PKeating

What makes you think anger in any way informs my discussion with you? If anyone is on a short fuse here, I think the posts will show readers who it is! It's not a point I minded conceding. I merely pointed out that it was hardly relevant to the main issue. Not sure what this means but...whatever. Classic transference tactics. 1) You are the one trying to heat up this discussion, probably in an attempt to make me lose my temper, write something unacceptable under club rules and get this thread closed down so that it can slowly fade into the background. 2) You're the one making snide remarks on a regular basis in this thread and the RK Debate thread. 3) I do not have to prove anything to you: I am merely stating an opinion that differs with some of your opinions but you cannot tolerate this. 4) I didn't actually call you a spin doctor: I made a lighthearted remark about how some people might believe you to be a spin doctor - some people believe far worse about you than that, as you know - so don't be so defensive! 5) I am staying very much on topic and am being very factual: you are the one who keeps trying to turn this thread into a flame war while I remain very calm. Ah, but I do know the facts, Dietrich. I know you haven't even been around long enough to know how Kimmel is but I worked for a couple of militaria dealers in London over a quarter of a century ago. I also knew a couple of the best fakers and forgers in the business. At the time, we did not have the digital imaging and scanning technology we have today so I never photographed the Klein fakes and the bits of correspondence I saw, for the day when someone like you would come along ask about them. Nor did I record the conversations I witnessed. But I do remember them and, moreover, I am far from being the only person on these forums with this kind of background knowledge. As I said, I have nothing to prove to you. Even if I did, I would not submit to cross-examination by someone unqualified to compose the questions. What is that you find so provocative about the suggestion that Klein of Hanau produced Brillanten to their wartime design after the war? As I said, it is almost as if a loose cabal of dealers has appointed you to be the up and coming authority on various awards, with a view to teaching new generations of collectors an alternative history to the one remembered by the dwindling band of oldies. You begin by posting this stuff on the internet and then get it published in print media. What next? Books acclaimed as collectors' bibles? Either that or you're just trying to pick a fight with me over Rounders, Godet EL and ELS, S&L KCs and, now, Klein Diamonds. You're all over me like a rash. What's the angle? What's your motive? There's no "deeper meaning". I confess that I am puzzled by all the effort you expend on trying to prove that things deemed questionable are all genuine. In your case, I am more of a jester... As I said elsewhere, no hard feelings and good luck with the journalism. I hope the editors of the magazines to which you are now contributing fully appreciate your talents. I expect many of their advertisers do... PK

I have stated my position and do not feel that my concerns have been addressed by Dietrich. If others are satisfied with his reference articles, that is their business. I hope he is right about the flawed S&L KCs but I remain wary of them. Having just seen Dietrich's latest posts, I think we are going around in circles. Good luck with the journalism, Dietrich. PK

