EK 1939 The Great RK debate ?

[Nick]

This item has caused more controversy than any other item on military forums. It has been the catalyst for more arguments, banishments , alleged fraudulent sales, and the manifestation of hatred between Third Reich collectors than any other single item in recent years. I have had no choice but to lock two threads on the subject because of the emotions it has raised. I will be honest I have followed the debate from afare only getting dragged in when conflict arises.

Is it time to call enough is enough and bury the topic for evermore ? Or can we start with a clean slate, keep personal agendas out of it and analyse the facts! Human nature probably indicate that it is not possible, but hopefully I can be proved wrong. Can we achieve the impossible and objectively reach some kind of conclusion, maybe not beyond reasonable doubt, but perhaps more on the balance of probabilities ?

However there will be clear guidelines to follow. Therefore before posting in this thread all members must acknowledge the following guidelines. Any breach of these rules will lead to posts being immediately removed and a warning given. Any further breach will lead to suspension of membership. Its as simple as that, if you can?t trust yourself to follow the rules, steer clear is the only advice I will give.

The Rules:

All normal forum rules apply PLUS:

Any implied abusiveness, threatening remarks or patronising comments, no matter how veiled against any other individual (whether a member of this forum of not) will not be tolerated.

No third party reference to any individual ownership, or sale of said items will be tolerated, only reference to personal ownership will be allowed.

A respect for other members opinions is a prerequisite for posting. A healthy, intelligent debate without resorting to abusiveness or threats (whether implied or believed) is the objective of this topic. We can all agree to disagree with some opinions but underhand abusive tactics will not be tolerated.

This is not a blame game. It is not a question of blame or an attempt to discredit other members theories, all theories will be open to examination. Group persecution of a particular member with the objective of discrediting them will not be tolerated, if this becomes apparent or is suspected the topic will be closed.

And the last rule is if I don?t like the tone of a post it will be removed, no further explanation will be given.

[Riley1965]

Nick,

I have watched this topic from the outside. I agree to follow the rules anywhere on this forum.

Doc

[Laurence Strong]

I have been following this debate also, sure would like to see it continue with the personal baggage left behind.

[Peter J]

Nick, I wouldn't mind these rules being applied on all threads

KR

Peter

[Dietrich]

I was one of the biggest believers in the Rounder and I tried all I could to find out the truth about this piece. However, I was not alone in this task. Gordon also shows the Rounder in his book as a presumed legitimate piece. And a lot of other people thought so too, including publications in Germany.

However, nobody knew for sure. Everything was based on circumstantial evidence, such as possible pictures showing round inner corners and traces back to veterans and such. No hard provenance at all. It was always a question of believes and I made it always clear that it is just that, an unproven believe.

A couple of years ago I published an article at a website which compiled all the circumstantial evidence and in this article I personally came to the conclusion that the Rounder is a legitimate piece.

A - at that time friendly - collector started some SEM investigation and asked me to send my Rounder to him, which I did. Before that, I had one SEM test done on my own at the University of Michigan. Both investigations, using the same cross, showed paint compounds which were not of the same composition than other RK?s tested. However, there were some similar paint compositions with WW1 crosses. Also, heavy questions were raised regarding the quality of the beading under high magnification. The tests were inconclusive but gave a lot to think about.

Parallel to that, another Rounder surfaced. This one had clearly a silver-plated brass frame but was marked ?800? which is actually against the German marking law and therefore a fraud.

There were numerous other debates about quality, artificial wear, mysterious markings in the size of under 0.1 mm as a secret production date and a lot of heated debate.

With the introduction of FTIR by a collector from New York a new avenue opened up. The paint of a total of 4 crosses were tested, 3 in England and 1 in the USA. All 4 showed basically the same result. The paint is epoxy resin based. The English company could not verify the exact epoxy resin. Epoxy resin itself was invented before the war in Germany but use in paint could not be verified. But the USA laboratory claimed to have nailed it down to one specific brand by Dow Chemical: DER 664 UE with a patent date of 1959. No further testing has been conducted since.

