PKeating

Just inviting him to PM me, telling me who he is and where he lives because the French collecting scene is quite small. I put it in French to see if, in fact, he actually knows the language. It is nice to reply occasionally to non-English speakers in their own language as a courtesy even if this is an anglophone forum. It sometimes makes people feel more welcome, especially new members like Frontkampfer. Of course, he could be American...

PK

Thanks Micha for your help

Fkr

Est-ce tu es un collectioneur fran?ais, mon p?te? Dis-moi, ou est-ce que tu habites et comment est-ce que tu t'appelles? Envoies-moi un message. Car, franchement, je n'en suis pas s?r.

Bye bye Franz...

PK

What are the measurements across the arms?

PK

As we see time and again, Certificates of Authenticity are often not worth the paper upon which they are printed. A few dealers have made quite a lot of money out of authenticating militaria but none of them has, as far as I know, ever been able to produce any official qualification according them expert status. Dietrich is right about the dots but the immediate giveaway, surface details aside, is the hallmark reading SILBER rather than SiLBER. It would look fine on a display mannequin but that's about it.

PK

The one on the left appears to have started life as a non-vaulted cross.

PK

I really must stop editing my copy so fast! Still, it says pretty much the same thing so no problem. I look forward to reading your book. As you rightly said, none of us is infallible. Perfection is but an aspiration and as the Muslims believe, only God can achieve it.

PK

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

No-one has answered my question.... why has the exact same technique not been used to date the flawed crosses?

If this has been done, why are the details not put forward?

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

You tossed that comment on the Table ..now you won't explain it ?

Doesn't need explaining...

Would you care to retract it then?

No

A "Rounder", for those who haven't seen one.

Absolutely untrue! Dr. Hanson was 'suspended' at that point in time and could not post. His findings were posted by Peter Wiking and can still be found here:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ghlight=Rounder

The Dr. Hansen's suspension was lifted to explain the E-Bay sale and during this process happened to what Stogieman eluded to and Dr. Hansen was banned, at WAF and here also. It was NOT beacuse of the Rounder!

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

Keating mixes up the time line and the evidence. First of all, Dr. Hansen was NOT the only one conducting an investigation. He was, however, the one who nailed down the compound and he deserves credit for this and his overall drive to find the truth. His findings were published at WAF quite some time before he became a Moderator at MCF. Keating is constantly ignoring this.

Revisionism...

Regarding the withdrawal of the article about the Rounder Keating brings up again and again I can only say that at the point of writing this is what I thought. Just as Mr. Williamson thought the Rounder to be genuine when he published his book, just as a lot of other thought about the subject. Now I openly admitt that I am not infallible and I still have to meet somebody who is. Of course, now everybody knows ...

I resent the notion by Keating that I (and others) did supress information deliberately. It is not true and I can only speculate why he suggests so. He also seems to forget that it was my Rounder, which I did send to Dr. Hansen for his first SEM investigation. And all those findings where published as WAF also.

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.

Now back to the issue at hand:

Keating and anybody else can think whatever they want. I'm not preaching a religion and nobody has to believe it. I think, however, that the findings have helped the community to have a better grip on the issue and I'm delighted that Keating at least agrees with the A and B Type.

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

Now, since we are into absolutes now, let me ask you this:

How do you know that flawed A-Type crosses are post war?

How do you know that the 935-4 was NOT at Klessheim

I don't. But I have seen many things accorded "Schlo? Klessheim" provenance...

How do you know that all the provenance for flawed A-Types must be wrong

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.

And I know that you don't know!

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

I have outlined my position several times. That's all I knwo about this subject. Take some crosses and look for yourself.

Oh, but I am very familiar with the Steinhauer & L?ck KC...

But we are making progress:

PK, post #13:

"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, post #88, regarding the repaired die:

"That was never in dispute, as far as I am concerned.

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