The Grand Cross was not really a valour award. It was for military leadership and the single awarding of the 1939 issue could be described as rather premature and certainly due to no small amount of pressure from the recipient. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 was Germany's highest award for valour. I tend to presume that students of the subject reading these threads will understand this without the writer having to qualify every statement with clauses and sub-clauses in order to avoid giving ammunition to people looking for the least pretext to question the validity of his statements. First you stated that they were not awarded or, to be more precise, that none are known to have been awarded. Then you stated that they were awarded. And now you state that you did not want to say that 935-4s were awarded. Maybe it's just me... Yes, this much I understood. You stated that the frame dies remained the same and were repaired, giving rise to the A and B Type crosses. I showed you a cross, which you identified as a Type A with early flaws. However, the flaws do not seem to conform to your table of flaw types, occurring as they do on the outer beading of the horizontal arms. I then showed you a picture of a 1939 cross described by Gordon as a wartime piece, which looks very like an early Type A cross without any flaws. You did not dispute this. Are you with me so far? In the case of the 1957 cross posted for comparison with the 1939 cross, you responded by saying that this was second type 1957 cross with a "dipped ring" frame. Yet it is quite clear to anyone who looks at these crosses that the frames were struck on the same dies. According to your logic, this means that the 1939 cross must be a fake made after 1957. Yet its frame displays all the characteristics of the cross you identified as a Type A: click here to see it again. I am looking at three crosses: one is a 1939 version with slight flaws, which you describe as a nice, wartime Type A. The other is a 1939 type described by GW as a wartime cross, without flaws and displaying the same frame characteristics: you made no comment about it. The third is a 1957 cross whose frame was clearly made on the same dies as the two 1939 crosses: you state that this is a second pattern 1957 "dipped ring" type, implying that the frame dies on which its frames were made postdate 1957. I think there was a single set of frame dies during the war. You agree with this, having stated so yourself. I believe that they were damaged after the introduction of the 1957 pattern KCs and base that belief on the existence of unflawed 1957 KCs with frames clearly struck on the same dies as known, wartime examples. You believe that the dies were damaged during the war and repaired several times. I believe that the firm may have tried to repair the dies anytime between the appearance of the first cracks and the point at which they finally gave up and sold the dies. If someone could show me a flawed KC by S&L with verifiable provenance - as opposed to cock and bull stories like the one which you included in your Rounder article, which the source later publicly admitted was a lie - I might feel happier about accepting that flawed S&L KCs could be genuine wartime pieces. All I seem to be getting is a literary three-card act, underscored by huffing and puffing tactics in response to quite simple questions. Unfortunately, a lot of unedited, unchecked material makes it into these magazines and into other militaria-related magazines as well. The French Militaria and British The Armourer are no exception. I could scan and post some of the howlers and horrors I have seen in all of these magazines. That said, there is much in the way of good content too. I am not "attacking" you with semantics. I am simply asking simple questions to which you have yet to give me simple answers, in plain uncrafted English, without sarcasm and attitude. I am sorry if you take offence at my questions but when you put yourself up as an author of reference works on collectibles which change hands for high prices, you must expect to be challenged by your peers, especially with your track record to date. Yeah, yeah, I know: the "Rounder" thing is a "dead issue" for you but it does have some bearing on your credibility as an authority on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939. PK

That's not quite true, is it? PK

I wasn't referring to the fake crosses with dipping rings. The frames of these two crosses were clearly struck on the same dies. Back in 2001, Gordon Williamson described the 1939 cross as a wartime original and it certainly looks like one. If you look at the base of the frame ring on the 1939 cross, you can see that the buffing process has flattened the lower 20% of so of the frame ring. PK

Yes, of course, a German company. Typo. Mind on other things. Maybe I was thinking subconsciously of Richard Kimmel when responding to you. Whatever. So what if I erred in saying that Hanau is in Austria? Were this an opus for publication, such an error would have been corrected beforehand. However, this is a live or near-live discussion and errors sometimes creep in. Bravo! You scored a point. But it's a red herring. You're trying to take people's eyes off the ball. 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. The point is that Klein apparently produced perfect replicas of the wartime type. Oh, and thanks for reminding us that there were A and B types. I think students of the subject would take that for granted. It is not relevant to the point, which is that Klein was amongst the various German and Austrian firms producing fakes - if we define "fake" as a copy of an original intended to dupe people into believing it to be original - of Nazi awards after the war. You seem to have made it a mission to cast as much doubt as you can upon the production of such fakes by various wellknown firms after the war. You lose few opportunities, it appears, to jump on people who refer to this illicit business, resorting often to the tactic of trying to trip them up on minor points in an apparent effort to damage their credibility as commentators. 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. Not that I am suggesting or implying that you are in cahoots with fraudsters. I wish to make that clear. I think you probably have the best of intentions. I am merely saying that you have failed to convince me. Now, if I am such a clown as you and your friends clearly think, why do you care so much about my opinion? I mean, I cannot even get a detail like the geographical location of Hanau right so that renders my statements invalid, right? PK

