdrop. I could be mistaken but the two legionnaires appear to be wearing the woollen RAD uniforms issued for the Berlin victory parade along with, as you say, incorrect Panzertruppe beret outers decorated with 2nd pattern SS cap skulls. I reckon this was done in a studio in Germany in the summer of 1939 for guys who had no photos of themselves in Spain. PK

True, but this fishing weight has Rudolf Souval's LDO-style code on it so I don't think it could be mistaken for one of the tiny handful of genuinely theatre-made examples known, like the ones made at sea or the two Oakleaves commissioned in Italy by Richard Heidrich for a couple of his FJ commanders. As for the other eBan link, I hope nobody would bid on it thinking that they might be getting the real thing. PK

I haven't "asserted" anything. I have merely expressed an alternative possibility. Early flawed pieces could be wartime. I sure hope so! LOL! However, they could just as easily be postwar. Impossible to say. PK

The 'problem' with documents and document groups is that they require at least a basic knowledge of history. In fact, they require rather more than a basic knowledge if one is to avoid being clipped by fakers and forgers who are getting smarter. One needs to study units and sub-units in order to know if a document with such-and-such a date could have been signed by so-and-so etcetera. Many collectors are far from intellectual. PK

Ssssshhhhhh! P

Sitting here sipping my tea, looking at that 1957 cross, and it still has a "1st pattern" frame...without any flaws. I suppose it could, of course, have been assembled using leftover wartime frame halves from stock. There again, it seems odd to me that any objects made of silver were not taken from the firm during the first couple of years of the Allied occupation. It also strikes me as odd that a firm would stock perfect frame halves whilst turning out visibly flawed and. arguably, unsightly KCs for supply to the government during the war, especially as Dr Doehle and the LDO had shown themselves to be rather picky when it came to Germany's highest award for military valour. I would not rule out the possibility and cannot say with certainty that flawed KCs by S&L are all postwar items but I am very wary of them because of the existence of unflawed 1957 pattern crosses. which raise the distinct possibility that any S&L KC with those raised flaws on the frame beading must, by default, postdate the 1957 pattern. I gather that the person whom Dietrich Maerz cited as having highly detailed scans or photos of this 1957 cross, proving it to be a "2nd pattern" cross with the "dipped ring", now states it to be a different cross entirely. It strikes me that there seems to be a tendency to overrule or ignore anything that interferes with Mr Maerz's carefully constructed theses about Steinhauer & L?ck KCs. His Type A and Type B designations are defined by the repairs the firm apparently made to the dies at some point. As I have opined, I think it more likely that they tried to repair their wartime frame dies after the war, because of the money they were probably making from supplying bent dealers with 1939 pattern KCs for resale to collectors as genuine crosses. I feel quite safe talking about S&L like this because I was with the man to whom the dies were offered in London in 1981 in a Greek restaurant near Clerkenwell. He passed on them because of the cracks and they were then bought by a top London dealer. We can accept "Type A" and "Type B" but I would be more inclined to use the former term to describe S&L KCs with good provenance dating them to the pre-May 9th 1945 period. "Type B" would cover all questionable crosses, meaning 1939 pattern crosses that cannot definitely be described as wartime, flaws or no flaws. The "London" issue are simply fakes with no link to the firm other than the tooling. PK

So we shan't be seeing any unflawed "1st pattern" 1957 KCs by Steinhauer & L?ck in your book? I suppose they are rather inconvenient, as they tend to cast some doubt on your thesis. Will we be seeing any flawed crosses with acceptable provenance? PK

You seem remarkably sure of yourself, Dietrich. However, the cross in question does not look like a 2nd pattern 1957 KC to me. Gordon Williamson and I both know a bit about Knights' Crosses and we don't agree with you. Who is this person who has very detailed pictures of the cross and can we expect to see these pictures anytime soon? Or will you be keeping them in reserve for your reference book on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939? PK

I understand Dietrich Maerz's study of flaws and repairs but remain puzzled by the absolute confidence with which he asserts the originality of flawed S&L KCs. How can he be so utterly sure that the repairs he cites were made during the war rather than afterwards? PK

Some people discount Schloss Klessheim provenance...

