Les

Alcohol and women always seem to be in demand and guys are willing to pay through the nose for at least one of those. The problem with either of them, is they are harder to keep around than a collection....

James, I'm not concerned about each and every issue, and that might lead you to think I haven't (not can't) refute the points you've raised in objection. The trade issue and freedom of trade was a very important issue of the Treaty. Americans were concerned about American commercial vessels being stopped and crew members being impressed into British service. That is one part of a much larger commerce issue: the SEIZURE OF SHIPS AND CARGOES, and Britain not paying compensation to ship owners or merchants who owned or bought the cargoes on the ships. That -was- part of the Jay Treaty. Seizing and impressing crew members was tangential to the overall issue of free-trade, and the rights of neutrals as seen from the American perspective. Britain still continued stopping neutral commercial shipping in international waters, still continued seizing more than a few ships and cargoes, and removing crew or passengers from a neutral ship. British claims of citizenship matters if you wish to raise them, should be tempered by with a consideration of the official outrage from the British government during the "Trent Affair" in 1862, when the Confederate ambassadors Mason and Slidell on their way to England were taken from a British flag carrier, imprisoned, and shipped back to America. British public and official protests regarding -one- incident, and threats of war/intervention stand in sharp contrast to -"hundreds"- of British search and seizures of American ships, cargoes, and crew members. The use of local peoples and factions against other locals/factions, and competing Imperial powers is far older than Britain. Read Caesar and his conquest of Gaul. It's part of the S.O.P. of nation and empire building. Britain used aboriginal peoples against the French (and vice-versa) during the wars in America, against the colonists/Americans during the Revolution, against the French in India (as in the continent of), Indians against Indians (in India), etc. The same in Africa and Asia. When there's plenty of instances that show a clearly established pattern of Britain using local peoples against others, why do you think that the the same methods were not used to varying degrees against the United States when doing so would be to Canadian/British interests? If you could show it was -not- done, then you'd be demonstrating one of a very small number of situations of the sort. The US-Canadian border was not clearly defined during the Treaty of Paris, with the result that both the United States and Britain/Canada laid claim to some of the same territories in the NW territories. This was a problem that required time to settle. True, more than a few Indians fled from atrocities (committed against and also -by- some of them) to Canada. However, please don't assume that tribal (or sept) movements resulted as -the- result of political events north or south of the border. Two major events were taking place, that impacted the overall situation. One of the factors was almost entirely due to cultural changes within native American cultures in Northern America. First, the westward movement of both Canada/Britain and the United States resulted in the absorption or displacement of indigenous peoples. Usually groups could not relocate, and were either assimilated or overwhelmed by increasing numbers of settlers. Those that could move, did so, but often at the expense of their neighbors who were forced to move...by other native American tribes. Not all Indians moved because of white settlers. Indian on Indian warfare was an important factor as well. Second. Prior to the 17th century, the Great Plains were largely uninhabited, and there was no "Plain's Indian" culture typical of the later 19th century. During the 18th century, many of the Indian tribal groups in the river valleys of the "North West" were acquiring horses and abandoning localized riverine agriculture for the migratory "Plains Indian" hunting-gathering existence that reached it's height during the later part of the 19th century. The adoption of the horse, and shift to a nomadic existence resulted in tribal expansion, inter-tribal competition and warfare escalating, tribal groups taking sides and forming coaltions for/against whites (on both sides of the border), other Indians, The Fenian invasion of 1866 was primarily Irish born immigrants. They acted without the support, approval or even prior knowledge of their existence or plans, by the American government. It was a one time event, unlike Indian movements back and forth over the US_Canadian border which were not a one-time event. Indian movements were numerous, and lasted more than a century. Canada's failure to at least attempt to curtail or curb at least some of the matter, is not exactly being a good neighbor. I'm not bent on trying to prove one country right or wrong. Far from it. There's enough to show culpability was mutual. Between 1781-1803 (the Treaty of Amiens) and then from 1804-1812, Britain can not claim that stopping neutral shipping and other acts were not violations of another nation's sovereign rights. If the situation were reversed, and British interests or sensitivities were adversely affected, the resort to threats of war (or war itself) might not be tempered with forbearance or long suffering tolerance. I suspect we're not going to agree on causes, sensitives, rights or wrongs perceived or real, or even at something that approximates a mutual non-national bias in favor of one or the other of the "sides." On that...we should let some of the others comment. Les

