PKeating

No, they're two separate issues.

PK

OK, here goes...

As far as I am concerned, Dietrich Maerz wrote an article and I think, despite my occasional digs at him and my tendency to enjoy "spirited" debates with him, that he wrote it in good faith. That aside, I deeply respect him for having the balls to withdraw - in a very public way - his article once it was proved that the "Rounder" wasn't what many people hoped it might be. That shows character and character is to be respected. I have no problem with him at all...even if I do enjoy "doing battle" with him sometimes. I admit that I tend to be less tolerant when it comes to one or two of his acolytes. Unlike them, Maerz grasps the nettle or bramble of truth, and that's the issue for me. If they were big enough to leave behind the baggage of the past, I am sure that I would reciprocate. I'm sure we've all had worse rows with family so it can't be unfixable, can it? We've been very mean to one another but it's only words. How about it, guys? How about we bury the hachet? This forum is what a forum should be. None of the others managed it. Let's not screw this place up.

Regarding the questions I've had about MCF, and this is very relevant to the emotions of which Nick speaks: I no longer have anything to do with MCF but regret nothing. MCF served a purpose for me - and for others, but this is a personal statement - in that it drove a wedge between, in those days, "the big two" and prevented their webmasters establishing an unhealthy hegemony over militaria on the web. MCF was brutal, nasty and badly brought-up. However, I like to think it paved the way for others to move away and establish independent websites. As far as I am concerned, GMIC is what I would have wished for MCF but, sadly, corruption prevailed, which is why I stepped away. That's also why you're seeing more of the 'serious' people from MCF here of late. But it was still a force for the good in the end. Now we have GMIC, which is what WAF and GDC, ideally, ought to have been: a place run even-handedly by a team of people who manage to live up the name of the website. Bravo! Hats off to you.

I hope that answers your questions.

Thank you and good night...

PK

I think there is nothing much more to be said. Of course, I meant to type "935/4" rather than "900/4". Simple typo. I suppose, if you're splitting hairs, that you did not refer to "935/4" crosses. What you wrote was: "The "935" post war S&L which was auctioned of yesterday in Germany at Andreas Thies brought over Euro 1,000.-! At least it was sold as such!". I just checked their catalogue. Yes, it was a "935" cross. That said, was there not a debate recently about "935/4" crosses? I think quite a few people consider them questionable as well.

Anyway, good luck with the research. Always fun to exchange views with you.

PK

It's a purely academic point, given that the vast majority of Godet EL and ELmS cannot be proven to be wartime. That is the issue here, not the point in the early 1940s at which Godet decided or was ordered to stamp their awards with the Lieferant number. In fact, even if that information is one day rediscovered, it will bring nobody any closer to being able to tell the difference between wartime and Klietmann-era examples. Face it: with the exception of a few documented, verifiable examples, the vast majority of these things are worth the sum total of their silver content plus a curiosity premium because for every potential buyer at the level at which high end stuff changes hands, there is another who wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, unless they came with that rare, unshakeable provenance.

The same now applies to S&L KCs, mint K&Q KCs, solid silver Spanish Crosses and various other expensive things. Looks like the internet ripped the bottom out of the market once some of the people who'd been around for longer than five minutes and knew where the bodies were buried learned how to surf the web and started spilling the beans. All those dealers who set up and financed forum websites to draw collectors together in one place as a body of buyers; little did they know how easily it could backfire on them. That's why some of them are now using classic disinformation tactics to sow confusion and cast doubt on accepted fact. Stir it all up, get people unsure of whether they coming or going, destablise them and then hit them with the hard sell, backed up with some convincing articles on respected internet sites and maybe a magazine article and a book reference or two.

PK

No, Brian, that's not at all what I wrote. With regard to S&L KCs and the revelations that most of the examples in circulation appear to have been produced after the war, I think it is reasonable to say that the production and supply of 'perfect copies' of wartime awards by some German firms in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s involved intent to defraud collectors.