At any rate, it is now absolutely sure (for me) and safe to assume (for me) that the paint is post May 1945 and ? having test results of 4 examples ? any ?freak repaint? or such can be excluded. I consider the Rounder now as a post war production.

The fall out is actually what is so ?heated? about this debate. It is always very unpleasant to find out that one got a bad piece. I know of quite a few owners of the Rounder who could give the Rounder back to the source against a full refund, including me. Others want to keep it as a filler or reminder. So for me the case is closed, the mystery is solved

[PKeating]

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

Edited December 20, 2006 by PKeating

[Stogieman]

Greetings Gentleman. I have followed this debate here and elsewhere, I look forward to the relevant facts coming out.

Prosper, Thank you for your poignant and heart-felt comments.

[Dietrich]

I look forward to the relevant facts coming out.

Dear Mr. Stogieman, I think the facts are out and the thread is over.

Dietrich

PS: Sometimes, but only sometimes, I have the crazy feeling that some people are mixing the Rounder debate up with the debate about flawed S&L's. But I'm sure I'm wrong. I need a X-mas brake!

[PKeating]

No, they're two separate issues.

PK

[Nick]

Dietrich

You may have a point there I am in the dark about RKs I may well have confused the two issues as being one. I am aware of the die flaw topic maybe we should expand this topic to include that as well. I will change the topic title to reflect that. It seems that you are right about the rounder thread I think the posts reflect an agreement on that issue.

[Dietrich]

Nick,

thanks for confirming my faint suspicion. You are right, there's nothing more to be said about the Rounder issue. It was a long winding search, conducted by all with best intentions but also with some heart blood and emotions. It's done and we all should let is stay where it is. However, for some it will always be the center of their existence.

The S&L is a far more complex issue IMHO. To start a possible discussion I humbly submit what I think happened and I would like to add that everything I will line out is substantiated by extensive research and can be veryfied by everybody on his own:

- the frist die of S&L, which was used to produce the '800' and micro 800' has a minute flaw in the knee of the 9-12 o'clock arm

- this die developed the famous beading flaw at the 3 o'clock arm in a progressive way. Different crosses always show the same pattern

- later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm

- mid to late in 1944 the die was reworked (repaired, most likely) and the B-Type die emerged. The date is supported by flawed crosses with provenance.

- the B-Type die has no longer the 9-12 o'clock flaw but shows a different flaw in the knee of the 6-9 o'clock arm

- furthermore, the B-Type exhibits a very distict flaw row (dent row) at the lower ingoing arm of the 3 o'clock arm

All B-Types have those flaws! No A-type has them! Over the time of use of this die, the 'dent row' becomes less pronounced. Even the 57 crosses have those pattern and -of course - all the very late (80's??) also.

Due to the multiple and credible evidence of the Klessheim found, the "935-4" is assumed the first B-Type and the only one with 'provenance'. No recipient of any 935-4 has been found (yet?). Also, the dent row of the 935-4 is very pristine under the microscope.

Then the avalanche of models start:

- 800-4

- 800

- incuse 800

- 935, magnetic

- 935, unmagnetic

- unmarked, unmagnetic

In addition, and to add to the confusion, the B-Type also developed beading flaws at the 3 o'clock arm later on. BUT the pattern is different to the one found on the A-Type. Just the same weakness of the die showing at the same place but with different results.

This fact threw most of the discussion off since, having a clear post-war S&L with beading flaws and a pre-45 with beading flaws was considered the same. Only investigation of the pattern and the other flaws (dent row, knee flaw) clearly shows that this is not the same type. Only if one believes in the possibility of flaws coming and going as they please, can one dismiss the flawed A-Type as post war. For me (and a lot of others) this is inconceivable and flat oput wrong!