James, You're giving the appearance of trying too hard to parse words and exculpate British actions at the expense of making matters seem mostly the fault of the Americans. You're last statement equally applies to the British. The British signed a treaty and then ignored and willfully violated the terms signed by representatives of their Government. The British had an Empire and were protecting what they had, and actively fighting a war with the France (first and Empire, then a proclaimed Republic, and then Empire again). The infant American Republic had budding territorial ambitions to the west and as history shows, took the opportunity to acquire territories from the French, later the Mexicans, and Russians. While your statement points out the Americans signed the Treaty, so did the British, who then willfully continued violating more than one term of the treaty. If someone signs what to all intents and purposes is a contractual agreement, and then ignore the terms the signing implies a promise to follow through on, calling it something else, doesn't change the fact that Britain promised to perform, ignored the full terms of the promise, and continued doing many of the things the Treaty was supposed to halt. The bad faith was mutual. That might not be palatable to some, but neither the Americans or British were entirely without blame or fault in their perceptions or actions. Re: Indians in the US/Canadian border region "voting with their feet" as you put it? Tribes living along, and astride the borders knew the borders represented two different political entities and used that border to their advantage. US military forces were not authorized, and did not pursue Indians across the joint US-Canadian border. The Indians realized if they could move fast enough, hostile acts done by them in the United States, would not be prosecuted by the Canadians once they crossed over into Canada. That isn't truly "voting with their feet" but rather using one country as a safe haven, while avoiding the consequences of their actions across the border. Indians were aware of, and took advantage of the border situation for well over the first one-hundred years following the establishment of the joint international border. Canada/Britain took the position that any acts by Indians committed in the United States were not important, or would not be prosecuted by the military or police in Canada. As long as Indians minded their proverbial "p's" and "q's" while in Canadian territory and did nothing illegal -inside- Canada, they had nothing to fear. The Canadians/British were not unaware what the situation was, and that Indians could (and did) use Canada as a "refuge" but did nothing to curtail or alleviate the situation. If we were to use a legal concept, anyone aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice is considered a party to, or an accomplice to the act. Canada's providing a refugee to Indians crossing the border in an effort to avoid military reprisals, bears a resemblance to legally aiding and abetting fugitives from justice. Despite official US protests, Canadian/British officials ignored -why- Indians crossed the border. In a very real sense, that did encourage Indians in continuing to use Canada as a safe haven, or base or operations against the United States. There are more than a few "off topic" examples that can be pointed out where not only Britain, but many other nations considered "safe havens" located across an international boundary not off limits to military retaliation. Les

James, Depending on who one reads (and accepts) the actions and perceptions of both parties were arguably aimed at a temporary papering over of the cracks in an effort to forestall a real resolution of the problems until later. There was enough bad faith on both sides to go around. The British (late 1790's) were at war with France, and not too keen on getting bogged down with either another war against the US, or expanding the war by pushing the US into an alliance with the French. (The two are not necessarily mutual.) The British felt the Americans should ally with Britain because the mother country was Americas largest trading partner. The French, feeling the Americans owed something to France for military and financial support during the Revolution, thought the US had a duty or obligation to help France. The Jay Treaty was signed by the US and Britain during the Washington administration. The terms were initially disclosed to the US Senate behind closed doors. When the terms of the proposed treaty started leaking out, the public reaction was very adverse to almost all of the terms. Washington was very aware the United States did not have the necessary resources to even consider it as a viable option at the time. Without binding public opinion by making the treaty a fait-accomple, the public would have turned against the government. French bungling (seizing American ships and cargoes in European ports), excesses during the Reign of Terror, and hints at using the Louisiana territories to garrison French troops that could be used at Britain, -or- the US was enough to alienate American goodwill towards France. Washington's farewell address which advised against any enduring treaties or foreign entanglements was an expression of popular public sentiment aimed at a American neutrality. The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done), putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done), and allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done). Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. One source I've read suggests the "strong arm" actions were a show of force suggesting "don't mess with us" or else we'll get really mad, with the objective of presenting a perception to Americans that Britain was far stronger than the reality of the situation. Some might call it the idea of a strong defense is a strong offense. Between 1797-1798, there was a major war scare and John Adams (President at the time) along with much of the government and people feared a war with France was imminent. IMO? Both sides were mis-reading the other, and were making misteps. Les