As for the Rounder affair, what was it if not an attempt to defraud collectors? Fortunately, it was stymied before the idea could be firmly planted in people's minds that the Rounder was a legitimate, genuine wartime KC. This is why you did not see them change hands in significant numbers. You had a Rounder yourself. As many people know, you stated that it was awarded to a relative of yours at Stalingrad, an account presented in at least one reference work as proof that the Rounder was a wartime piece.

I expect you believed that it was your relative's KC. That's fine. We've all been mistaken at times. A lot of things in families with stories attached to them turn out to be other than described. But it would be useful to know when this Rounder came into your family as it might help to establish some idea of when these fantasy pieces first appeared. You stated at one point that your mother Vera von Etzel passed it to you, along with a family Pour-le-M?rite. That's fine too. Many RKT families - and RKT themselves - possess postwar copies of their original award, due to loss or whatever.

So what is the story of your Rounder?

PK

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

Season's greetings to you.

PK

A well-composed response. However, I thought I was being clear in opining that any KC produced on wartime dies after the war but with wartime hallmarks was clearly intended to deceive collectors, anyone suggesting otherwise being either na?ve or disingenuous.

My point, the overriding point in relation to S&L KCs, is that the firm evidently did as certain other firms in producing awards identical to their wartime originals for sale on the collectors' market. It is also clear that Type A and Type B dies were in use after WW2. Therefore, one can argue the differences between types until the moon turns green but the fact remains that the vast majority of S&L KCs have to treated with circumspection given the series of revelations about the firm's - choosing my words here! - probable complicity in fake-mongering. You yourself have described them as the most "prolific" of Knight's Cross manufacturers. I imagine you intended no irony in that statement but it is really quite funny under the circumstances.

What is far from funny is the situation of all those people left holding 900/4 S&L crosses bought for $8k to $10k who can only hope to get $1k back at auction, if they are lucky. After all, how many people actually want to pay a grand for a fake KC when they buy a perfectly good collection filler or mannequin accessory for a tenth or twentieth of that amount? How many reasonably intelligent people will be prepared to pay upwards of $5k for an "original" but unattributed, unverifiable S&L KC given the firm's evident reuse of their dies and tooling after the war?

And now, in addition to the 935/4 crosses, you state that 800/4, 800 and incuse 800 crosses by S&L should be avoided too. In other words, you are admitting that Steinhauer & L?ck KCs are a busted flush as far as any investment potential goes. I would exclude the relative handful with rock-solid provenance from this, of course, but the shadow of doubt now hangs over all S&L KCs. Put bluntly, Steinhauer & L?ck Knights' Crosses of the Iron Cross 1939 are a busted flush as far as any investment potential is concerned. People who own one or more S&L KCs are looking at 90% or more of their investment being wiped out. These are not idiots who bought eBay fakes for two-thirds of the value in the boneheaded belief that they were getting the real thing. These are people who bought these things in good faith from a small group of dealers who trade in high end awards.

This S&L scandal is a good example of the effects of forgery and fakery. The already small market for KCs is shrinking as potential new collectors log onto the internet and read all about S&L KCs, K&Q KCs, Godet Oaks and Swords and, of course, "Maybauer" and "Rounder" KCs. What sane or intelligent person would invest thousands in such a risky area? Why do you think the forging of coin and banknotes is considered such a serious crime? Because it devalues currency by reducing public confidence in it. Forgers used to be hanged or branded and mutilated. Accomplices were also severely punished. A bit of direct punishment dished out to dealers and their accomplices by ripped-off collectors might not go amiss, given that there doesn't seem to be any real prospect of punishment or censure from other quarters.

Fraud is fraud.

PK

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

PK

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

PK

So you know where to draw the line between May 45 and post war? Good for you!

Precisely my point! Nobody knows where to draw the line. That is the essence of the problem with S&L KCs.

We know your opinion and I duly submitt that you are wrong. At least with the flawed A-Type.

I am far from alone in this opinion. Given the impossibility of establishing "the line" between wartime and postwar crosses, which you tacitly admit, your assertion that the flawed S&L KCs are wartime rather than postwar fakes produced on dies that have been shown to have cracked sometime after the institution of the 1957-pattern crosses strikes me as unsustainable.

