PKeating

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

PK

Regarding #96: I have never been in disagreement with the opinions summarised by your post, ekhunter. As I said, Maerz's work has merit. He wonders why I refer to the "Rounder" issue. I think it is relevant in terms of establishing the stringency with which he treats some of the evidence upon which he relies when advancing his opinions. Had Dr Hansen been successfully silenced, I doubt if Maerz's "Rounder" article would have been withdrawn by its author. Once I gave Dr Hansen a platform on MCF to publish his findings, the cat was out of the bag and there was nothing Maerz or his fellow moderators over there could do about it.

PK

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

PK

Me again, sorry. But the editing by the poster while I'm typing a response is sometimes throwing me off.

There is a difference between "theory"/"thesis" and "misinformation" - at least in my understanding. I clearly state why I think the die was repaired during the late war period. A misinformation in my book is presented if I would deliberately and categorically state so, but I would know better. So please "tolerate" my theory. No need to tolerate misinformation since there is none.

You should be glad that I am editing and moderating my posts. Anyway, thank you for tacitly admitting that you "think" the die was repaired during the late war period. I "think" it was repaired after the war, for reasons I have stated in this thread and elsewhere. It boils down to the question of probability versus possibility. It is possible that the die was repaired in 1944 but is it really probable? I think it improbable. You think otherwise. Even you have been unable, so far, to produce a single flawed S&L KC with provenance confirming it to be a cross awarded to and worn by a Ritterkreuztrager before 9.5.1945. When we showed an unflawed 1957 KC, you ignored it at first but when pressed, insisted that it was a post-1957 "second type" despite the fact that this was clearly not the case. You even cited another unnamed person who had high definition photographs of it to prove your assertion but, of course, that came to nothing in the end.

I have to say that the criteria you employ in deciding what constitutes proof when composing your theses are, as the record shows, rather lax. I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible about this but how else can I say this? I think you tend to try to make the evidence, such as it is, fit the pre-conceived opinion rather than allowing the evidence to lead you towards a conclusion. This is why you took Brian Hildemann's story about his "Rounder" at face value, without exercising due diligence or even asking Hildemann the kind of probing questions that caused him to blow a fuse online and admit that he was lying, after offering several different accounts of his "Rounder" KC's history.

I take no pleasure in this, by the way. I wish you'd just let it drop or, at least, stop peddling it here on this website where people are not banned for disagreeing with you. This, for me, is about as sporting as shooting a tethered nanny goat with a 10-bore elephant gun at close range.

PK

I believe Mike is right. I think Dietrich's point, or points, are in the consensus, and many would like to see this come to some type of conclusion one way or another.

What "consensus"? Are you trying to imply that everyone agrees with Maerz's assertions? The conclusion is that some people distrust flawed S&L KCs and others don't. That's it in a nutshell. Neither camp can prove its theories. The salient aspect, for me, is the aggressive and personally abusive manner in which the camp in favour of the questionable flawed crosses seeks to silence or discredit those who disagree with them.

Dr Hansen continues to be vilified, having been banned from the website on which Mr Maerz moderates the Iron Cross forum for trying to publish his opposing, scientifically-based findings about "Rounder" KCs while those involved in promoting these fakes or fantasy pieces remain in good standing there. These people include the individual who made up a cock-and-bull story - and later admitted in public that he had lied - to provide 'provenance' for a "Rounder" used as a cornerstone of Maerz's thesis in that article. He was then the target of smear tactics after he or his son resold the "Rounder" he purchased for testing purposes. The fact that he sold it for a fraction of the price of a real KC was naturally ignored by the lynch mob.

Why would I or any other fairly serious-minded person waste time arguing this matter on a point-by-point basis with people who are not interested in getting at the truth? It would be like arguing with Flat Earthers or fundamentalists of any kind. Futile! We have our take on it and you have yours. Why can't you just let it go at that? Buy as many dodgy S&L KCs as you like. Trade them amongst yourselves for thousands of dollars, euros or pounds. If you're all so convinced that Maerz is right, why keep hammering away at heretics like me? Just tell yourselves that I am mad and ignore me.

PK

Many Collectors are reading this thread and ... I think

Dietrich has a great point. Instead of all the facts being clouded by jumping

around between the various Flaws and who held what or knows what ...and

since it's obvious his findings are being questioned here , I for one would like to see

an article written to refute his work on a point by point basis. This is the

only way to settle it.