Peter, The post-war situation deserves a thread of it's own separate from this one. "Official" positions openly stated by a government, are sometimes called into question by actions that run counter to official policy. Post-war agitation of indigenous non-Europeans (aka, "Indians") by British and/or Canadians against the United States in the NW frontiers was one source of friction and suspicion of British motivations. British trade limitations and not allowing complete and total free trade, and unimpeded commercial shipping was another irritant. British attempts to force the United States into taking sides with Britain and against France was another. (French behavior was not entirely above reproach either.) Seizure of American vessels (there were hundreds of incidents) by the Royal Navy despite protests by is well-enough known that it need not be elaborated on. One thing the search and seizures did do, was rile up American sentiments about the nations sovereign rights, free trade issues, etc. Those actions or policies, and other issues gave Americans doubts about British motives, that are not entirely above reproach. Despite Britain being America's major trading partner, that didn't ease suspicions. Trade does not mean the partners trust or like each other. More than once in history, major trade partners have gone to war with each other. The Jay Treaty attempted to settle many of these, and other issues. It was not popular in the United States, and was passed by the Senate and signed into law, because the thinking was the infant United States was not prepared, and could not afford a war against Britain at that particular time. Many Americans accepted the Jay Treaty in order to postpone matters until the United States could be prepared and primed for another war. Britain was interested in preventing the United States from supporting France, and taking sides in the on-going war(s). British tactics aimed at the United States may have been a combination of stick with not much carrot, but from an American point of view, national pride and sovereignty issues caused a high degree of suspicion towards Britain and it's motives, and policies which did nothing to alleviate the frictions. The British invasion of the Gulf Coast region of the U.S., culminating with the Battle of New Orleans expanded the war beyond any shared borders. The campaign was not defensive. After Waterloo, we can only speculate what if the Anglo-American conflict had gone badly for the United States whether popular sentiment in Britain might have pushed the politicians to rethink their objectives and retaking the colonies. J'ai ne sais quoi. Les

I don't know either. Photos of men in uniform show a wide range of situations and comportment. Ask Rick how often he's found medal bars or ribbon bars that did not have every award present that the recipient could have worn on the bar. He's come across an example or two. Official photos aside, the unofficial or candid photos often show far less glitz and glitter than the strutting peacocks. Many probably wore whatever they were entitled to have, but we can't say that everyone did that. There are photos of officers wearing perhaps an EKI, an empty space where the loops for a medal or ribbon bar should be, and nothing else. What was worn at any given time could be a matter or personal taste, comfort, or whatever. Even mini-Centennaries for a buttonhole, with nothing else exist. Is that the result of pride, arrogance, desperation, some parent or wife's gift? Who knows? If someone doesn't have much of whatever it might be, they might want to flaunt what little they have. I can understand a solitary mounted "Hindenburg" with swords but a solitary mounted "Centennary" medal seems sad by comparison. The Pour le Merite, one of the highest (but not -the- highest) award the Empire could bestow, came with an official requirement that it had to be worn whenever the recipient was in uniform. Additionally, serving German officers were -required- to wear a uniform whenever in public so they could be readily recognized as a officers. Civilian attire was not an option. Why order officers to wear their uniforms in public and require recipients of some medals to wear them? If they had pride and wanted to wear what they had so it could be shown off (or to strut their stuff), then no orders would be required. Richtofen died completely out of uniform, in a set of blue pajamas, no uniform and not one medal on. On other occasions he did wear his uniform, but not every medal he was awarded.

