PKeating

The inescapable flip side of that particular theory however (and all we have are theories, no established facts - which we will probably never know) is that if unflawed wartime struck frames were used in postwar 1957 pieces, then they may well also have been used in postwar assembled 1939 patterns with swastika, so the unflawed aspect could no longer give total assurance that a Steinhauer RK was original pre-May 1945.

There's the rub.

I also find the debate over S&L markings rather interesting. Many of the markings found on S&L pieces have been considered dubious (incuse 800, 800 4 etc) with the argument that there was no reason for S&L to use such a wide range of marks. Given that during wartime S&L was one of the Reich's biggest producers of military decorations, and that after the war they predominantly only served the smaller collector market (as far as wartime decoratuions are concerned), why would they need to use such a wide range of stamps on postwar pieces, if these stamps were not already in existence ? Are we really expected to believe that they ordered up a new range of stamps just to be used on postwar strikings ?

I don't think there is much of a debate, as such. Just a blizzard of misinformation...

PK

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

PK

QED. Thank you, Gordon, for your timely intervention. I remain puzzled as to why the 1957 cross in question was mis-identified with such conviction as a second pattern "dipped ring" type when it is so obviously not. It reminds me of a painful discussion on the other website about Army Para Badges, when someone posted an original side-by-side with a fake and insisted that they were exactly the same, even though this was clearly not the case. I suppose some people only see what they want or need to see.

Anyway, it is quite apparent to anyone with half-functional eyes that this is a good example of an unflawed 1957 Steinhauer & L?ck KC whose frame was clearly struck on the S&L frame dies...before they developed cracks that led to the beading flaws. The only conclusion, surely, to be drawn from this is that the cracks in the frame dies developed sometime after the introduction of the 1957 pattern KC and that all S&L KCs with those flaws running along the outer frame beading postdate 1957.

I re-read Dietrich Maerz's article after he suggested that I hadn't read it at all and while it is well laid-out and appears convincing, I still see no hard proof backing up the timeline aspect of his arguments. The article, and his later posts on the subject, tell me that:

Early "Type A" crosses had no flaws and are definitely wartime.

Later "Type A" crosses had developing flaws and are definitely wartime.

Steinhauer & L?ck effected repairs to their KC frame dies, altering the nature of the flaws.

"Type B" crosses are likely to be of postwar manufacture.

Hmmmm. OK, but this fails to explain the existence both of unflawed, mint 935-4 crosses, which are now generally viewed as suspect, and unflawed 1957 pattern crosses with frames struck on the same dies as crosses accepted as being wartime pieces.

In conclusion, therefore, unflawed S&L crosses obviously predate the point after 1957 at which the frame dies developed cracks while flawed crosses postdate that point. S&L may or may not have effected repairs to the frame dies but if they did, it was far more likely to have been during the period when they were generating income from the illicit manufacture and sale of 1939 pattern crosses for the militaria market. Why, during the war, would a firm like S&L bother trying to repair frame dies that were so damaged as to produce unsightly strikings? They would simply have tasked one of their in-house diecutters with making a new set of dies, especially as it concerned Germany highest award for military valour, and they would naturally have been keen to avoid trouble with the LDO so as to retain their prestigious licence to produce the award.

I cannot prove this. Dietrich may be right. I don't happen to think he is right but I am not out to change anyone's mind. I am merely putting an alternative opinion in front of people. Dietrich's findings have been published on the internet and in print media and will, I gather, soon find theiy way into a book. However, I do not think that he has addressed the question of the existence of unflawed 1957 KCs by S&L. His response, when I pressed him here, that this 1957 cross was a "dipped ring" second type cross is not really a satisfactory one; he failed to answer my question, which sought an explanation for the existence of such crosses long after the dies were supposedly damaged, according to his school of thought. Instead, he kept repeating that the cross was a second pattern "dipped ring" type, when it is so obviously not.

PK

I know it's complicated but I can't help it. There are a ton of S&L models on the market and most of them are post war! here I agree 100% with Prosper! And caution is absolutely necessary!

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

PK

Good luck with the book.

PK

Prosper,

reading to your eloquent answer, sprinkled as usual, I still don't know what is what in your opinion regarding Klein? But for the record and in accordance to your first statement: Yes, the post war models are different to the wartimes.

Since we both will not be in a position to buy a genuine set, it might be academical for us to. However, if you ever wnat to buy one, I'm happy to be of assistance.

I like the jester thing! I go along with that.