I do not read this as accusing me of fake rehabilitation. I don't think you meant that!

Your interpretation of what I say or write is beyond my control. Sorry.

Absolutely wrong! At least in respect of the S&L Knights Cross. I still have to see a proven post war Godet set. Maybe you can provide a picture!

I take it you mean a set by Godet? There are plenty of detectable fakes from other sources. If I could supply a photograph of a "proven" postwar Godet set of EL or ELmS, then there would be no problem with the award, would there? The only advice I can offer is to gather together as many photos as you can of these awards, line them up and tell yourself one in three might be wartime pieces.

This brings us full circle, back to the issue of the impossibility of telling wartime and postwar S&K KCs apart. I am afraid that the onus is not upon me to produce the proof you request. It is more a question of a vendor producing satisfactory proof for a buyer of the originality of an S&L KC or a set of Godet add-ons. That is the issue.

PK

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

PK

So no awards had PK codes until 1944? I cannot recall reading that anywhere. I must have missed something. Oh dear. Perhaps you could show me some documentary evidence to the effect that PK numbers did not exist before 1944? I must go and check all my reference books and files.

This is confusing. So, are you suggesting that the Lieferant number system was not introduced before 1944? Or are you referring to the order stipulating the application of Lieferant numbers in 1944 in the case of Knights' Crosses? Are you saying that no set of Godet Oakleaves or Oakleaves with Swords bore the firm's Lieferant code before mid-1944?

Does this mean, in fact, that Godet stamped all of their Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords with their LDO code from 1940/41 to 1944? Gosh. I always thought that the LDO numbers were for retail pieces. Just goes to show that one cannot always trust what one reads, doesn't it? I cannot recall having seen any unhallmarked Godet EL and ELmS although I gather there are some examples.

So Godet never marked their EL and ELmS with the Lieferant number before mid-1944? Fascinating! You come up with new information all the time.

PK

You can call it what you want, it's still a piece manufactured by S&L. In the sense of being an original piece of the time period of 39-May45 it surely is not one. It is a post-war example from the most prolific company in the field of the RK.

My point is not to dictate how much they should cost or how much one need to pay for it. My point is that people should know what it is and what they are possibly buying.

Now that these crosses have been exposed for what they are, and people have lost tons of money, there seems to be an initiative to salvage something from the trainwreck by rebranding these fakes as 'not quite fakes but sort of genuine crosses from the company that brought you the real thing back in World War Two'. However, the fact remains that any postwar S&L KC bearing wartime hallmarks (and a wartime-style finish) is nothing but a fake intended to deceive collectors. Now it is an exposed fake. That is all it is.

The Rounder is a fake. The flawed S&L was considered post-war, which it is not. The piece shown here is a post-war made example of S&L. By the way, not long ago this one would have been sold as a very rare and very early S&L (and they still are sold as such as a quick glance at a 25% discount site shows..)

We've been through this "flawed S&L" thing too many times. Readers can use the search engine on various forums to find discussions about it between some fairly heavyweight contenders. I will always view flawed S&L KCs with suspicion for reasons I have stated elsewhere on several occasions. In fact, I now view almost all 1939-pattern S&L KCs with a wary eye, except in the handful of cases where they come with indisputable provenance. I am not too excited by mint condition K&Q KCs either.

The Rounder Affair has been done to death here and elsewhere and there is not much point in further discussion of it, except to observe with weary amusement that several of those involved in the scam remain members in good standing of various sister forums while several of those involved in exposing the scam remain banned from the forums in question.

But if you want to call it a fake, perfectly fine with me. I don't want to argue with you.

I don't wish to argue with anyone for the sake of argument but I don't think you ought to encourage the newbies who will read this to pay thousands of dollars or euros for fakes just because the fakers happened to be the firm that made the crosses during WW2. A fake is a fake, period. What next? The "rehabilitation" of Souval KCs on the grounds that they probably made a few examples when tendering for the government contract in 1939?