In 1781, the States could have pushed for a winner take all policy that included Canada. American designs on territory north of the Great Lakes was minimal, perhaps almost non-existent. The "threat" you refer to was a two edged sword. The newly formed United States had to live with a British thread north of it's borders. In 1812, there were more than one or two Brits that saw a renewed war as a way to re-exert colonial control over the United States. The final resolution of the US-Canadian border did not take place until the 1850's, and almost came to blows over the 44 or 40 positions taken by Britain/Canada and the United States. Les

The comment about literally every one of a certain grade having an RAO reminds me of something that happened to me. I started in on college weeks after graduating from High School by taking summer courses. The first day in one class, I had my High School ring on. The student next to me started laughing. He told me "everyone on campus had one" and what made me think mine was so special I needed to wear it. I took it off that day and never wore it again. The "flaunt it if you got it" idea doesn't work if everyone has one, and either knows you have, or should have the same. Maybe the only way to stand out from the crowd is NOT to have one, or if you do, NOT to wear it. Sometimes I wonder how many Germans who qualified to wear the Centennary medal didn't bother to put it on, and anything else they considered "common" or ordinary. During the war, there are more than a few photos of senior officers wearing sometimes wearing none of their awards, perhaps one or two, and not bothering with everything else. Les

Not everyone thought of themselves as "Englishmen" or came from Britain or Ireland. Germans settling in Pennsyvlania came from several parts of what was then the Holy Roman Empire, and part of the Austrian Empire (remember the Amish, Moravians, Hutterites, and Mennonites) that maintained the culture and language they brought with them and continued in the colonies. During the Revolution, many of the "Pennsylvania Dutch" tried to take a neutral position without siding openly for or against the revolution. New York aka, "New Amsterdam" (the Hudson Valley) and New Jersey "aka New Netherland" was originally settled by the Dutch. Well into the 18th century, Dutch was commonly heard and arguably more people spoke Dutch (circa 1740) than English. Additionally, there were Swedish settlements in and around the Hudson Valley. In 1664, after a sea-saw period of wars when possession alternated between Dutch and English, Dutch title and claims were finally ended by Britain. Despite Britain's assuming title through military conquest and occupation, that did not end Dutch language and culture as the dominant form. In the minds of the Dutch, a treaty didn't make them English at all. Massive immigration from Europe and elsewhere that began after the Revolution was over, submerged the local Dutch and they became a small minority of a much larger culture in which English was the dominant language in the new United States. The numbers of New York/Jersey Dutch and Pennsylvania Dutch were a minority compared to the overall population of the colonies, but large enough that their political positions affected the war in the central Atlantic region. The votes, support or non-support of New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania (then the second, if not largest state in size population) were always factors in the events leading up to the Revolution, it's conduct, etc. The Pennsylvania Dutch and Quakers were not opposed to non-violent opposition of British control of the colonies. They did not think of themselves as "Englishmen." They were opposed to war on religious, not political grounds. So let's not rely on the conventional wisdom of calling all of the colonist "Englishmen" by virtue of birth, governance at the time, or assumed cultural affiliation. Even in Britain, not long ago, Irishmen (whether it be north or south of the current lines), Scots, and those south of where Hadrian's Wall once stood, would have had ruffled feathers if someone called them "Englishmen." Estimating the political allegiances of colonists is no easy thing. I've read one source that estimated roughly one third for for independence, one third against it, and the other third wanted nothing to do with the other two and preferred to be left alone if possible. Those numbers could be exaggerated. A counter-insurgency and guerrilla warfare manual suggested that as little as "six percent" of a population is all that might be needed to start and sustain an armed rebellion, and even win. Somehow, that figure seems on the low side. During the revolution, the colonists did not rely solely on guerrilla warfare, and was able to field enough troops in the field to fight the British using conventional European style tactics. That suggests the "six percent" solution was higher, although how much higher is retrospective guesswork. Other than my whatever people thought of themselves as, yes it was bloody, fratricidal, and politically complex at times. Les