Our posts crossed in cyberspace. Really? You are splitting hairs in an apparent attempt to score points in this debate. You've tried this on me before - Lieferant numbers for example - without success. The RK zum EK was Germany's highest award. The "add-ons" signified separate awards on top of the basic RK. The KC with Golden Oakleaves with Swords and Diamonds was Germany's highest award for military valour in the sense that it was the highest one could receive by the end of the war. However, it was not a single award. One did not receive the KC with Oakleaves etcetera in one go. Therefore, the KC was Nazi Germany's highest award for military valour. The "add-ons" were akin to clasps recognising subsequent acts of a similar nature. Hang on! You yourself stated earlier that there were no 935-4 crosses known to have been awarded to anyone. Bit of an inconsistency there. You appear to have decided to ignore the beading flaws because they are inconvenient in the context of your assertions. I submit that the beading flaws are very germane to the subject. You appear to be trying to imply that I believed in the "Rounder" at one point. This was never the case. I think I stated that I understood why some people might believe it to be OK but that was more in a spirit of generosity than anything else. I never thought it was anything but a scam, for reasons I have explained previously. Some people, incidentally, have suggested that these crosses were produced as high quality copies by Tony Oliver in England. I intend to drop him a line as I knew him back in the day. Apparently, he sold them as copies. In terms of quality, they are on a level with older Souval crosses. It will be interesting to see what he has to say...if anything. I know you would prefer it to become a "dead issue" but as long as some of the individuals closely involved in this episode continue giving people loads of attitude instead of having the humility or, at least, the common sense to shut up about it, it will remain very much a live issue. I wish you could convince me regarding flawed S&L KCs. In making my arguments, I have put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, although I will not be selling you any S&L KCs for $50.00 anytime soon. I said that I would not pay $50.00 for one, which is different. You have tried several times to misrepresent what I have written in various posts and to misinterpret my meanings. I, on the other hand, have kept my arguments pretty simple and you have been unable to shake those arguments with any convincing, clearly-worded counter-argument. I look forward to your next article, whatever it may concern. I suggest that you find a less contentious subject. Again, I don't mean to come across as patronising. This is advice I would offer to some of the best professional writers in the world under such circumstances. As an editor, I an experienced in wading through competent but obtuse copy by some good writers. Just for lack of clarity alone, I would not publish your work without a major edit to render your points clearer, my disagreement with your points being irrelevant. I don't mean to offend you. Most of the best writers in the world need help from good editors some of the time. The problem is that you were writing for a "publisher" who is, frankly, linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate. The same applies to a lot of the target readership. It is only when a writer bumps up against literate people with analytical minds that he comes unstuck if he cannot clarify his statements. In any case, the reading public should never see unclear writing. PK

So the beading flaws are irrelevant? Sorry, but I am still no closer to understanding this whole "timeline" thing of yours. You don't actually mention "timeline" here but I believe you once employed this term when explaining your findings. I'm not trying to be difficult. If your assertions can be proven, believe me, I would be very pleased indeed. However, I am forced to the conclusion that a comparitively small number of S&L KCs, in relation to the numbers in circulation out there, can be accepted as original, wartime crosses. I refer once again to the clear evidence I have placed in front of everyone, which was first posted by Gordon back in 2001, of two Steinhauer & L?ck KCs with frame halves struck on the same dies, neither of which shows any evidence of beading flaws. One is a 1939 pattern cross and the other is a 1957 pattern cross. As far as I am concerned, this tells me that the beading flaws appeared in or after 1957, which tells me that any S&L KC with beading flaws - of a ridged appearance running along the top of the beading on the horizontal arms, for instance - dates from 1957 or later. You apparently chose not to address this simple fact. Nor do you explain the repair process concerning the dies. PK

Klein of Hanau never made either type of Ritterkreuz. This Austrian jewellery firm was contracted to make the Brillanten instead of Godet, who produced a small number of these awards inset with diamonds by Tiffany. This was before the USA entered the war in December 1941. Klein & Quenzer, of course, was one of the firms authorised to produce the Ritterkreuz zum EK 1939 but it now seems clear that their RK tooling was used sometime after the war to produce perfect repops, which were then sold as originals. As for the RK zum KVK, who can say? I have heard of examples bearing the "65" Lieferant code but cannot recall seeing one. PK