At this point the discussion is about which model of the B-Type is post war. Clearly determined to be so are the "935" (NOT the 935-4!!) and the unmagnetic, unmarked types. The others are in a grey area and - as I said numerous times - should be looked at with great caution. Again, here I was accused of pushing possible 'fakes' by not clearly stating what is post-war. I'm sorry, but I can't. Maybe others can, but then I would know based on what unshakable evidence? However, I would not buy one!

The only other thing I can say is that, having had multiple examples of the 924-4 and 800-4 under my microscop, taking ton's of pictures, that the dent row of the 800-4 is very close to the 935-4. Based on that I would think that the 800-4 came shortly after the 935-4. But that 'shortly after' could already be 1946!

800-4 have been bought from Veterans as bring backs from Germany - as have all the other later models.

The main thing about S&L is this:

- they did produce a lot of crosses during the war - there's no doubt!

- all of them are A-Types and IMHO all of the A-Types are absolutely good and pre-45, flawed and unflawed!

It has been alledged that S&L produced crosses with the A and B type die after the war. This is not possible since it is one and the same die, just reworked. Multiple minute flaws at the beading sides are present at both types and are an undisputable evidence about the rework of one die.

Everything I wrote above can be verified by looking at a particular S&L cross. This is not a thesis based on bin theories, soft silver, debris in the die, mother-daughter die or whatever other conspiracy theories. Every flaw, every detail can be found with 100% consistency at every time at every spot exactly where it should be. No exception at all.

Dietrich

[ekhunter]

Very well said! I don't see how anyone would have any problem with this opinion or conclusion.

[PKeating]

Despite reading your submission very carefully, I must confess to finding myself unenlightened. However, rather than go into a point-by-point clarification exercise, it would be most helpful to me if you could tell me to which of the categories listed in your article this Steinhauer & L?ck Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 - http://www.majorplm.com/collections/Coll-G...mp;L800-CT.html belongs. As you can see, it has quite clear flaws on the beading of both horizontal arms.

You write that "Only if one believes in the possibility of flaws coming and going as they please, can one dismiss the flawed A-Type as post war. For me (and a lot of others) this is inconceivable and flat oput wrong!" [sic]. You also write that "later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm" So, the last A-Type crosses had flaws on the 3 and 6-o-clock arms. You make no reference to crosses with flaws on the 9 and 6-o-clock arms.

You state with confidence that the frame dies were reworked/repaired in the third quarter of 1944, resulting in what you describe as the B-Type cross. In other words, the frames of A-Type and B-Type crosses were struck on the same dies. You then state that all B-Types have the flaws you list but that no A-Type cross displays them, even though you wrote that "later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm". This was presumably before the dies, according to you, were repaired.

Regarding the 935-4 crosses, you suggest that these are the first B-Type crosses, based on their Schlo? Klessheim provenance. In other words, you contend that the pristine 935-4 crosses are wartime pieces made after mid-1944 but that none exist with any awardee provenance. So, if the 935-4 is an early B-Type cross and if you contend that the advent date of the revised B-Type crosses was "mid to late 1944", basing this contention on the existence of flawed crosses with provenance, where does this leave the 935-4?

Are you relying solely upon the Schlo? Klessheim provenance in the case of the 935-4 and, if so, how can you be so sure of the date or time window in which you state the dies to have been repaired? You see, this was always the problem some of your critics had with your theses: you make much of your timeline process but I have not been able to understand the criteria upon which you base your timeline-related statements. You tell everyone that they can verify your writings by examining S&L KCs but that actually isn't the case, is it?

How, in your opinion, were the frame dies repaired? What process did the diecutters use? Would it not just have been simpler to cut new dies or even to do as most firms of the time did and outsource the components they needed?

PK

[PKeating]

I think it time to revisit a topic posted elsewhere way back in 2001 by Gordon Williamson. I saved the images he posted and am sure he will not mind my reposting them here for everyone's education when it comes to flawed S&L KCs.

Here is a 1957 pattern KC by Steinhauer & L?ck. As you can all see, there are no obvious flaws on the frame beading at any point.

