EK 1939 The Great RK debate ?

[PKeating]

I think some of Mr Maerz's work has merit but I am puzzled that Mr Maerz should find it so hard to substantiate the "timeline" basis of his theses in terms of during and after WW2. It is one thing to identify earlier and later KCs by S&L through the flaws and imperfections imparted to the frame by dies that cracked, were repaired and continued to degenerate. It is reasonable to describe these as Type A and Type B crosses if one is taking a repair to the frames as the median. However, the question remains as to whether Steinhauer & L?ck repaired these dies in 1944 or 1964.

The very late unmagnetic, flawed crosses and the ruined die Keating is mentioning was never ever under discussion by anybody.

I do not understand how Mr Maerz can make such an assertion when the damaged frame dies have been at the centre of the whole S&L KC debate since it was first pointed out on the internet, on the WAF back in 2001, that there could be a problem with flawed 1939 pattern KCs by S&L. Mr Maerz has made the point that his findings were published in two magazines and will shortly be included in a book. The magazines are supported by advertising from militaria dealers, as is the website where his findings were initially published.

I know that Dietrich Maerz tends to find any advice I offer him offensive by default but he really ought to be careful of some of the people he trusts and he should get his work proof-read and fact-checked before publishing it. He aspires to be a writer: as both a writer and an editor, I can tell him that serious scribes are usually quite thankful for the input from proofreaders and editors. Unfortunately, as I remarked previously, his work has so far been published in media whose editors appear to take a rather random approach to checking the copy they receive, as a cover-to-cover read-through of any given issue usually shows.

PK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

I do not understand how Mr Maerz can make such an assertion when the damaged frame dies have been at the centre of the whole S&L KC debate since it was first pointed out on the internet, on the WAF back in 2001, that there could be a problem with flawed 1939 pattern KCs by S&L. Mr Maerz has made the point that his findings were published in two magazines and will shortly be included in a book. The magazines are supported by advertising from militaria dealers, as is the website where his findings were initially published.

I can clearly see why Mr. Keating does not understand my assertion because he constantly fails to understand two very basic things: the B-Type has the dent row which the A-type doesn't have and the beading flaw pattern of the pre-45 flawed A-Type is different to the beading flaw pattern of the later B-Type, as outlined several times in this threat and even supported by a diagram. The suggestion by Keating that the B-Type was repaired in (maybe) 1962 does not check out with reality (B-Type frames with dent rows for the 57 model). I suggest another study of the article.

I do not know what magazine Keating is editing and what article he writes. I'm sure that the magazine in question has some advertisement but I'm also quite sure that Keating has no sinister ties to any shampoo advertisement that might be placed in his magazine - something he seems to suggest was the case with me and "supporting militaria dealers". If de didn't want to suggest that, I apologize in advance to spare Keating an answer.

I know that Dietrich Maerz tends to find any advice I offer him offensive by default but he really ought to be careful of some of the people he trusts and he should get his work proof-read and fact-checked before publishing it. He aspires to be a writer: as both a writer and an editor, I can tell him that serious scribes are usually quite thankful for the input from proofreaders and editors. Unfortunately, as I remarked previously, his work has so far been published in media whose editors appear to take a rather random approach to checking the copy they receive, as a cover-to-cover read-through of any given issue usually shows.

Apart from the strange obsession with my 'writing' I like to remark that I do not aspire to be a writer but rather a presenter of my findings. The proofreading thing, however, makes only sense if the proofreader or editor or serious scribe has the mental capacity or the openess to understand the contents of the work in question. I find it far more convenient to stand on my own feet and face possible critique without having the 'out' of blaming an ignorant proofreader for introduction of mistakes or mis-interpretation.

Since Keating is so convinced that the published findings are incorrect I suggest to him to write an article refuting the findings step by step, with pictures and supporting data so everybody can follow his reasoning. This is the normal way in such a case. As a writer and editor it should not be a problem to him and I'm sure he has access to proofreaders and fact checkers.

Cheers

DM

[PKeating]

Mr Maerz continues to ignore the central question focusing on when the dies might have been repaired. I did not assert or allege that the dies were repaired in 1962. It was merely an illustrative figure of speech and, in fact, the dates cited therein were 1944 and 1964. He spends a paragraph reasserting statements with which, I think, I have expressed broad agreement. It is merely the basis for his persistent assertions that the dies were repaired during WW2 that concerns me at the moment. I am involved in this debate solely because I find misinformation hard to tolerate.

