PKeating

A well-composed response. However, I thought I was being clear in opining that any KC produced on wartime dies after the war but with wartime hallmarks was clearly intended to deceive collectors, anyone suggesting otherwise being either na?ve or disingenuous. My point, the overriding point in relation to S&L KCs, is that the firm evidently did as certain other firms in producing awards identical to their wartime originals for sale on the collectors' market. It is also clear that Type A and Type B dies were in use after WW2. Therefore, one can argue the differences between types until the moon turns green but the fact remains that the vast majority of S&L KCs have to treated with circumspection given the series of revelations about the firm's - choosing my words here! - probable complicity in fake-mongering. You yourself have described them as the most "prolific" of Knight's Cross manufacturers. I imagine you intended no irony in that statement but it is really quite funny under the circumstances. What is far from funny is the situation of all those people left holding 900/4 S&L crosses bought for $8k to $10k who can only hope to get $1k back at auction, if they are lucky. After all, how many people actually want to pay a grand for a fake KC when they buy a perfectly good collection filler or mannequin accessory for a tenth or twentieth of that amount? How many reasonably intelligent people will be prepared to pay upwards of $5k for an "original" but unattributed, unverifiable S&L KC given the firm's evident reuse of their dies and tooling after the war? And now, in addition to the 935/4 crosses, you state that 800/4, 800 and incuse 800 crosses by S&L should be avoided too. In other words, you are admitting that Steinhauer & L?ck KCs are a busted flush as far as any investment potential goes. I would exclude the relative handful with rock-solid provenance from this, of course, but the shadow of doubt now hangs over all S&L KCs. Put bluntly, Steinhauer & L?ck Knights' Crosses of the Iron Cross 1939 are a busted flush as far as any investment potential is concerned. People who own one or more S&L KCs are looking at 90% or more of their investment being wiped out. These are not idiots who bought eBay fakes for two-thirds of the value in the boneheaded belief that they were getting the real thing. These are people who bought these things in good faith from a small group of dealers who trade in high end awards. This S&L scandal is a good example of the effects of forgery and fakery. The already small market for KCs is shrinking as potential new collectors log onto the internet and read all about S&L KCs, K&Q KCs, Godet Oaks and Swords and, of course, "Maybauer" and "Rounder" KCs. What sane or intelligent person would invest thousands in such a risky area? Why do you think the forging of coin and banknotes is considered such a serious crime? Because it devalues currency by reducing public confidence in it. Forgers used to be hanged or branded and mutilated. Accomplices were also severely punished. A bit of direct punishment dished out to dealers and their accomplices by ripped-off collectors might not go amiss, given that there doesn't seem to be any real prospect of punishment or censure from other quarters. Fraud is fraud. PK

Thank you, Gordon. I always thought so too. After all, PK Lieferant numbers occur on, for example, the DKiG and DKiS and logic dictates that they were used on the DK earlier than 1944. The very first German Crosses are unmarked, which suggests that the Lieferant numbers may have started appearing in 1942. Perhaps the same applies to the EL and ELmS. PK

That is not quite how it was but I think there is an embargo on further discussion of the Rounder scam here on GMIC so we ought to drop it. PK

Precisely my point! Nobody knows where to draw the line. That is the essence of the problem with S&L KCs. I am far from alone in this opinion. Given the impossibility of establishing "the line" between wartime and postwar crosses, which you tacitly admit, your assertion that the flawed S&L KCs are wartime rather than postwar fakes produced on dies that have been shown to have cracked sometime after the institution of the 1957-pattern crosses strikes me as unsustainable. Your interpretation of what I say or write is beyond my control. Sorry. I take it you mean a set by Godet? There are plenty of detectable fakes from other sources. If I could supply a photograph of a "proven" postwar Godet set of EL or ELmS, then there would be no problem with the award, would there? The only advice I can offer is to gather together as many photos as you can of these awards, line them up and tell yourself one in three might be wartime pieces. This brings us full circle, back to the issue of the impossibility of telling wartime and postwar S&K KCs apart. I am afraid that the onus is not upon me to produce the proof you request. It is more a question of a vendor producing satisfactory proof for a buyer of the originality of an S&L KC or a set of Godet add-ons. That is the issue. PK

Well, I am afraid that I cannot think of any way of helping you two gentlemen. Sorry. I hope you manage to sort it out. PK