The fact is that 1939-pattern Steinhauer & L?ck KCs are now like Godet Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords: unless they come with rockhard provenance - and a few do, fortunately - there is no practical way of telling a cross made in 1944 from one made in 1954, 1964 or 1974. A 1984 "London" issue does look different but hey, at least it was made using the real dies so it must be worth thousands too.

I am afraid that there is no feel-good factor to buying or owning a fake instead of the genuine article.

PK

Come now! S&L wasn't producing illicit 1939-pattern KCs after the war, complete with wartime hallmarks, for the occasional veteran who wished to flout laws forbidding the display of the swastika at reunions! They produced these crosses to make money from collectors, who bought them because they believed them to be original, wartime pieces. And then, in 1981, they sold the cracked dies to a London dealer, who continued production. So Chris is entirely correct in condemning these crosses as fakes. They are not restrikes, or reissues. They are fakes because they were made with the intention of deceiving people.

If some people wish to pay $1,000.00 for one of these crosses, that is their right. However, the crosses will never be original, no matter how many people form cabals and opinion groups to promote the notion. One would probably be better-off buying one of the crisper Latvian fakes or, failing that, a Rounder for less than a grand. I was told by a dealer who preferred to remain nameless, obviously, that the "ex-works" price of the Rounder was around $300.00. I expect there are a few dealers who might let a chap have one for $400.00 if he asked discreetly enough! LOL! Like the S&L repops, the Rounder was "almost original" for a while.

Far better to save up the shekels and buy a real KC. One could always start with a damaged one for a couple of grand. Prices have come down a bit, no matter what some people say, because of a loss of confidence amongst the public at large and the appalling economic crisis nobody wishes to acknowledge. Walk up to any dealer today with five grand in cash and you will walk away with a decent Knight's Cross. Maybe not a Lazy 2 Juncker or a Zimmermann, but a decent run-of-the-mill cross nonetheless. You might even get it for four grand if we're talking Euros and his rent is due. That is the reality.

PK

I certainly think that marks have a lot of relevance to an award date! I would be very suspicious about a set of oak leaves with 'alledged provenance' for an award date of 1941 and with a marking "21"?

And yes, those are Erich Hartmann's EL and ElmS and they have impeccable provenance. They serve as a datum point and 'cognoscenti' - hard studied or self-appointed - can use them as such. Whatever the individual outcome might be.

Erich Hartmann received the ELmS on 4.7.1944, having received the EL on 2.3.1944. All we can glean from the markings on Hartmann's two awards, in terms of timeline, is that they were supplied by Godet to the Pr?sidialkanzlei as part of an official order sometime between the latter half of 1941, when the second pattern Oakleaves design was introduced, and early to mid-1944, when Hartmann was invested with them. In other words, they were official award pieces made sometime between mid-1941 and the dates, respectively, of the awards to Hartmann.

There is no reason to be suspicious of a set of Godet ELmS bearing the "21" mark and awarded in 1941, allowing that we are talking about awards with verifiable provenance predating the Frau Klietmann skulduggery of the 1960s and 1970s. There could be some cause for concern if a group appeared with a set of Godet ELmS marked "L/50" and said to have been awarded by the F?hrer to such-and-such a person in 1941. It would not follow that these were fake but it would be unlikely that they were the actual award piece.

Let me be more precise for the benefit, at least, of people reading this thread for educational purposes. In fact, I shall be boring and repetitive in an attempt to force a passage through the misinformation and disinformation.

Several months elapsed between the institution of the ELmS on 17.7.1941 and the LDO ban on retail sales of Germany's highest awards. Between July and the end of 1941, several firms, including Godet, produced both Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords for retail purposes. The link to eBay in this thread shows a set by Steinhauer & L?ck with a certificate by Dr Klietmann. Now, even though his wife appears to have engaged in some questionable enterprises during her time at the helm of Godet in the 1960s and 1970s, Dr Klietmann seems to have been honest and, moreover, qualified to authenticate awards, which is more than can be said for some of the people issuing Certificates of Authenticity.

The majority of these retail pieces were appropriated by the authorities after the ban on retail sales. In most cases, they bore LDO marks although a few appear not to have been marked at all. So, from early 1942, recipients of various grades of the Knight's Cross sometimes received LDO-marked examples from the stocks appropriated and held by the authorities.