As for writing an article about Ritterkreuze, why would I bother? It's not actually a priority topic for me. I am working on other projects. I think others before me, and before Mr Maerz, have covered all the essentials. Mr Maerz's reputation as an authority on the subject was based on his revelatory thesis about "Rounder" KCs and KCs bearing the PKA code '7'. His thesis on S&L KCs is really more of a study of flaws imparted to the frame halves by damaged and repaired dies. It has merit, as I said, but does not prove that flawed S&L KCs predate 1957.

Regarding the publications for which I have written or edited, I sense a challenge to name some of them. OK: they include: The Times (London); The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; The New York Times; The Australian; Welt am Sonntag; various editions of Vogue magazine; Vogue Hommes International; Paris Match; Esquire; Graphis; Nylon; Sleaze Nation and the new men's review Paradis. Topics cover quite a wide range. That's just some of the mainstream stuff. I have never been swayed or corrupted by a shampoo manufacturer... I don't need any free shampoo because I can always steal my wife's.

PK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PKeating

[Chris Boonzaier]

As for the publications for which I have written or edited, they include: The Times (London); The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; The New York Times; The Australian; Welt am Sonntag; various editions of Vogue magazine; Vogue Hommes International; Paris Match; Esquire; Graphis; Nylon; Sleaze Nation and the new men's review Paradis. Topics cover quite a wide range. That's just some of the mainstream stuff.

Blah...blah...blah.... cut the B.S. and open a thread about "Sleaze nation"... who cares about "The Times", give us the interesting stuff...!

(do they have a homepage ??? )

[Dietrich]

Mr Maerz continues to ignore the central question focusing on when the dies might have been repaired. I did not assert or allege that the dies were repaired in 1962. It was merely an illustrative figure of speech and, in fact, the dates cited therein were 1944 and 1964.

No, I don't!

At least we have an understanding that the die was repaired at one point in time. So that is good!

There are a multitude of B-Types on the market:

- 935-4

- 935, magnetic and unmagnetic

- 800-4

- incuse 800

- regular 800

- unmarked, unmagnetic

- 57 model

The earlier examples do not show any beading flaws, the later do so. So it would seem logic to assume that the models w/o beading flaws are stamped earlier and since we have 57's w/o such flaws and furthermore the models 935-4, 935, 800-4, incuse 800 and 800 do also don't show such flaws. From that I would conclude that those were made before 1957.

As I said several times above, I personally think that the 935-4 is the first B-type. I base this on multiple examples I could study under the microscope and subsequent comparison to the other models - concentrating on the wear and definition of the dent row. Also, I happen to believe that the reports of the Klessheim found are correct. But that could be debated since it could be a 'fairy tale'. Fact is t this point in time that none of the B-types are solidly attached to a legitimate recipient.

Also, as I already said above, I consider all the post 935-4 models as in a 'grey area' and several of them are firmly considered to be post war already. Such as the 935 and the unmarked, unmagnetic.

The original S&L debate was initially centered about the beading flawed crosses. All of them were considered post war since there were the very ugly unmagnetic unmarked pieces which also showed beading flaws and were clearly post war. The existence of non-beading flawed 57 crosses would make one think that ALL beading flawed crosses are therefore post-57. However, some people clearly testified to the existence of pre-45 flawed crosses. This was the riddle.

The discovery of two die stages in conjuction with the different beading flaw pattern at least did prove one thing for sure: The pre-45 A-Type crosses with flawed beading do pre-date the 935-4. Thus the existence of genuine flawed crosses (A-type) was proved when taking the 935-4 Klessheim found into consideration.

There is, however, one scenario that is perhaps possible. And I guess this is what Mr. Keating is aluding to:

IF the die was repaired in (lets say and for the sake of discussion) in 1950, logic would tell us that crosses possibly produced between May 1945 and 1950 would all be heavily flawed A-Types (since not yet repaired) and all other non-beading flawed B-types must have been produced between (to stay with the example) 1950 and 1957 (after the repai) or maybe some even later.

The only difference to what I am thinking is the 935-4 model. I believe this to be a good one and the others to be in a 'grey area'. Whether this grey area is 1946-1957 or 1950 to 1957 is for determination of 'genuine' irrelevant. The other difference, however, is the possibility of pots-war flawed A-Types.