Steve, Daniel is quite correct, this entire thread has gone into the ditch. "Truth", facts, and logic isn't s show of hands and shout out for people who agree with a point of view that supports one's beliefs. A person who makes their mind up, is driven buy faith or agendas, isn't going to be subject to verbal persuasion. People make decisions based on emotions, beliefs, and facts. Usually that's the order of the process. When emotion or beliefs kick in, facts are not important to many people, and the facts get manipulated or ignored. Add ego factors, and what gets pawned off as logic gets crazy or funny depending on your point of view. Military history right up to this very moment is chock full of people who saw what they wanted to, and made wrong decisions. Questioning something does not imply questioning the integrity of the person. Perhaps you might think so, but then that can happen when someone reads far too much into what they think, see, or read. I said questions of the photos originality aside, there are problems dealing with second hand digital images used to base conjecture on. You never saw the original. You looked at a digital copy which has less actual "information" in it than the one Komtur has. I have consistently said the cross (not the eagles) doesn't have the degree of clarity and details necessary to make the claims you've pushed. If you want a strong(er) case, find more photos of Linde or someone else wearing that style of cross. You imply motives, when earlier in this thread, I specifically asked you not to infer what I did not specifically state. You ignored that, as you've ignored other points that don't fit your obviously biased agenda centered around post-1918 and pre-1945 copies of actual Imperial awards. Photographs of German soldiers easily number in the millions. One photo of Linde wearing a medal becomes the basis for you proclaiming a "strong case" for a new type of PlM. I've stated there were problems with the photo. Let's move on. During the 1918-1945 era photographs were easier and cheaper to make than PlMs. Shouldn't there be other photos to support your claims out there? One photo alone is shaky grounds for build any kind of case. If you want a strong case, find more photos of that particular type of PlM. The person making the claims something "is" is required to dot every "i" and cross all of the 't"s. When someone takes you to task, you go on the offensive and challenge them to "show" otherwise. That's a pattern seen on WAF, and repeated here. I wish I'd gone to a third rate bible college where faith, hope, in a state maligned as being largely rednecks, that tolerated and approved attempts at proving inspired agendas and offered degrees in "finger-painting" subjects and was an important feature of "education." I didn't. Perhaps I should have. I'd would be far more willing to accept ideas that switch between inductive versus deductive guesses, not logic if I had. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY Les

Steve, kindly remember to look in the mirror and read what you posted. You've consistently ignored the fact the Linde image is not (1) an original photo you've looked at personally and are relying exclusively on a digital image posted to the forum, and (2) the image does not have the detail you seem to think it has. The "raised crown" you think you see is not necessarily caused by irregular enamel you think you see there. I've already said more than once, images can be deceiving. "Darker" areas can be caused by several things other than the item itself. As for words....I've shown on this forum before, and cited the link to the discussion, how the same item, photographed with the same camera can and does appear to be not two, but several badges that the eye and brain would make you think were not the same badge. And that's with decent lighting and not dealing with two or more images from entirely different sources. Steve, you can ignore -facts-. Indulge in all the speculation you want, but clearly state that's what it is. But don't start claiming the case is a strong one, etc. That's ego talking, not facts. On WAF, you've frequently counter attacked and asked skeptics to show their point of view is correct. If you start making claims that "are", it's entirely up to you to make the case. I recall someone posting that it wasn't up to them to prove anything because they were questioning you. I'll remind you of what Martin Popper said and what quoted earlier in this thread, about scientific theory. It's possible to disprove something. It's never possible to prove something. When someone claims that something -is-. that -is- should be verifiable. When someone says something -is not- scientific thought states it is not possible to proove a negative or that something does not exist. What I've said more than once, and seems to be overlooked, forgotten, or simply ignored is the "data" isn't good enough to make the case for or against the specific type of cross seen in the Linde image. That's regardless of whether the Linde image is real, faked, or whatever. Let me repeat that once more. I'm not saying any of the crosses are or are not the same as the one in the Linde photo. There's not enough detail in the Linde photo to make a case that would stand up in court. Steve, don't make accusations others are dealing in words and you want them to show you when they question what you state and then try to make the case for "is". I guess you don't see the irony do you? Les

If you did both, then show the results of both comparisons so other people can see and judge. Also, tend us the method and steps you used. How did you determine what the "best" and "most perfect" match was? Any time you start changing a photo, what you see is the results of it being manipulated, and what changes are done. Here's a test To show us that you can produce real results. Are you able to take the three photos of the same identical Austrian pilots badge that I photographed from three angles and "merge" them? (There is a link to the badges I'm referring to earlier in this thread.) I can tell you the answer now. No. If the angles are more than one or two degrees different, what you are doing is forcing your idea of what you want to see, onto the results. Forcing information is not a reliable way to get real and reliable results.