Dietrich

I thought I made my opinion regarding Klein very clear! The postwar wartime-pattern models are identical to the wartime originals while the postwar copies made for sale as copies are different.

Thanks for the offer of assistance but I already have my points of reference, having examined two known sets of originals. That said, it is indeed academic because, like Godet EL and ELmS, I am wary of them.

I take it you know the function of the jester?

PK

Prosper,

you remind me of today 12 AM. We also had some fire crackers with a short fuse.

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!

I'm terribly sorry that I 'scored a point' with you. For me it's not about 'besting' you. I give that point back, I don't need it.

It's not a point I minded conceding. I merely pointed out that it was hardly relevant to the main issue.

Even if I would have known for sure that it was a typo and not a mix up between me an Kimmel (don't know what it means but it doesn't sound good...), I would have corrected. Not to 'score' but for the benefit of other readers who might not know better and take it as correct. That's all!

Not sure what this means but...whatever.

Since you turned up the notch of discussion a little bit let me say to you in all clarity that I don't like what you say between lines. I do not cast doubt on any fakes or whatever else you might say about me. What I do is to voice my opinion about a subject. If that opinion does not go confirm with what you know, believe or think, tell me and prove it. But don't call me a spin doctor. Stay factual and on the topic.

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.

If you don't know the facts, it's just rumors. I only said that the post war Klein's are different, which you confirmed by saying "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." That's fine and correct. But then you say: "The point is that Klein apparently produced perfect replicas of the wartime type." Now what is it? Can't be both and it is NOT both!

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?

I only say that there are no perfect copies (which you confirmed). So why do you call me a spin doctor?

This is uncalled for:

"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"

What is the deeper meaning of such a sentence? I just don't get it!!!

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.

And I don't think you are a clown, but do care about what you write. This is the essence of every forum. However, I will make it my MO in the future to ask poliyely if something you posted was a typo or just flat out wrong information. If you feel that I feel you are a clown, it's just your feeling.

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

I'm also sorry if I made the impression I'm answering in a frivolos matter, trying to "best you', 'score points' or somehow do your person any bad. I also did not try to correct you and I didn't mean the oaks or swords or such as the highest award. I meant the Grand Cross, which is higher than the Golden Oakleaves with Diamonds, but okay.

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.

Maybe my sentence was not constructed in a perfect sense, but I did not want to say that 935-4's are awarded. I thought the commata was enought to make the difference.

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...

I also did NOT ignore the beading flaws and I say it again: the pattern of the beading flaws between the A type and B type is DIFFERENT!!!

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.

Regarding the publishing of the article -even if you would, which you wouldn't - you are too late anyway. It has been published by the Militaria Magazine in Germany about a year ago (w/o editing but to good success) and just recently in the Military Advisor (also w/o editing). So far, nobody came forward with a contradiction or such. Quite the contrary. I'm getting lots of e-mails confriming the findings.

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 also thank you for your advise regarding possible subjects I should turn my attention to. I fear it's to late. The next work will be about the whole RK series including the Grand Cross and Star and it will not be a master piece of the english language, word for word crafted to sustain all attacks on semantics. But it will be equipped with nice pictures and explanations and it will be very valuable. And it will also include a very nice and comprehensible explanation of the A and B-type S&L.

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

I also want to say that you are the first with problems of clarity regarding the subject.

That's not quite true, is it?

PK

Back to the topic. The 57 cross you showed is the second pattern of the 57 edition from S&L and has a dipping ring. Of course, it's not the 'dipping ring' fake.

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.

This is the second pattern of the 1957 issue (dipping ring)....

Really?

Not realy the highest award and some of the higher ones show problems also. But we don't need to touch on that here. I don't know why, who and what happened. But everybody can see for himself. It's not my invention.

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.

Not supported by the evidence of awarded crosses, the 935-4 and - more important - by the thraces of the flaws (NOT the beading flaws!)

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.

Again, I will pay you $ 50.00 for the cross shown above at you friend site! And also again, the B-Type developed the BEADING flaws later, I'm using the other flaws for determination.

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 don't need to be sorry and don't be afraid. Have a look again and see the differences in the flaws NOT beading flaws. Regrading the Rounder I'm happy it didn't change your mind ... It could have happened, judging by some of your remarks regarding the Rounder in earlier discussions. But that is a dead issue, at least for me.

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.