Hartmann's Oakleaves are of the second type, with the flatter reverse for, most students agree, easier attachment of the longer riband loop required in the case of the Oakleaves with Swords. The first type had a more pronounced concave reverse. So they postdate July 1941. The Oakleaves of the ELmS set are obviously second pattern for the reason I have just stated. Both awards occur with "21" and "L/50" marks but I would suggest that LDO-marked Godet ELmS are rather rare, again for the reasons stated in this post. Perhaps, on reflection, it is more accurate to say that original examples, with verifiable provenance, are rather rare as LDO-marked Godet ELmS became far less rare in the 1960s and 1970s! So did their Oakleaves.

Regarding Christopher Ailsby's question about L/50-marked Eagle Orders: if retail sales of the Eagle Order were also forbidden at some point - something I am unaware of as I have never paid the Eagle Order much attention - then it would follow that LDO-marked pieces were given to recipients at official award ceremonies, as with Knight's Cross recipients. If not, then it might not mean that one was looking at a postwar repop; Godet could just as easily have sent the PK an award taken from stocks intended for supply to retail outlets. However, I tend to be nervous of Godet Third Reich awards in general, because of the extent of Frau Klietmann's evident chicanery. The only high end "Godet" award with which I feel really comfortable is their Knight's Cross...because it was made by C F Zimmermann and the dies appear to have been lost, if the rarity of this type of cross is a reliable indication.

PK

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

PK

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

PK

The flouting of the regulations by various firms - vaulted EK1, zinc and brass-centrered EK and RK etc etc - is largely why Dr D?hle and the LDO decided to enforce the regulations early in 1941. Did S&L press that tooling back into service for the 1957 re-issue?

Note to WW2PO: Gordon knows more about this subject than most of us have forgotten. If you're interested in reading up on any aspect of the Iron Cross of 1939, including the Knight's Cross and all its grades, you ought to acquire his book.

Paddy

My dear Bill,

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

P

Eichenlaub were produced by Godet bore either the PKA code "21" or the LDO code L/50. There were two types. They were made of 900 silver. The "21" Godet Oakleaves are generally accepted as being the award pieces while the "L/50" examples were for retail sale. Godet was the sole firm authorised to supply Oakleaves to the Pr?sidialkanzlei.

However, C E Juncker also made Oakleaves, usually marked L/12 with an 800 silver mark. So did Meybauer, who marked their pieces L/13. Steinhauer & L?ck are also believed to have produced Oakleaves. When retail sales of the Knight's Cross were forbidden, LDO-marked pieces were appropriated by the Pr?sidialkanzlei and awarded to recipients in the normal way.

The Godet dies and tooling were used during the 1960s and 1970s to produce restrikes of the wartime awards that are indistinguishable from the real thing. This happened during the tenure of Frau Anneliese Klietmann, wife of Dr Kurt Klietmann. The fakes, for that is what they were, were supplied to high end but less than honest dealers in various countries and many ended up in collections.

Some collectors assert that the restrikes are distinguishable from the originals but nobody has ever been able to give a coherent explanation for these assertions. Other collectors, myself included, would not touch a Godet set with a ten-foot pole, unless it came from a truly unimpeachable, documented source. Even then, Ritterkreuztr?ger and their families have been known to swindle collectors with fakes.

There you go. Hope this is helpful.

Paddy Keating

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

Paddy

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

PK

Stephen mentioned that there would be some corrections as well.

PK

Sgt. Rafael Peralta*

Marine Corps, Infantry

1st Plt., A Co., 1st Bn., 3rd Regt., 3rd Marine Div.

Fallujah, Iraq, Nov. 15, 2004

Hometown: San Diego, Calif.

Volunteering for an assault mission, Peralta was the first to enter a Fallujah home where he was hit in the face by rifle fire. Moments later, a grenade was thrown at Peralta and his fellow Marines. He grabbed it and cradled it against his body to shelter the others. He gave his life, but saved many more.

Award status pending.

Humbling.

Thank you very much for posting this link.

PK

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

PK