Not at all if you consider there's not one cross, but three that can be compared to the image in the Linde photo. He used only one of the crosses, and didn't bother to try with the other. You can't arbitrarily choose one, and then ignore the other because the "pet one" fits supports the claim you want to make. That's "stacking the deck" and not scientific at all. I'll repeat what I've already said several times. The outlines of the two "Berlin" examples, AND the one Epsomgreen/Charles one all have the same shapes and the eagles look very similar. You can't be certain that is one, or the other. Neither can be said to be "the one" or ruled out either. That means the only thing that can be honestly said is.....no one knows for certain. How many times does this have to be repeated? That approach Uwe used is not much different than the police holding up a picture and asking "is this the man" and not telling you there are other people that also look like him (and could also have done it). Les

Step two of the process. Using a smaller press to apply the beading by slow steady pressure (like a vise). Interesting stuff! What the photos show is the operating machinery and methods used in a small shop. There is nothing complicated, with plenty of handwork. Later machinery would cut the "flanges" off, or punch out almost finished frames requiring less handwork that we see in the photos. Good stuff, and the shop methods tell us how some of the smaller medal contracts were handled. We can get a pretty good idea of how some of the orders and less commonly seen medals were made in small numbers. Les

Hardy thanks for the link to that reference. The man operating the smaller machine isn't putting the frames together. The description says he's putting the beading or edging on the edges of the blanks. There are two "spindle presses" in the photos. If the smaller machine is putting the beading on, the larger one is probably putting the shape of the cross onto a silver blank, and the smaller one completing the process. We're looking at a two step process. Instead of one stamping to make one complete half of a frame, the frame shapes are slowly "squeezed" (embossed) into the silver. Slow steady pressure not a hammer strike! Here's step one. Les

Die letze, number Drei...

#2 showing the back with the plate off, screw posts and two nuts.

Micha, I know you and Joe like EKs with back plates. The photo of yours reminded me I have one the two of you might like seeing. Not marked at all. It does have the large round back plate, and once had -FOUR- screws on the back. Two (the ones in the 3 and 9 o'clock positions) were removed, and I think I can understand why. All those screws could be hard on the ribs! I'll post these as smaller images so I can get them in. Les

Tom, thanks. Let me know if your book has anything on the subject. For small scale production of gold and silver items, solders were usually made from a mix of metal filings saved from shaping the parts. Copper or another metal added would slightly reduce the melting point. The results can produce a join that's almost impossible to see. Additionally, if the melting point of the solder used is close to the melting point of the gold or silver parts, it can be enameled at high temperatures without the solder remelting and the join failing. The larger the solder mass, the more heat it takes to melt the solder. If a solder paste is used (the paste being a mix of the solder material and flux), it can be brushed, dipped, or applied. A solder paste melts at a lower temperature than a wire/coil, or strip of solder. From what I've been reading, solder pastes can be melted on electric hotplates. I'm wondering if mass production methods for EKs may have been something as simple as putting the core into the frame, applying solder paste, and the other half together to form a "sandwich" and then like a batch of cookies, put the proverbial sheet into an oven until the solder melted. Heat, squeeze (weights and gravity would do this nicely) and excess solder would run out. Any gaps would close through the action of weights and gravity. There isn't much complicated about this. Making a (reflow) solder paste isn't hard to do, and applying it can be done by almost anyone and takes little skill. Cutting strips or coils, requires shaping machinery, someone to carefully place solid solder onto the part(s) to be solder, etc. Unless the reflow solder paste method, the process because it requires shaped solid solder, and someone to carefully place it, the time/man hours/slightly more skilled labor intensive. Germany's need for manpower and resources during both wars relied on the maximum use of people, resources, money, etc. The solder paste method seems to have several advantages over shaping, cutting and placing solid solder and so on. The fact one is simpler than the other, doesn't mean it was used. Also, manufacturers were concerned about the final product and how it looked; the process could have varied from maker to maker. Any details appreciated folks! Les