Exotica on display at a show in the United States

Only twenty-seven Ritterkreuztr?ger received the Brillanten, making it a very rare award. The last set of allegedly genuine Brillanten sold reportedly realised around $100,000.00 US early in 2004. This was a silver B St?ck set and changed hands between two well known collectors. However, there are other examples for sale, including three sets said to have been awarded to Adolf Galland, Hermann Graf and Gordon Gollob. These three examples can be seen in Wolfe-Hardin's showcase at any major show in the USA. It is interesting that there have been no takers amongst the multi-millionaire collectors Wolfe-Hardin count amongst their clientele. One would have thought that the Galland Brillanten would have been snapped up quickly by any of the collectors with sufficient disposable income.

In 1990, the Deutsches Ordensmuseum published a list of the known fate of genuine examples of the Brillianten. ?A? refers to the platinum sets and ?B? to the silver versions. Not every Brilliantentr?ger received two sets. Ramcke, for instance, received just one set. The set attributed to Marseille which is on display at the Luftwaffe Museum in Utersen is a copy and there is some question as to whether Marseille actually received the Brillanten before his death. Other RKT, like Adolf Galland, received more than two sets.

According to the DO, just two sets were unaccounted for in 1990, both of these being A St?ck platinum Brillanten. Klein of Hanau produced most of the wartime Brillianten and also made reproductions after the war. Some early sets were apparently made by Godet and the first three recipients, Werner M?lders, Adolf Galland and Gordon Gollob, are said to have received these "1st Type" Godet Brillanten at their investitures. The set attributed to Gollob in Wolfe-Hardin's showcase certainly appear to be Godet Brillianten. The set attributed to Graf looks like a Klein piece but the Brillanten set said to have come from the Galland family looks unlike either of the other two.

Brillantentr?ger Adolf Galland

Anyone who has read Galland?s memoir The First and The Last knows the story of G?ring and Galland, that G?ring had a set made for Galland after examining the set given to the fighter ace by Hitler and that Hitler, on learning of this, then presented Galland with an even better set. In his memoir, Galland wrote:

Revue magazine 23.5.1953 - courtesy of Dave Kane

So Galland received four sets during the war: the issue set criticised by G?ring, the set he received from the Reichsmarschall and the two sets he received from the F?hrer, one of which was destroyed, as Galland recounts. Yet in 1953, as the above extract from an article in the May 23 1953 Munich edition of Revue magazine shows, his brother commissioned a new set of Brillanten for Adolf Galland, who was working as an advisor to General Per?n in Argentina, helping to modernise the dictator?s airforce.

The set taken from Galland by G?ring at the dinner table was probably a Godet piece. Galland?s anecdote is sometimes cited as bearing out the story that Hermann G?ring had Brillianten production switched from Godet to Klein because he felt that Godet's product was not good enough for his boys, the first five recipients being Luftwaffe pilots. However, if G?ring commissioned Klein, then where did Hitler source the sets he later presented to Galland?

Some people have suggested that G?ring commissioned Tiffany?s Paris branch to produce the replacement set he gave Galland. Given G?ring?s nature, it is entirely possible and he was certainly a Tiffany's customer before America's entry into the war. However, by the time Galland received the Brillanten from Hitler on 28.1.1942, the United States was at war with Germany and Tiffany?s was an American company. Galland states that "Later I went to Karinhall to see Goring. The diamonds had been built by his court jeweller and Goring was as pleased as a child". Of course, Hermann G?ring used more than one jeweller.

The Galland family have indicated recently that they have two sets of Brillanten that belonged to the late general. Yet back in 1953, Galland had a set produced at considerable expense and sent to him. So one of the sets in the possession of the Galland family is likely to be the set made in 1953. The other set could either be the fourth set to which Galland refers in The First and the Last, which was the second set given to him by Hitler, or the very first issue set, which was given back to him by G?ring when the latter also gave him the superior quality set he had obtained. Were the Brillanten given to Galland by Hitler made by Klein? The logical conclusion, given Hitler?s personal interest in decorations and the rigour with which the LDO enforced the rules governing Ritterkreuz production, is that these two sets from Hitler were indeed Klein pieces.

However, the 1953 magazine article poses an awkward question. If the Galland family had had two sets of Brillanten back in 1953 ? or three sets, if you believe that they sold a set to a well known American dealer a few years ago ? then why did they go to the trouble and considerable expense ? DM 3.200.00 - of having a set made for Adolf Galland to wear at functions in Argentina? Why not simply send him one of the two or three sets they had?