How much did he pay for them? PK

I think it time to revisit a topic posted elsewhere way back in 2001 by Gordon Williamson. I saved the images he posted and am sure he will not mind my reposting them here for everyone's education when it comes to flawed S&L KCs. Here is a 1957 pattern KC by Steinhauer & L?ck. As you can all see, there are no obvious flaws on the frame beading at any point. Here is a 1939 pattern S&L KC, together with a close-up shot of the 9-o-clock frame beading. As you can see, it is free of obvious flaws. http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2006/post-281-1167494649.jpg] A close-up of the 9-o-clock frame beading on the entirely unflawed 1957 pattern cross. A side-by-side comparison showing that these frames were struck on the same dies. To summarise, we have shown an unflawed 1957 KC by Steinhauer & L?ck side by side with an unflawed 1939 pattern cross. In other words, we have a unflawed 1957 pattern cross with frames struck on the same dies as the unflawed 1939 pattern cross. This rather casts doubt on any Steinhauer & L?ck KC with those ridges running along the frame beading, doesn't it? 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. Why would a firm as wealthy as Steinhauer & L?ck waste time repairing a set of KC frame dies when they would surely have ordered one of their in-house diecutters to produce a new set? Failing that, they would have ordered in frame halves from another firm. This was Germany's highest award, after all, and Dr Doehle and his LDO took a very keen interest in quality control, as did Adolf Hitler himself. Unsightly flaws and ridges would have been unacceptable and it is unlikely that the firm would have risked the wrath of Doehle by supplying flawed crosses. The more likely scenario is one in which the frame dies underwent some or all of the attempts at repair to which you refer...but after the dies were damaged at some point in time following the introduction of the 1957 pattern awards for wear by veterans serving with the BW. A company generating income from the sale of "genuine" 1939 KCs made on their original wartime tooling by craftsmen who probably worked there during the war would be more likely to try to repair a cracked die than a company producing the nation's highest award to exacting criteria imposed by their governmental clients. In the end, in 1981, they sold the dies out the back door, so to speak, as I have recounted elsewhere. I saw them myself in London at the time. They were pretty ropey by then but that did not prevent a certain dealer from buying them. This dealer had been one of Frau Anneliese Klietmann's most profitable clients. His "S&L" KCs were good enough for his customers around the world, complete with their Seals of Authenticity and accompanying certificates. However, that is another story. Someone once posted a flawed EK1 in response to this contention but there is a vast gulf of difference between the EK and the RK. The unpalatable fact of the matter is that all unflawed 1939 pattern S&L KCs must be treated with the same degree of circumspection with which intelligent collectors view Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords by Godet. As for flawed 1939 KCs by this maker, I wouldn't give you $50.00 for one, no matter how nice it looked, for the simple, unassailable reason provided by the unflawed 1957 KC we see here, originally posted back in 2001 by Gordon Williamson when Steinhauer & L?ck's track record began emerging into the spotlight. Sorry, Dietrich, but I am afraid that your article about Steinhauer & L?ck Ritterkreuze has failed to change my mind, just as your article about "Rounders" and KCs bearing the Lieferant code "7" for Meybauer failed to convince me of the pedigree of such pieces. You may be right about S&L crosses but if so, how do the crosses I have presented here fit into your carefully constructed timeline equations and arguments? PK

Despite reading your submission very carefully, I must confess to finding myself unenlightened. However, rather than go into a point-by-point clarification exercise, it would be most helpful to me if you could tell me to which of the categories listed in your article this Steinhauer & L?ck Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 - http://www.majorplm.com/collections/Coll-G...mp;L800-CT.html belongs. As you can see, it has quite clear flaws on the beading of both horizontal arms. You write that "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!" [sic]. You also write that "later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm" So, the last A-Type crosses had flaws on the 3 and 6-o-clock arms. You make no reference to crosses with flaws on the 9 and 6-o-clock arms. You state with confidence that the frame dies were reworked/repaired in the third quarter of 1944, resulting in what you describe as the B-Type cross. In other words, the frames of A-Type and B-Type crosses were struck on the same dies. You then state that all B-Types have the flaws you list but that no A-Type cross displays them, even though you wrote that "later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm". This was presumably before the dies, according to you, were repaired. Regarding the 935-4 crosses, you suggest that these are the first B-Type crosses, based on their Schlo? Klessheim provenance. In other words, you contend that the pristine 935-4 crosses are wartime pieces made after mid-1944 but that none exist with any awardee provenance. So, if the 935-4 is an early B-Type cross and if you contend that the advent date of the revised B-Type crosses was "mid to late 1944", basing this contention on the existence of flawed crosses with provenance, where does this leave the 935-4? Are you relying solely upon the Schlo? Klessheim provenance in the case of the 935-4 and, if so, how can you be so sure of the date or time window in which you state the dies to have been repaired? You see, this was always the problem some of your critics had with your theses: you make much of your timeline process but I have not been able to understand the criteria upon which you base your timeline-related statements. You tell everyone that they can verify your writings by examining S&L KCs but that actually isn't the case, is it? How, in your opinion, were the frame dies repaired? What process did the diecutters use? Would it not just have been simpler to cut new dies or even to do as most firms of the time did and outsource the components they needed? PK