So no awards had PK codes until 1944? I cannot recall reading that anywhere. I must have missed something. Oh dear. Perhaps you could show me some documentary evidence to the effect that PK numbers did not exist before 1944? I must go and check all my reference books and files. This is confusing. So, are you suggesting that the Lieferant number system was not introduced before 1944? Or are you referring to the order stipulating the application of Lieferant numbers in 1944 in the case of Knights' Crosses? Are you saying that no set of Godet Oakleaves or Oakleaves with Swords bore the firm's Lieferant code before mid-1944? Does this mean, in fact, that Godet stamped all of their Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords with their LDO code from 1940/41 to 1944? Gosh. I always thought that the LDO numbers were for retail pieces. Just goes to show that one cannot always trust what one reads, doesn't it? I cannot recall having seen any unhallmarked Godet EL and ELmS although I gather there are some examples. So Godet never marked their EL and ELmS with the Lieferant number before mid-1944? Fascinating! You come up with new information all the time. PK

Now that these crosses have been exposed for what they are, and people have lost tons of money, there seems to be an initiative to salvage something from the trainwreck by rebranding these fakes as 'not quite fakes but sort of genuine crosses from the company that brought you the real thing back in World War Two'. However, the fact remains that any postwar S&L KC bearing wartime hallmarks (and a wartime-style finish) is nothing but a fake intended to deceive collectors. Now it is an exposed fake. That is all it is. We've been through this "flawed S&L" thing too many times. Readers can use the search engine on various forums to find discussions about it between some fairly heavyweight contenders. I will always view flawed S&L KCs with suspicion for reasons I have stated elsewhere on several occasions. In fact, I now view almost all 1939-pattern S&L KCs with a wary eye, except in the handful of cases where they come with indisputable provenance. I am not too excited by mint condition K&Q KCs either. The Rounder Affair has been done to death here and elsewhere and there is not much point in further discussion of it, except to observe with weary amusement that several of those involved in the scam remain members in good standing of various sister forums while several of those involved in exposing the scam remain banned from the forums in question. I don't wish to argue with anyone for the sake of argument but I don't think you ought to encourage the newbies who will read this to pay thousands of dollars or euros for fakes just because the fakers happened to be the firm that made the crosses during WW2. A fake is a fake, period. What next? The "rehabilitation" of Souval KCs on the grounds that they probably made a few examples when tendering for the government contract in 1939? The fact is that 1939-pattern Steinhauer & L?ck KCs are now like Godet Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords: unless they come with rockhard provenance - and a few do, fortunately - there is no practical way of telling a cross made in 1944 from one made in 1954, 1964 or 1974. A 1984 "London" issue does look different but hey, at least it was made using the real dies so it must be worth thousands too. I am afraid that there is no feel-good factor to buying or owning a fake instead of the genuine article. PK

Come now! S&L wasn't producing illicit 1939-pattern KCs after the war, complete with wartime hallmarks, for the occasional veteran who wished to flout laws forbidding the display of the swastika at reunions! They produced these crosses to make money from collectors, who bought them because they believed them to be original, wartime pieces. And then, in 1981, they sold the cracked dies to a London dealer, who continued production. So Chris is entirely correct in condemning these crosses as fakes. They are not restrikes, or reissues. They are fakes because they were made with the intention of deceiving people. If some people wish to pay $1,000.00 for one of these crosses, that is their right. However, the crosses will never be original, no matter how many people form cabals and opinion groups to promote the notion. One would probably be better-off buying one of the crisper Latvian fakes or, failing that, a Rounder for less than a grand. I was told by a dealer who preferred to remain nameless, obviously, that the "ex-works" price of the Rounder was around $300.00. I expect there are a few dealers who might let a chap have one for $400.00 if he asked discreetly enough! LOL! Like the S&L repops, the Rounder was "almost original" for a while. Far better to save up the shekels and buy a real KC. One could always start with a damaged one for a couple of grand. Prices have come down a bit, no matter what some people say, because of a loss of confidence amongst the public at large and the appalling economic crisis nobody wishes to acknowledge. Walk up to any dealer today with five grand in cash and you will walk away with a decent Knight's Cross. Maybe not a Lazy 2 Juncker or a Zimmermann, but a decent run-of-the-mill cross nonetheless. You might even get it for four grand if we're talking Euros and his rent is due. That is the reality. PK