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1260...mp;#entry243605 From the archives: this thread discusses the "Gablonzer" method which was introduced circa 1942, but not universally adopted. The Gablonzer method used a shaped strip fitted into a groove on the inside of the frame, which melted and joined the pieces when heated. Anyone able to provide information on the actual solders? Sn-Pb (tin-lead) soldering was introduced during WWII for use for electrical circuits and some hardware joining that would be exposed to hard use and required some ability to flex. I don't think lead-based solders were used by Germans until after WWII, or haven't found anything to document that yet. Les

Does anyone have good, solid information on the type of solders used to join EK frames? Previtera comments that solder "sheets" were inserted between the frames and then melted to join the two halves. Doing that would cause solder to run in an uncontrolled manner inside the frame. The outside could be cleaned up, the inside would be hidden as long as the core was in place. If you've ever seen a rusted out EK, the soldered frames don't look "messy" inside. That would suggest the solder was applied from the outside in, not from melting a "sheet" and clamping two sides together. I haven't paid much attention to WWII crosses, but what do you folks who collects crosses from both wars know about the technological process(es) used, and the solder types? Did the materials and methods change after WWI, between the wars, and/or during WWII? Alright, what do those with more knowledge about this subject than myself have to say? Les

added: There was an earlier episode at Paoli, Pa. Grey ordered his troops to remove the flints from their muskets to prevent an accidental discharge that would ruin the element of surprise in the attack he planned there. His men bayoneted a few Americans before they could respond. Almost a year later, the "Tappan" Massacre took place on a slightly larger scale and a large number of Americans ran away. Les

Peter, I'm not sure of the first one. The second if memory serves me correctly was the Tappan Massacre ("No Flint" Grey commanding) when 30 Americans got stuck. That was 28 September 1779. Les

Uwe, This is off-topic. It doesn't really belong here, but your comment is worth a response. My father was born during WWI near Saarbruecken, and my mother was born in the Tirol. I grew up in the US, can speak, read and write German. I visit my relatives in German often and keep in contact with them. I wasn't born until after WWII. My family and many of their friends have told me quite a bit about how life was in Germany before the 1960's. Beginning in the 1960's I started visiting Germany (and the rest of Europe) enough to form my own ideas. I'm old enough that I remember the public reaction when Willi Brandt's son was seen "playing" with an Iron Cross in during the late 1960's. People did not like it, but no one said it was illegal, and nothing happened to him. Unless someone was alive and living during the years after WWII (particularly between 1945-1955 in the west, and much later in the east), children grew up hearing stories about life after the war and before the Wirtschaftswunder don't -really- know what Germany was like. If you are older than 60, or maybe an Ossi, you have direct experience. If you're younger you've been told, heard, or read about life at that time. There are differences between Americans, Germans and other Europeans. There are also differences between "Wessis" and "Ossis." Those differences are changing, and whether Germans will admit it or not, Germans are in many ways becoming Americanized. After WWII, many American servicemen were stationed in Germany. Many of them married German women, and brought them to the United States. There are more than one or two people on this list that have a German mother, or grandmother. German women who "ausgewandert nach Amerika" remember what they left behind, and many told their children and friends about their lives. Friends, outsiders, and foreigners often see things about ourselves that we don't see. What humans forget is that we are more alike than we might think. What that means in regards to your statement about non-Germans thinking they know more about German laws than Germans, is this. Find a law that was written and hasn't been broken. Laws will not stop anyone from doing what they want to do. When money is involved, laws are not always followed. Regards, Les

Uwe, You are right about - illegal - medals being made between 1945 and 1957. Laws are made. They are not always followed, particularly when money can be made. Dietrich Maerz has shown that S&L made new parts for illegal Ritterkreuz immediately -after- the war ended. His "die wear" study shows that clearly. S&L pretends nothing like that happened. When I said that (military) medals could not be made between 1945 and 1957 in Germany, that meant they could not be made there legally. Making, selling/buying and wearing are three separate things. It has been possible to legally buy decorations since 1957. It happens openly, and collectors do buy medals and decorations openly, over the internet, u.s.w. As you say, wearing them publicly is subject to Federal regulations and an entirely different matter. We aren't disagreeing. My way of saying things is not as simple as it could be and you may have misunderstood me. Les