I'm not "jumping around"! I have remained doggedly consistent for over five years, since this subject was initially aired in 2001.

Point by Point ..no other comments , no back tracking , no excuses ..this subject should be brought to a head now.

I think I have expressed the opposing view to Maerz's theses with absolute clarity and simplicity. There is no point in a point-by-point refutation of Maerz's theses because the simple questions I have posed address all of his points in a broad manner.

PK

I didn't challenge you but thanks for the list anyway! For which one's did you serve as an editor, if I might ask? Just curious.

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.

At least we have an understanding that the die was repaired at one point in time. So that is good!

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

The earlier examples do not show any beading flaws, the later do so. So it would seem logic to assume that the models w/o beading flaws are stamped earlier and since we have 57's w/o such flaws and furthermore the models 935-4, 935, 800-4, incuse 800 and 800 do also don't show such flaws. From that I would conclude that those were made before 1957.

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.

As I said several times above, I personally think that the 935-4 is the first B-type. I base this on multiple examples I could study under the microscope and subsequent comparison to the other models - concentrating on the wear and definition of the dent row. Also, I happen to believe that the reports of the Klessheim found are correct. But that could be debated since it could be a 'fairy tale'. Fact is t this point in time that none of the B-types are solidly attached to a legitimate recipient.

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.

The original S&L debate was initially centered about the beading flawed crosses. All of them were considered post war since there were the very ugly unmagnetic unmarked pieces which also showed beading flaws and were clearly post war. The existence of non-beading flawed 57 crosses would make one think that ALL beading flawed crosses are therefore post-57. However, some people clearly testified to the existence of pre-45 flawed crosses. This was the riddle.

Who "testified"? Who are these people and where is the evidence?

The discovery of two die stages in conjuction with the different beading flaw pattern at least did prove one thing for sure: The pre-45 A-Type crosses with flawed beading do pre-date the 935-4. Thus the existence of genuine flawed crosses (A-type) was proved when taking the 935-4 Klessheim found into consideration.

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.

There is, however, one scenario that is perhaps possible. And I guess this is what Mr. Keating is aluding to:

IF the die was repaired in (lets say and for the sake of discussion) in 1950, logic would tell us that crosses possibly produced between May 1945 and 1950 would all be heavily flawed A-Types (since not yet repaired) and all other non-beading flawed B-types must have been produced between (to stay with the example) 1950 and 1957 (after the repai) or maybe some even later.

The only difference to what I am thinking is the 935-4 model. I believe this to be a good one and the others to be in a 'grey area'. Whether this grey area is 1946-1957 or 1950 to 1957 is for determination of 'genuine' irrelevant. The other difference, however, is the possibility of pots-war flawed A-Types.

My position hinges on the Klessheim found of 935-4's and - to a certain extend - on the quality of those crosses. Up to now, the following B-Type crosses made by S&L are considered 'genuine' in the lierature: 935-4, 935, 800-4, 800 incuse, 800.

I do not share this believe. How could such a stance be considered dealer friendly, by the way?

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.

The very late unmagnetic, flawed crosses and the ruined die Keating is mentioning was never ever under discussion by anybody.

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

... ;-) "Getragenes Feldstuck" can be interprated to mean anything basically......

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

I often think WW1 paper is the ONE single field of German militaria that has not spun out of proportion when it comes to price.

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

It has been confirmed by somebody who has very detailled pictures of the cross in question that it is and always was a 2nd type 57 pattern.

Why the cross you show has some flaws is irrelevant for my purpose since it is clearly a 2nd pattern - also! I'm only interested in the evolution of the original die.

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...

Now I got it!

The comparison between the beading flaws of the A-Type and the beading flaws of the B-Type was a kind of lacmus test. It would have been very difficult to sustain the theory of B-Types as a 'new' incarnation of the A-Type IF the beading flaws of - let's say - a 80's made cross would be the same as the ones of a pre 45 A-Type.

Don't forget, the big debate was and still seems to be about the beading flaws and the occurance on different crosses, i.e. those with provenance during the war and the crazy 'english' made ones. When one realizes that the flaws have a different pattern it becomes clear that two different types of the same phenomena are present.

Dietrich

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