Indeed. The spotlight is now falling upon another Knight's Cross, the "heavy type" KC of the War Merit Cross 1939 bearing the "1" Lieferant code of Deschler & Sohn. Slightly off-topic here, of course, but germane to your remark about the number of restrikes (and fantasy pieces-cum-fakes) in collections today. Where there's money, conmen are sure to follow and they've been hard at it since the early 1950s where Third Reich awards are concerned. Take the Diamonds to the KC for instance. Here's a short article I wrote a while ago. I doubt if any of the image links still work but read the text and think about the Diamond sets in circulation out there. The salient point is that Klein appears to have accomodated requests for perfect repops of their wartime Diamonds while they were producing the versions that differed sufficiently for collectors purchasing them as fillers to feel assured that what they were buying were honest repops by the firm that produced this award during the war. The evils are hatching out... PK

I don't think any member of SS-Fallschirmj?ger-Btl 500 ever wore an EKM like this. You should return it for a refund, after scratching the word "Fake" on it. It doesn't even conform to the correct abbreviated nomenclature. If you didn't pay too much for it, you could always convert it into a lure for fishing. Sorry. PK

Difficult. There were two types of Fallschirm-Infanterie shoulderstraps for Other Ranks: the earlier type bore a chain-stiched "FI" monogram and the later type was embroidered. The "FI" straps were only extant for six months, from 23.6.1938, after the FIK was enlarged to battalion strength on 1.1.1938, to January 1st 1939, when the FIB was transferred to the Luftwaffe as II./Fallschirmj?ger-Rgt 1. Up to then, FIK men had worn the Lehr "L" monogram. The very first "FI" straps were pointed, the more modern rounded style appearing towards the autumn of 1938. There have been attempts to fake these, the most dangerous involving genuine Heer infantry shoulderstraps unpicked, embroidered and restitched. As I look at these, I have to say that the monograms are not exactly like those on the three original examples I have seen. They are close but not quite the same. There again, this could just be a trick of the lens or the angle. The point is that there would have been just one or two production runs of the shoulderstraps, the runs being sub-divided into straps for Privates, Junior NCOs and Senior NCOs, with the tresse applied accordingly during final assembly. One embroidery machine, one template, one or two production runs...identical monograms all the way. The best person to consult would be Eric Queen, of course. As I said, extremely hard to say without a physical examination. Where did your friend find them? PK

I've seen cases like this, but just three in more than thirty years. The "Germany" thing isn't a problem as this jeweller was probably internationally-minded. I don't think there's a problem with this case. In fact, it's gorgeous. Find a nice EK2 for it. PK

Kev, Nice Italian fighting knife! They were based on the MSVN 'daggers', which were inspired by bayonets, and were also informed to some extent by the so-called German "boot knife". Your knife is just the kind one sees tucked into the smocks worn by members of the Folgore. I know of one of these in London, brought back by a now-deceased Nettuno veteran. I've been after it for years. P

That is a corker! Yes...yes...the blade is worn down but, for me, that just adds to the attraction of this lovely piece of memorabilia. The spike was indeed intended for unpicking tangled rigging lines. These knives were also issued to Luftwaffe aircrew although it seems that the bulk of the production was diverted to the Fallschirmtruppe. I'd rather have this example than a mint one. It's a bit like the Berghof spoon I saw a while ago, liberated by a French soldier: he'd carried on in the army until the late 1950s and used the spoon as his daily eating tool. So it is worn down on one side. Wonderful! Not unlike the Agincourt-era pikeman's helmet in the IWM in London, converted into a cooking pot. Same vibe. I don't have a WW2 gravity knife but I have the Bundeswehr one I swapped a woolly-pully for when I was doing my BW para wings. Same sentimental value. Nice one! Real pleasure to see something like this. Happy New Year to everyone! Prosper

