EK 1939 Silver Oaks to 39' RK

[Gordon Williamson]

I suspect there could have been a considerable gap between the introduction of the Pr?sidialkanzlei numbering system, and making its use in marking awards mandatory.

Just as one example, the Steinhauer KVK1 without Swords is easy enough to find in superb early quality silver plated tombak, but with the "4" PK mark. So there is at least some circumstantial evidence pointing to the use of PK marks earlier than 1944.

[PKeating]

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

[Dietrich]

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.

Unfortunately a "maybe" and "perhaps" is not good enough. So the search continues. One day we will know. The picture which emerges from genuine oaks and swords in relation to award dates will help.

[PKeating]

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

[WW2PO]

Prosper is right on the mark ... I believe there is an o'l saying "When In doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! I forget who said that however, I believe it can be attributed to a famous individual?

[Dietrich]

Prosper is right on the mark ... I believe there is an o'l saying "When In doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! I forget who said that however, I believe it can be attributed to a famous individual?

That is what some people do! Fortunately, others have a different approach and instead of using their feet to run around they are trying to use their brain to find out.

The first step really would be to conclusevly verify whether Anneliese Klietmann really aquired the dies and really reproduced the oaks and swords. I'm not saying that she didn't but that would be a very logic starting point. That she sold those pieces is a fact - but were they 'Godets"?

The notion or rumor about the 'perfect fake' will always persist. The oaks, the swords, the diamons or whatever other high priced items. The sad fact is this: If there is a perfect fake, nobody will realize it. If nobody will realize it - is it a fake then? Purely philosophical speaking.

A portion of very sane scepticism is advisable at any rate when buying high priced items - especially when not priced that high.

[PKeating]

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

Edited December 21, 2006 by PKeating

[DavidM]

Hello

From all that has been discussed in this thread, I assume I'd be correct in concluding that all Godet oaks / oaks and swords should be viewed sceptically and are best avoided - unless accompanied by an iron clad provenance.

A fascinating thread and discussion. Thank you all for the information and education.

[lisbon 67]

It really makes you wonder how many "high end collectors"- for want of a better term- are sitting on restrikes? Sometimes it is best left there? Perhaps more worrying is the impact upon potential collectors of the future which begs the question why get involved in the first place?Most of us are here because of our love for military history; the artifacts of war transport many of us to a time of unimaginable upheaval.Nonetheless we persist, the more we know vis a vis the predators out there the better.Bravo to those who endeavour to reveal some hard and costly facts.Equaly how many Third Reich items can be attributed with 100%

certainty, yes we have Blood Orders and GPB's , yet is has been known for Ritterkreuz holders families to flog duds.Sorry to sound pessimistic yet we all should pay attention.

Regards Lisbon 67

[PKeating]

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

[Stogieman]

So, is it unreasonable to assume that Klein also made "perfect" post-war copies of the RK & RK-KVK as well?

[PKeating]

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

Edited December 30, 2006 by PKeating

[Gordon Williamson]

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

One of the German dealers did have a 65 marked RK of the KVK a while back.

Entirely possible that Klein & Quenzer may have struck some samples for submission to the PK in the hope of gaining a contract but without a known, verified example of other manufacturers with good provenance, I'd treat any maker marked RK of the KVK other than Deschler, Zimmermann and Steinhauer with extreme caution.

Given the plethora of fake "thin" Deschler types around, I always found it amusing that "thick" RK of the KVK were instantly denounced as fakes. Probably because those doing the denouncing had only ever seen the "thick" postwar Souval pieces.

Perfectly genuine original Steinhauer pieces are much thicker than Deschler (though thinner than Souval's) something replicated in the superb wartime Steinhauer buttonhole miniatures which visibly taper from a thicker centre to a thinner section towards the tips of the arms.

Fortunately, the fakers have concentrated on Deschler ( probably because of the difficulty of getting their hands on a genuine Steinhauer or Zimmermann to copy - Zimmermann RK of the KVK are every bit as rare as their RK of the EK brethern). Much easier to pick up a genuine relatively common Deschler to copy.

[Dietrich]

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

Klein of Hanau was of course no Austrian company but a German one. And the post war pieces made by Klein do not resemble the war time produced. Also, there are more real Diamonds around than awarded. A and B-Types.

Dietrich

[PKeating]

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

Edited January 1, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Prosper,

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!!!

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.

Dietrich

[PKeating]

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

[Dietrich]

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

[PKeating]

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

[Dietrich]

I take it you know the function of the jester?

PK

I really don't want to have the last word since I was warned not to do so but I'm polite enought to answer a question:

Isn't a Jester somebody to amuse the king? But also to show a mirror of truth. And if the king doesn't like it the Jester gets his head chopped off... or the king gets kicked by the Jester.....at least so it was in the funny movie "The Jester".

Peace!

Dietrich

[PKeating]

Peace? Of course! It's just a difference of opinion between different schools of thought. I assure you that there is nothing personal in this from my viewpoint. I also have no vested interests in it. If anything, I am losing money! Should I be proven wrong, I will admit it cheerfully and gracefully. Until then, I will defend my position if challenged. However, a lot of people share the position I occupy when it comes to Godet Oakleaves etc...

PK