The conclusion is that neither Adolf Galland nor his family had any sets of Brillanten in 1953, unless they had the set that Galland was wearing when he went into captivity at the end of the war. If so, why did they not simply have that set sent out to Buenos Aires in the Argentine diplomatic bag or via one of Per?n's couriers, given that General Galland was working for the Argentine government? Sentimental reasons? They wished to retain the wartime set? I think it unlikely because for Germans, the document is the award. The medal is merely an outward sign of possession of the document.

Two more likely scenarios are either that, as in Rudel?s case, for instance, someone stole Galland?s Brillanten at some point during his time as a POW or that he sold them for scrap value during one of his periods of penury after being demobilised. Had he still had at least one of the superior sets from G?ring or Hitler in 1953, why would he have asked his brother to commission the best possible Brillanten money could buy when considerably less than DM 3.200 would have gotten him a perfectly acceptable wearing copy to show off in front of the Argentines?

Given that Klein continued to produce Brillanten after the war for collectors and, presumably, for Brillantentr?ger, it seems likely that the Brillanten in the possession of the Galland family today or, to be more precise, since 1953 are all postwar reproductions. Klein?s reproductions differed slightly from the wartime sets but Klein, like Godet and some other firms, are alleged to have made perfect replicas of the wartime pattern Brillanten to order.

It is worth noting that while the 1957 Ordensgesetz instituting the denazified versions of Third Reich awards mentioned the Brillanten, none of the firms which produced 1957 pattern awards appears to have listed the Brillanten in their catalogues, doubtless for commercially-related reasons. Some 1957 pattern Oakleaves & Swords exist with crudely inset paste stones but one cannot really imagine a Brillantentr?ger wearing such cheap-looking versions when he could commission a set from the original maker. Even if he could not afford diamonds, he could still buy a decent-looking, well-made replica from Klein. It is rumoured that a Californian jeweller was commissioned by a well known dealer to make copies of the Klein Brillanten but altered to resemble the wartime pieces as closely as possible.

Klein's replica Brillanten were sold through various sources, including the Historical Military Art & Collectibles enterprise, operating out of California in the 1960s. One could buy a set in silver with real diamonds for $3,675.00, which was quite a hefty sum in those days. A budget set in silver with fake stones retailed at $795.00. A few years ago, Forman sold a set of replica Klein Brillanten described as having been commissioned by Vern Bowen for ?1,000.00 Sterling.

For some years, the West Coast dealer Steve Wolfe has displayed a set of what are described as Galland?s Brillanten in his showcase alongside two other sets. The Galland set are said to have been purchased from the family. If this is the case, then it would not be first time someone has bought high end decorations from a German family that turned out to be postwar copies or fakes. Many RKT families possess replicas. More than a few have sold the original documents, for example, after commissioning perfect replicas for form?s sake. Some have probably sold the replicas as originals! One RKT is known to have sold his cross at least four times to gullible buyers!

This is by no means intended as a slur on the honesty of the Galland family or Steve Wolfe. However, the likelihood is that Mr Wolfe?s ?Galland Brillanten? came into existence sometime after the end of WW2. Steve Wolfe reportedly told people that they came from the Galland family while the Galland family has declined to comment, other than to indicate that Adolf Galland?s Brillanten remain in the family and that there are two sets.

In conclusion, we can be fairly sure that the early Brillanten were supplied to the Pr?sidialkanzlei by Godet, which makes sense, and that Klein subsequently received official approval to produce the award after it was decided that Godet?s product was, for whatever reason, not good enough. Consequently, any set of Brillanten that does not conform to known, original examples of the Godet (Type 1) or Klein (Type 2) Brillanten must therefore, by definition, be fake. However, the question of that reference by Galland to G?ring's "court jeweller" remains unanswered. Was this "court jeweller" Klein of Hanau?

To make matters worse, Klein are alleged to have made some perfect replicas of their wartime Brillanten, alongside their bona fide reproductions for collectors, incorporating slight differences to the wartime pieces. We are therefore faced with a similar situation to that pertaining to Godet Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords. Unless there is unshakeable provenance, who can tell the difference between a 1940s piece and one made twenty years later in exactly the same way? It is, of course, a rhetorical question. Whatever the case, the evidence suggests that, by 1953, Adolf Galland no longer had any of the four sets of Brillanten to which he referred in his memoir. So where did the various sets of "Galland Brillanten" in the possession of Adolf Galland's family and Messrs Wolfe-Hardin come from?

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