I think you're massively over-simplifying the debate. We haven't even discussed the "London" crosses. They are irrelevant because they are so easy to spot. The debate focuses upon the impossibility of establishing a timelime with regard to the flaws, ridges and dent rows. I still strongly suspect that if Steinhauer & L?ck repaired the frame dies, they did so after 1957, after the frame dies started to crack. You contend that this was during the war. That is the essence of the debate. PK

It looks like an "800" Steinhauer & L?ck KC without beading flaws to me. I have squinted at the beading and can see no flaws. It is therefore more likely than many other S&L crosses to be an original, wartime piece. Click here to see another S&L cross with minor flaws. Leaving the issue of the flaws aside, these crosses appear to have come from the same dies. PK

Peace? Of course! It's just a difference of opinion between different schools of thought. I assure you that there is nothing personal in this from my viewpoint. I also have no vested interests in it. If anything, I am losing money! Should I be proven wrong, I will admit it cheerfully and gracefully. Until then, I will defend my position if challenged. However, a lot of people share the position I occupy when it comes to Godet Oakleaves etc... PK

There's the rub. I don't think there is much of a debate, as such. Just a blizzard of misinformation... PK

I take your points but surely the occupation forces confiscated every gram of precious and semi-precious material they could find during the early stages of the occupation? They would have all over medal-making firms, jewellers and other such firms like a rash! In the end, though, our opinions are really hypotheses. One thing remains crystal clear: when you buy an unflawed or slightly flawed 1939 pattern KC by S&L, you really don't know what you are buying unless it is one of the few crosses with rockhard provenance. That is the effect fakers and forgers have on things. They destroy confidence. That is why money forgers used to suffer capital punishment... PK

QED. Thank you, Gordon, for your timely intervention. I remain puzzled as to why the 1957 cross in question was mis-identified with such conviction as a second pattern "dipped ring" type when it is so obviously not. It reminds me of a painful discussion on the other website about Army Para Badges, when someone posted an original side-by-side with a fake and insisted that they were exactly the same, even though this was clearly not the case. I suppose some people only see what they want or need to see. Anyway, it is quite apparent to anyone with half-functional eyes that this is a good example of an unflawed 1957 Steinhauer & L?ck KC whose frame was clearly struck on the S&L frame dies...before they developed cracks that led to the beading flaws. The only conclusion, surely, to be drawn from this is that the cracks in the frame dies developed sometime after the introduction of the 1957 pattern KC and that all S&L KCs with those flaws running along the outer frame beading postdate 1957. I re-read Dietrich Maerz's article after he suggested that I hadn't read it at all and while it is well laid-out and appears convincing, I still see no hard proof backing up the timeline aspect of his arguments. The article, and his later posts on the subject, tell me that: Early "Type A" crosses had no flaws and are definitely wartime. Later "Type A" crosses had developing flaws and are definitely wartime. Steinhauer & L?ck effected repairs to their KC frame dies, altering the nature of the flaws. "Type B" crosses are likely to be of postwar manufacture. Hmmmm. OK, but this fails to explain the existence both of unflawed, mint 935-4 crosses, which are now generally viewed as suspect, and unflawed 1957 pattern crosses with frames struck on the same dies as crosses accepted as being wartime pieces. In conclusion, therefore, unflawed S&L crosses obviously predate the point after 1957 at which the frame dies developed cracks while flawed crosses postdate that point. S&L may or may not have effected repairs to the frame dies but if they did, it was far more likely to have been during the period when they were generating income from the illicit manufacture and sale of 1939 pattern crosses for the militaria market. Why, during the war, would a firm like S&L bother trying to repair frame dies that were so damaged as to produce unsightly strikings? They would simply have tasked one of their in-house diecutters with making a new set of dies, especially as it concerned Germany highest award for military valour, and they would naturally have been keen to avoid trouble with the LDO so as to retain their prestigious licence to produce the award. I cannot prove this. Dietrich may be right. I don't happen to think he is right but I am not out to change anyone's mind. I am merely putting an alternative opinion in front of people. Dietrich's findings have been published on the internet and in print media and will, I gather, soon find theiy way into a book. However, I do not think that he has addressed the question of the existence of unflawed 1957 KCs by S&L. His response, when I pressed him here, that this 1957 cross was a "dipped ring" second type cross is not really a satisfactory one; he failed to answer my question, which sought an explanation for the existence of such crosses long after the dies were supposedly damaged, according to his school of thought. Instead, he kept repeating that the cross was a second pattern "dipped ring" type, when it is so obviously not. PK

Hallelujah! That is, essentially, the point. The fact that we disagree about the timeline is really a side issue. If you say that you have examined many S&L crosses in the course of your research, I am sure you have. But we agree that the majority of 1939 pattern S&L KCs in circulation are postwar. That is progress. PK

Good luck with the book. PK

I thought I made my opinion regarding Klein very clear! The postwar wartime-pattern models are identical to the wartime originals while the postwar copies made for sale as copies are different. Thanks for the offer of assistance but I already have my points of reference, having examined two known sets of originals. That said, it is indeed academic because, like Godet EL and ELmS, I am wary of them. I take it you know the function of the jester? PK