Gordon Williamson summed the situation up quite concisely in 2004: "I know some European dealers who are fully aware of the details of the Klietmann / Godet retrikes and won't handle Oaks or Oaks/Swords at any price because they consider them too risky." Much has been made by some prominent collectors who frequent another forum of a 'secret way' of telling the wartime sets apart from the postwar sets. Apparently, it has to do with the hallmarks. Yet the same people who promote these 'secret ways' also deny the possibility of perfect, postwar restrikes using the wartime tooling, in the hands of original Godet employees from the early 1940s, re-employed by the new owner of the Godet enterprise. One cannot have it both ways: one cannot say: "It never happened but, anyway, there are ways of telling them apart". Time for a history lesson. The original Godet & Sohn was wound up after WW2. I don't recall the date offhand. So Dietrich poses a valid question. In the 1960s and 1970s, as some of you know, Frau Anneliese Klietmann ran a business called Die Ordensammlung in premises on Charlottenstra?e, Berlin. This was a retail and mail order business dealing in orders and decorations, including 1957-pattern denazified awards. In the early 1970s, Frau Klietmann got into trouble with the authorities for selling Nazi memorabilia, some of which came from Rudolf Souval in Austria, where the production and sale of such items was not illegal. This was embarrassing for her husband, Dr Kurt Klietmann, author of the seminal reference work on Third Reich medals and badges: "Auszeichnungen des Deutschen Reiches 1936 - 1945" and head of the Institute for the Scientific Research Study of Orders and Awards. At some point, Frau Klietmann had acquired the Godet name and various company assets, including a quantity of dies and tooling. She also employed several people who had worked for the original Godet firm before and during WW2. Some people have contended that her husband Dr Klietmann had nothing to do with his wife's dealings with several prominent high end militaria dealers of the time but others suspect that he was very much involved. Anneliese Klietmann supplied several high end dealers of the time with perfect repops of Third Reich awards made with wartime Godet tooling by qualified specialists who had, in some cases, worked for the original firm. The EL and ELmS were the easiest moneymakers because of their relative simplicity and the absence of the troublesome swastika. Given that the 1957 pattern range of awards supplied by Die Ordenssammlung apparently included Souval-type Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords, it seems clear that the enterprise involving Godet Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords was purely fraudulent. These things were evidently not passed onto collectors via top drawer dealers as copies or restrikes but sold as wartime originals. In my view, whether one could describe Anneliese Klietmann's EL and ELmS as Godet pieces is academic because they were identical to the originals and sold as original, wartime Godet pieces. That's the point, not whether they can legally be described as Godet pieces. I think they can, because she owned the name, the tooling and had the right to produce anything she liked under the Godet trademark. The deception lay in the misrepresentation of these postwar pieces as originals. Of course, Frau Klietmann obviously did not misrepresent her wares. The dealers who did business with her under the counter knew exactly what they were buying. The dealers and other vendors who then resold these items as originals committed the fraud but Frau Klietmann was absolutely complicit in the process. It was a scam to make money from beginning to end. PK