Here is a 1939 pattern S&L KC, together with a close-up shot of the 9-o-clock frame beading. As you can see, it is free of obvious flaws.

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2006/post-281-1167494649.jpg]

A close-up of the 9-o-clock frame beading on the entirely unflawed 1957 pattern cross.

A side-by-side comparison showing that these frames were struck on the same dies.

To summarise, we have shown an unflawed 1957 KC by Steinhauer & L?ck side by side with an unflawed 1939 pattern cross. In other words, we have a unflawed 1957 pattern cross with frames struck on the same dies as the unflawed 1939 pattern cross. This rather casts doubt on any Steinhauer & L?ck KC with those ridges running along the frame beading, doesn't it?

Some of us well remember the vicious rows provoked by the initial suggestion that any S&L KCs with flaws clearly post-dated the introduction of the 1957 denazified KCs. Since then, there have been numerous attempts to revisit this debate, usually ending in recrimination and bitterness, enhanced by the emerging picture of a firm busily churning out 1939 pattern KCs after 1945, thereby raising awkward question marks over unflawed 1939 pattern KCs produced by S&L before they obviously broke the frame dies in or after 1957, probably by trying to strike frames from an overly hard white metal.

Why would a firm as wealthy as Steinhauer & L?ck waste time repairing a set of KC frame dies when they would surely have ordered one of their in-house diecutters to produce a new set? Failing that, they would have ordered in frame halves from another firm. This was Germany's highest award, after all, and Dr Doehle and his LDO took a very keen interest in quality control, as did Adolf Hitler himself. Unsightly flaws and ridges would have been unacceptable and it is unlikely that the firm would have risked the wrath of Doehle by supplying flawed crosses.

The more likely scenario is one in which the frame dies underwent some or all of the attempts at repair to which you refer...but after the dies were damaged at some point in time following the introduction of the 1957 pattern awards for wear by veterans serving with the BW. A company generating income from the sale of "genuine" 1939 KCs made on their original wartime tooling by craftsmen who probably worked there during the war would be more likely to try to repair a cracked die than a company producing the nation's highest award to exacting criteria imposed by their governmental clients.

In the end, in 1981, they sold the dies out the back door, so to speak, as I have recounted elsewhere. I saw them myself in London at the time. They were pretty ropey by then but that did not prevent a certain dealer from buying them. This dealer had been one of Frau Anneliese Klietmann's most profitable clients. His "S&L" KCs were good enough for his customers around the world, complete with their Seals of Authenticity and accompanying certificates. However, that is another story.

Someone once posted a flawed EK1 in response to this contention but there is a vast gulf of difference between the EK and the RK. The unpalatable fact of the matter is that all unflawed 1939 pattern S&L KCs must be treated with the same degree of circumspection with which intelligent collectors view Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords by Godet. As for flawed 1939 KCs by this maker, I wouldn't give you $50.00 for one, no matter how nice it looked, for the simple, unassailable reason provided by the unflawed 1957 KC we see here, originally posted back in 2001 by Gordon Williamson when Steinhauer & L?ck's track record began emerging into the spotlight.

Sorry, Dietrich, but I am afraid that your article about Steinhauer & L?ck Ritterkreuze has failed to change my mind, just as your article about "Rounders" and KCs bearing the Lieferant code "7" for Meybauer failed to convince me of the pedigree of such pieces. You may be right about S&L crosses but if so, how do the crosses I have presented here fit into your carefully constructed timeline equations and arguments?

PK

Edited December 30, 2006 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Despite reading your submission very carefully, I must confess to finding myself unenlightened. However, rather than go into a point-by-point clarification exercise, it would be most helpful to me if you could tell me to which of the categories listed in your article this Steinhauer & L?ck Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 - http://www.majorplm.com/collections/Coll-G...mp;L800-CT.html belongs. As you can see, it has quite clear flaws on the beading of both horizontal arms.