Erich Hartmann received the ELmS on 4.7.1944, having received the EL on 2.3.1944. All we can glean from the markings on Hartmann's two awards, in terms of timeline, is that they were supplied by Godet to the Pr?sidialkanzlei as part of an official order sometime between the latter half of 1941, when the second pattern Oakleaves design was introduced, and early to mid-1944, when Hartmann was invested with them. In other words, they were official award pieces made sometime between mid-1941 and the dates, respectively, of the awards to Hartmann. There is no reason to be suspicious of a set of Godet ELmS bearing the "21" mark and awarded in 1941, allowing that we are talking about awards with verifiable provenance predating the Frau Klietmann skulduggery of the 1960s and 1970s. There could be some cause for concern if a group appeared with a set of Godet ELmS marked "L/50" and said to have been awarded by the F?hrer to such-and-such a person in 1941. It would not follow that these were fake but it would be unlikely that they were the actual award piece. Let me be more precise for the benefit, at least, of people reading this thread for educational purposes. In fact, I shall be boring and repetitive in an attempt to force a passage through the misinformation and disinformation. Several months elapsed between the institution of the ELmS on 17.7.1941 and the LDO ban on retail sales of Germany's highest awards. Between July and the end of 1941, several firms, including Godet, produced both Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords for retail purposes. The link to eBay in this thread shows a set by Steinhauer & L?ck with a certificate by Dr Klietmann. Now, even though his wife appears to have engaged in some questionable enterprises during her time at the helm of Godet in the 1960s and 1970s, Dr Klietmann seems to have been honest and, moreover, qualified to authenticate awards, which is more than can be said for some of the people issuing Certificates of Authenticity. The majority of these retail pieces were appropriated by the authorities after the ban on retail sales. In most cases, they bore LDO marks although a few appear not to have been marked at all. So, from early 1942, recipients of various grades of the Knight's Cross sometimes received LDO-marked examples from the stocks appropriated and held by the authorities. Hartmann's Oakleaves are of the second type, with the flatter reverse for, most students agree, easier attachment of the longer riband loop required in the case of the Oakleaves with Swords. The first type had a more pronounced concave reverse. So they postdate July 1941. The Oakleaves of the ELmS set are obviously second pattern for the reason I have just stated. Both awards occur with "21" and "L/50" marks but I would suggest that LDO-marked Godet ELmS are rather rare, again for the reasons stated in this post. Perhaps, on reflection, it is more accurate to say that original examples, with verifiable provenance, are rather rare as LDO-marked Godet ELmS became far less rare in the 1960s and 1970s! So did their Oakleaves. Regarding Christopher Ailsby's question about L/50-marked Eagle Orders: if retail sales of the Eagle Order were also forbidden at some point - something I am unaware of as I have never paid the Eagle Order much attention - then it would follow that LDO-marked pieces were given to recipients at official award ceremonies, as with Knight's Cross recipients. If not, then it might not mean that one was looking at a postwar repop; Godet could just as easily have sent the PK an award taken from stocks intended for supply to retail outlets. However, I tend to be nervous of Godet Third Reich awards in general, because of the extent of Frau Klietmann's evident chicanery. The only high end "Godet" award with which I feel really comfortable is their Knight's Cross...because it was made by C F Zimmermann and the dies appear to have been lost, if the rarity of this type of cross is a reliable indication. PK

I don't think the marks have much relevance to the award date. So these are Erich Hartmann's EL and ELS? I gather that these examples have impeccable provenance. It would be interesting to place them beside a couple of "unattributed" examples bought in the 1960s or 1970s from one of the top end dealers known to have been friendly with Frau Klietmann of Godet and to ask certain self-appointed cognoscenti to explain the differences to us. PK

Beautiful "Schinkelform" EK2! Nice to see a period Spanish Civil War Medal with the period variation riband, whose red was not as vivid as that of the postwar, replacement issues one could buy in Spanish tailors' shops until a few years ago. PK

The flouting of the regulations by various firms - vaulted EK1, zinc and brass-centrered EK and RK etc etc - is largely why Dr D?hle and the LDO decided to enforce the regulations early in 1941. Did S&L press that tooling back into service for the 1957 re-issue? Note to WW2PO: Gordon knows more about this subject than most of us have forgotten. If you're interested in reading up on any aspect of the Iron Cross of 1939, including the Knight's Cross and all its grades, you ought to acquire his book. Paddy

My dear Bill, Thank you very much. I just remembered that I had seen these pictures, on a website whose bookmark I seem to have lost. Very kind of you to post them for me. I must add one of these to my modest collection. P

Eichenlaub were produced by Godet bore either the PKA code "21" or the LDO code L/50. There were two types. They were made of 900 silver. The "21" Godet Oakleaves are generally accepted as being the award pieces while the "L/50" examples were for retail sale. Godet was the sole firm authorised to supply Oakleaves to the Pr?sidialkanzlei. However, C E Juncker also made Oakleaves, usually marked L/12 with an 800 silver mark. So did Meybauer, who marked their pieces L/13. Steinhauer & L?ck are also believed to have produced Oakleaves. When retail sales of the Knight's Cross were forbidden, LDO-marked pieces were appropriated by the Pr?sidialkanzlei and awarded to recipients in the normal way. The Godet dies and tooling were used during the 1960s and 1970s to produce restrikes of the wartime awards that are indistinguishable from the real thing. This happened during the tenure of Frau Anneliese Klietmann, wife of Dr Kurt Klietmann. The fakes, for that is what they were, were supplied to high end but less than honest dealers in various countries and many ended up in collections. Some collectors assert that the restrikes are distinguishable from the originals but nobody has ever been able to give a coherent explanation for these assertions. Other collectors, myself included, would not touch a Godet set with a ten-foot pole, unless it came from a truly unimpeachable, documented source. Even then, Ritterkreuztr?ger and their families have been known to swindle collectors with fakes. There you go. Hope this is helpful. Paddy Keating