No, they're two separate issues. PK

OK, here goes... As far as I am concerned, Dietrich Maerz wrote an article and I think, despite my occasional digs at him and my tendency to enjoy "spirited" debates with him, that he wrote it in good faith. That aside, I deeply respect him for having the balls to withdraw - in a very public way - his article once it was proved that the "Rounder" wasn't what many people hoped it might be. That shows character and character is to be respected. I have no problem with him at all...even if I do enjoy "doing battle" with him sometimes. I admit that I tend to be less tolerant when it comes to one or two of his acolytes. Unlike them, Maerz grasps the nettle or bramble of truth, and that's the issue for me. If they were big enough to leave behind the baggage of the past, I am sure that I would reciprocate. I'm sure we've all had worse rows with family so it can't be unfixable, can it? We've been very mean to one another but it's only words. How about it, guys? How about we bury the hachet? This forum is what a forum should be. None of the others managed it. Let's not screw this place up. Regarding the questions I've had about MCF, and this is very relevant to the emotions of which Nick speaks: I no longer have anything to do with MCF but regret nothing. MCF served a purpose for me - and for others, but this is a personal statement - in that it drove a wedge between, in those days, "the big two" and prevented their webmasters establishing an unhealthy hegemony over militaria on the web. MCF was brutal, nasty and badly brought-up. However, I like to think it paved the way for others to move away and establish independent websites. As far as I am concerned, GMIC is what I would have wished for MCF but, sadly, corruption prevailed, which is why I stepped away. That's also why you're seeing more of the 'serious' people from MCF here of late. But it was still a force for the good in the end. Now we have GMIC, which is what WAF and GDC, ideally, ought to have been: a place run even-handedly by a team of people who manage to live up the name of the website. Bravo! Hats off to you. I hope that answers your questions. Thank you and good night... PK

I think there is nothing much more to be said. Of course, I meant to type "935/4" rather than "900/4". Simple typo. I suppose, if you're splitting hairs, that you did not refer to "935/4" crosses. What you wrote was: "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!". I just checked their catalogue. Yes, it was a "935" cross. That said, was there not a debate recently about "935/4" crosses? I think quite a few people consider them questionable as well. Anyway, good luck with the research. Always fun to exchange views with you. PK

It's a purely academic point, given that the vast majority of Godet EL and ELmS cannot be proven to be wartime. That is the issue here, not the point in the early 1940s at which Godet decided or was ordered to stamp their awards with the Lieferant number. In fact, even if that information is one day rediscovered, it will bring nobody any closer to being able to tell the difference between wartime and Klietmann-era examples. Face it: with the exception of a few documented, verifiable examples, the vast majority of these things are worth the sum total of their silver content plus a curiosity premium because for every potential buyer at the level at which high end stuff changes hands, there is another who wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, unless they came with that rare, unshakeable provenance. The same now applies to S&L KCs, mint K&Q KCs, solid silver Spanish Crosses and various other expensive things. Looks like the internet ripped the bottom out of the market once some of the people who'd been around for longer than five minutes and knew where the bodies were buried learned how to surf the web and started spilling the beans. All those dealers who set up and financed forum websites to draw collectors together in one place as a body of buyers; little did they know how easily it could backfire on them. That's why some of them are now using classic disinformation tactics to sow confusion and cast doubt on accepted fact. Stir it all up, get people unsure of whether they coming or going, destablise them and then hit them with the hard sell, backed up with some convincing articles on respected internet sites and maybe a magazine article and a book reference or two. PK

No, Brian, that's not at all what I wrote. With regard to S&L KCs and the revelations that most of the examples in circulation appear to have been produced after the war, I think it is reasonable to say that the production and supply of 'perfect copies' of wartime awards by some German firms in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s involved intent to defraud collectors. As for the Rounder affair, what was it if not an attempt to defraud collectors? Fortunately, it was stymied before the idea could be firmly planted in people's minds that the Rounder was a legitimate, genuine wartime KC. This is why you did not see them change hands in significant numbers. You had a Rounder yourself. As many people know, you stated that it was awarded to a relative of yours at Stalingrad, an account presented in at least one reference work as proof that the Rounder was a wartime piece. I expect you believed that it was your relative's KC. That's fine. We've all been mistaken at times. A lot of things in families with stories attached to them turn out to be other than described. But it would be useful to know when this Rounder came into your family as it might help to establish some idea of when these fantasy pieces first appeared. You stated at one point that your mother Vera von Etzel passed it to you, along with a family Pour-le-M?rite. That's fine too. Many RKT families - and RKT themselves - possess postwar copies of their original award, due to loss or whatever. So what is the story of your Rounder? PK

No, Brian, I have nothing to add, really. It's all been said before. People aren't stupid. They read and reflect upon the various statements and debates about this on several forums and they make their own minds up about it. All I will say here is that it's a good thing for some of the people involved in the Rounder affair that they will never have to defend themselves in a court. Season's greetings to you. PK