First of all I deeply regret that I could not enlighten you! But it might still happen!

The cross shown - w/o having better pictures shows the typical start pattern of the beading flaw and I consider it a nice, pre-45 S&L A-Type. Since you condem all flawed S&L, I would be happy to buy that cross in case you ever want to sell it as a post war fake.

You write that "Only if one believes in the possibility of flaws coming and going as they please, can one dismiss the flawed A-Type as post war. For me (and a lot of others) this is inconceivable and flat oput wrong!" [sic]. You also write that "later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm" So, the last A-Type crosses had flaws on the 3 and 6-o-clock arms. You make no reference to crosses with flaws on the 9 and 6-o-clock arms.

Sorry for the typo...

You state with confidence that the frame dies were reworked/repaired in the third quarter of 1944, resulting in what you describe as the B-Type cross. In other words, the frames of A-Type and B-Type crosses were struck on the same dies. You then state that all B-Types have the flaws you list but that no A-Type cross displays them, even though you wrote that "later A-types also had flaws at the 6 o'clock arm in addition to the 3 o'clock arm". This was presumably before the dies, according to you, were repaired.

Here you mix up something. I'm talking about the little flaws in the knee area and the dent row NOT the beading flaws. It is clearly spelled out in my article. The difference between A-Type and B-Type id NOT the beading flaws!

Regarding the 935-4 crosses, you suggest that these are the first B-Type crosses, based on their Schlo? Klessheim provenance. In other words, you contend that the pristine 935-4 crosses are wartime pieces made after mid-1944 but that none exist with any awardee provenance. So, if the 935-4 is an early B-Type cross and if you contend that the advent date of the revised B-Type crosses was "mid to late 1944", basing this contention on the existence of flawed crosses with provenance, where does this leave the 935-4?

Again, a mix up in flaws. The late A-Type had beading flaws which were repaired. The resulting B-Type die had no beading flaws in the beginning but the dent rwo and the knee flaw. One should not mix those up.

Are you relying solely upon the Schlo? Klessheim provenance in the case of the 935-4 and, if so, how can you be so sure of the date or time window in which you state the dies to have been repaired?

Beading flawed A-Types with late award dates - no award for the 935-4

You see, this was always the problem some of your critics had with your theses: you make much of your timeline process but I have not been able to understand the criteria upon which you base your timeline-related statements. You tell everyone that they can verify your writings by examining S&L KCs but that actually isn't the case, is it?

Actually I don't see and actually it isn't the case. You can verify everything I wrote if you don't mix up beading flaws with the other described and documented flaws. A lot of people have done it before and so far evert piece has confirmed the article.

How, in your opinion, were the frame dies repaired? What process did the diecutters use? Would it not just have been simpler to cut new dies or even to do as most firms of the time did and outsource the components they needed?

I don't know but I can see the result!

Dietrich

Edited January 1, 2007 by Dietrich

[Dietrich]

I think it time to revisit a topic posted elsewhere way back in 2001 by Gordon Williamson. I saved the images he posted and am sure he will not mind my reposting them here for everyone's education when it comes to flawed S&L KCs.

Here is a 1957 pattern KC by Steinhauer & L?ck. As you can all see, there are no obvious flaws on the frame beading at any point.

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

A side-by-side comparison showing that these frames were struck on the same dies.

To summarise, we have shown an unflawed 1957 KC by Steinhauer & L?ck side by side with an unflawed 1939 pattern cross. In other words, we have a unflawed 1957 pattern cross with frames struck on the same dies as the unflawed 1939 pattern cross. This rather casts doubt on any Steinhauer & L?ck KC with those ridges running along the frame beading, doesn't it?

Again, the beading flaws are NOT the determination factor for A and B Type!