But of course! I had completely forgotten them. PK Nr 123. I don't think I have ever seen one. Paddy

And here's another one. These are actually rather rare and qualify, I believe, as the only Iron Crosses produced outside the Reich, unless you count the ones made in Japan and onboard ship. PK

Stephen mentioned that there would be some corrections as well. PK

Humbling. Thank you very much for posting this link. PK

I know the Gaunt issue and these are hard to find. I have one to a man who was in the Far East and it is beautifully struck but has no Gaunt mark. Just to disgress for a moment, Hendrik: did Gaunt make the Resistance Medal? PK

That is desperate, isn't it? Hope the buyer was a shill rather than a newbie. However, thanks to Luftmensch for cheering me up with that wonderful cased example with the lapel pin.

Impressive. Looks hardly worn, in the sense that, unless my eyes deceive me, you can still make out the overspray from its time as a black helmet. I wouldn't be worried about the Dachau/Oberbayern connection. It's merely an historical object. Not every SS man who spent time at Dachau was connected with the prison camp part of the complex although I'll grant you that a member of the Oberbayern Standarte probably was. However, it is not as if the helmet was worn by a guard at Treblinka. PK

Looks like the smaller FFL (Free French) M?daille Coloniale. Impressive group. Probably served as a military attach? to a few royal courts in the empire or soon-to-be former empire. PK

Hallo Rick! Stogieman isn't wrong in referring to the "late 1970s" lore. The first rayback die tryouts were in the late 1970s. I believe a few unbacked badges were struck in various white metals and in silver. The silver was, as far as I know, standard Sterling, which never looks quite like period .800 or even .935 continental alloys. More dies came in the early 1980s, specifically around the time of the Royal Wedding in 1981. They were produced by the same small group of characters who were behind other fakes like the DFCs, DCMs and rare Crimea clasps. That in fact is what got them into serious hot water as it qualified as forgery from the viewpoint of the authorities, as these medals were British Crown items. Not that they ever faced arrest but they were learnt upon. Some of the dies could have left the UK in the interim and fetched up in the Hamburg area and, according to the lore machine, Paris. Geoff Hurst is long dead but I see the names of some of the half-dozen or so involved cropping up here and there from time to time. I can spot the "London Badges" a mile off and can only echo Stogieman's caveat about the extreme rarity of genuine, period Bavarian badges. The Prussian ones are rare enough but Bavarian ones qualify as unicorn droppings. Prussian Marine Pilot Badges are also incredibly rare but you wouldn't think so if you took a tour around the internet or any large militaria show. Same applies to Zeppelin Badges, 1921 Tank Badges and so on. PK

Well, the internet has made it easier for collectors to exchange information, thereby making it harder for crooks to swindle them, and a lot of high end fakes have been detected in the past few years. Back in the day, before the internet exposed the majority of collectors to the tiny minority of awkward types who took a "forensic" approach to their hobby, people didn't ask so many questions. In those days, for instance, if a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 was made of three pieces and not obviously by Souval, it was accepted as genuine. 99% of people then would not have been able to tick off the authorised manufacturers of the KC on their fingers as they can nowadays. Of course, fakers are still trying it on, one of the new strategies involving hitherto unknown variants about which experts from nowhere compose convincing articles, illustrated with photos of said variant supplied by people who swear blind that their ancestors received that very item by special courier whilst lying wounded in the snows beside the Volga. 90% of collectors having a jackdaw or jackass mentality, they lap it up like Kool-Ade because they want to believe it. I see all sorts of things posted on these forums whose origins I recall from a misspent youth but I have largely given up trying to warn people because they don't want to be warned that what they have is a piece of junk. I am banned from at least half the forums on the web for trying to promote truth and reality. Not that I care, mind you. But in the end, what is the point of wasting energy on lost causes? It's a bit like the art forger who fooled the art world with some "Da Vinci" drawings: when he revealed the truth, they treated him like a madman...because they had vested interests in suppressing his truth. Same with a lot of these expensive fakes. PK

Back around 1981/82, a very naughty man who went by the name of Geoff Hurst and a couple of elderly diecutters in the Clerkenwell district of London produced some beautiful dies and tools for Imperial rayback flight badges... Forgers often incorporated tiny marks or flaws in order that they and their friends be able to quickly identify their work. It's rather like the punctuation marks on the fake Conrath documents sold to George Petersen years ago by a couple of Hamburg-based dealers, one of whom operates an authentication service, despite being unable, it seems, to provide any evidence that he is formally recognised as an expert according to relevant German law. And that's all I will say. PK