[qotoe] Some of us well remember the vicious rows provoked by the initial suggestion that any S&L KCs with flaws clearly post-dated the introduction of the 1957 denazified KCs. Since then, there have been numerous attempts to revisit this debate, usually ending in recrimination and bitterness, enhanced by the emerging picture of a firm busily churning out 1939 pattern KCs after 1945, thereby raising awkward question marks over unflawed 1939 pattern KCs produced by S&L before they obviously broke the frame dies in or after 1957, probably by trying to strike frames from an overly hard white metal.

[PKeating]

So the beading flaws are irrelevant? Sorry, but I am still no closer to understanding this whole "timeline" thing of yours. You don't actually mention "timeline" here but I believe you once employed this term when explaining your findings. I'm not trying to be difficult. If your assertions can be proven, believe me, I would be very pleased indeed. However, I am forced to the conclusion that a comparitively small number of S&L KCs, in relation to the numbers in circulation out there, can be accepted as original, wartime crosses.

I refer once again to the clear evidence I have placed in front of everyone, which was first posted by Gordon back in 2001, of two Steinhauer & L?ck KCs with frame halves struck on the same dies, neither of which shows any evidence of beading flaws. One is a 1939 pattern cross and the other is a 1957 pattern cross. As far as I am concerned, this tells me that the beading flaws appeared in or after 1957, which tells me that any S&L KC with beading flaws - of a ridged appearance running along the top of the beading on the horizontal arms, for instance - dates from 1957 or later.

You apparently chose not to address this simple fact. Nor do you explain the repair process concerning the dies.

PK

[Dietrich]

Yes Prosper, the beading flaws are irrelevant. The whole discussion was always around those flaws but evidently nobody looked at other tell tale signs.

First of all the beading flaws between the A-Type (late 44) and the later B-Type (post 57) are different. It is not the same pattern.

The flaws I'm referring to are the knee flaws (between 9-12 o'clock arm at the A-Type and between the 6 and 9 o'clock arm for the B-Type) and - more important - the dent row at the lower ingoing 3 o'clock arm. These flaws are only to be found at the respective type without any exception. That's what I based the article on and EVERY cross fits perfectly.

The 57 cross you show is the second pattern with the dipping ring and is a complete different die - as the ring shows.

However, the early 57 are made from the B-Type die but no beading flaws yet. The later B-Types have beading flaws and I show both in my article: the 57 cross and the later flawed unmagnetic.

The key here, if you want to concentrate on the beading flaws, is to realize that the pattern is different! As I show in my article.

Dietrich

[PKeating]

Our posts crossed in cyberspace.

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

Really?

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

You are splitting hairs in an apparent attempt to score points in this debate. You've tried this on me before - Lieferant numbers for example - without success. The RK zum EK was Germany's highest award. The "add-ons" signified separate awards on top of the basic RK.

The KC with Golden Oakleaves with Swords and Diamonds was Germany's highest award for military valour in the sense that it was the highest one could receive by the end of the war. However, it was not a single award. One did not receive the KC with Oakleaves etcetera in one go.

Therefore, the KC was Nazi Germany's highest award for military valour. The "add-ons" were akin to clasps recognising subsequent acts of a similar nature.

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

Hang on! You yourself stated earlier that there were no 935-4 crosses known to have been awarded to anyone. Bit of an inconsistency there.

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

You appear to have decided to ignore the beading flaws because they are inconvenient in the context of your assertions. I submit that the beading flaws are very germane to the subject.

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

You appear to be trying to imply that I believed in the "Rounder" at one point. This was never the case. I think I stated that I understood why some people might believe it to be OK but that was more in a spirit of generosity than anything else. I never thought it was anything but a scam, for reasons I have explained previously.

Some people, incidentally, have suggested that these crosses were produced as high quality copies by Tony Oliver in England. I intend to drop him a line as I knew him back in the day. Apparently, he sold them as copies. In terms of quality, they are on a level with older Souval crosses. It will be interesting to see what he has to say...if anything.

I know you would prefer it to become a "dead issue" but as long as some of the individuals closely involved in this episode continue giving people loads of attitude instead of having the humility or, at least, the common sense to shut up about it, it will remain very much a live issue.

I wish you could convince me regarding flawed S&L KCs. In making my arguments, I have put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, although I will not be selling you any S&L KCs for $50.00 anytime soon. I said that I would not pay $50.00 for one, which is different.

You have tried several times to misrepresent what I have written in various posts and to misinterpret my meanings. I, on the other hand, have kept my arguments pretty simple and you have been unable to shake those arguments with any convincing, clearly-worded counter-argument.

I look forward to your next article, whatever it may concern. I suggest that you find a less contentious subject. Again, I don't mean to come across as patronising. This is advice I would offer to some of the best professional writers in the world under such circumstances.

As an editor, I an experienced in wading through competent but obtuse copy by some good writers. Just for lack of clarity alone, I would not publish your work without a major edit to render your points clearer, my disagreement with your points being irrelevant. I don't mean to offend you. Most of the best writers in the world need help from good editors some of the time.

The problem is that you were writing for a "publisher" who is, frankly, linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate. The same applies to a lot of the target readership. It is only when a writer bumps up against literate people with analytical minds that he comes unstuck if he cannot clarify his statements. In any case, the reading public should never see unclear writing.

PK

Edited January 1, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Prosper,

I did not bring up the Rounder and I would like to re-phrase: for ME the topic is closed. And please do not hold me responsible for other peoples deeds. The individual you mentioned insults me on a regular base but I'm not reacting to it. As you know. Why should I?

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

Back to the topic. The 57 cross you showed is the second pattern of the 57 edition from S&L and has a dipping ring. Of course, it's not the 'dipping ring' fake. Please see here : http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1525&st=0

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

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

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

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

Dietrich

[Dietrich]

The problem is that you were writing for a "publisher" who is, frankly, linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate. The same applies to a lot of the target readership. It is only when a writer bumps up against literate people with analytical minds that he comes unstuck if he cannot clarify his statements. In any case, the reading public should never see unclear writing.

PK

I humbly submit that you are NOT the first person which is 'literate' and has an 'analytical' mind who read the article. Judging by some of your remarks, I'm tempted to say you didn't read the article at all. You accused me years ago of unclear writing and so far you are the only one who did so. When I answered at that point in time that I might be better in German since this is my mother language you accused me of implying to you that I might be a better writer than you. I'm clearly not and I don't want to be. So for once and for all: I don't want to challenge your position or whatevere as a writer or publisher or editor or whatever. I openly state that I'm not into crafting texts that will stand your test of excellency. For me it's about content.

The article is about a tricky subject and I write in a technical style. You don't like it, leave it. The content and the finding are the important pieces, not what you call 'unclear writing'. I also want to say that you are the first with problems of clarity regarding the subject.

I did not write the article for a 'publisher' who is "linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate". I wrote the article for the community. I cannot follow your reasoning either. Do you think that if the publisher is "linguistically incoherent and demonstrably semi-literate" the text has to be the same???? But as I said above, I passed the test of several editors, not just the one you are refering to. Who, by the way, is no publisher nor editor nor did he change one word.

But enough for me here for this topic. I just wnat to state again that I'm not challenging your writing skills. The topic is about the substance and this is clearly there.

Dietrich

[PKeating]

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

I wasn't referring to the fake crosses with dipping rings. The frames of these two crosses were clearly struck on the same dies. Back in 2001, Gordon Williamson described the 1939 cross as a wartime original and it certainly looks like one. If you look at the base of the frame ring on the 1939 cross, you can see that the buffing process has flattened the lower 20% of so of the frame ring.

PK

[PKeating]

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

That's not quite true, is it?

PK

[Dietrich]

Please refer to my earlier post with the link to Gordon's explanations of the 'dipping ring' - post number 4,5 and 6.

[Dietrich]

That's not quite true, is it?

PK

Regarding the mix up of beading flaws with the other flaws absolutely! Don't mix up a healthy dissussion with mix up's of terminology.