My position hinges on the Klessheim found of 935-4's and - to a certain extend - on the quality of those crosses. Up to now, the following B-Type crosses made by S&L are considered 'genuine' in the lierature: 935-4, 935, 800-4, 800 incuse, 800.

I do not share this believe. How could such a stance be considered dealer friendly, by the way?

[Dietrich]

His thesis on S&L KCs is really more of a study of flaws imparted to the frame halves by damaged and repaired dies.

You finally got it! Thank you!

[Dietrich]

Regarding the publications for which I have written or edited, I sense a challenge to name some of them. OK: they include: The Times (London); The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; The New York Times; The Australian; Welt am Sonntag; various editions of Vogue magazine; Vogue Hommes International; Paris Match; Esquire; Graphis; Nylon; Sleaze Nation and the new men's review Paradis. Topics cover quite a wide range.

I didn't challenge you but thanks for the list anyway! For which one's did you serve as an editor, if I might ask? Just curious.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Dietrich

[Dietrich]

It is merely the basis for his persistent assertions that the dies were repaired during WW2 that concerns me at the moment. I am involved in this debate solely because I find misinformation hard to tolerate.

Me again, sorry. But the editing by the poster while I'm typing a response is sometimes throwing me off.

There is a difference between "theory"/"thesis" and "misinformation" - at least in my understanding. I clearly state why I think the die was repaired during the late war period. A misinformation in my book is presented if I would deliberately and categorically state so, but I would know better. So please "tolerate" my theory. No need to tolerate misinformation since there is none.

[Mike]

Since Keating is so convinced that the published findings are incorrect I suggest to him to write an article refuting the findings step by step, with pictures and supporting data so everybody can follow his reasoning. This is the normal way in such a case. DM

Many Collectors are reading this thread and ... I think

Dietrich has a great point. Instead of all the facts being clouded by jumping

around between the various Flaws and who held what or knows what ...and

since it's obvious his findings are being questioned here , I for one would like to see

an article written to refute his work on a point by point basis. This is the

only way to settle it.

Point by Point ..no other comments , no back tracking , no excuses ..this subject should be brought to a head now.

[ekhunter]

Many Collectors are reading this thread and ... I think

Dietrich has a great point. Instead of all the facts being clouded by jumping

around between the various Flaws and who held what or knows what ...and

since it's obvious his findings are being questioned here , I for one would like to see

an article written to refute his work on a point by point basis. This is the

only way to settle it.

Point by Point ..no other comments , no back tracking , no excuses ..this subject should be brought to a head now.

I believe Mike is right. I think Dietrich's point, or points, are in the consensus, and many would like to see this come to some type of conclusion one way or another.

Edited January 9, 2007 by ekhunter

[Robin Lumsden]

Why write an article, when points and arguments can be aired and discussed here in a more dynamic way?

[ekhunter]

Why write an article, when points and arguments can be aired and discussed here in a more dynamic way?

Maybe 'Article' was the wrong choice of words. I think he may have meant a 'Thread' to lay it all out point by point. Article sounds soo formal!

[PKeating]

I see that the cavalry has turned up. Sorry, gents, but Dietrich is the 'challenger' here. I am not about to reiterate posts ad nauseam on demand. However, I will address his latest post.

At least we have an understanding that the die was repaired at one point in time. So that is good!

That was never in dispute, as far as I am concerned.

The earlier examples do not show any beading flaws, the later do so. So it would seem logic to assume that the models w/o beading flaws are stamped earlier and since we have 57's w/o such flaws and furthermore the models 935-4, 935, 800-4, incuse 800 and 800 do also don't show such flaws. From that I would conclude that those were made before 1957.

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. If we have flawless 1957 crosses, then it surely follows that the flaws observed on 1939 and 1957 pattern crosses might well have occurred after the introduction of the 1957 pattern.

As I said several times above, I personally think that the 935-4 is the first B-type. I base this on multiple examples I could study under the microscope and subsequent comparison to the other models - concentrating on the wear and definition of the dent row. Also, I happen to believe that the reports of the Klessheim found are correct. But that could be debated since it could be a 'fairy tale'. Fact is t this point in time that none of the B-types are solidly attached to a legitimate recipient.

OK. Given that no "B-Type" is considered to have direct provenance to a recipient of the KC, it could be that all B-Types are postwar. It could also be the case that flawed "A-Types" are also postwar. How do you know they aren't? You're the one making the assertion but, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, no "A-Type" with RKT provenance has been produced to back up any of your assertions. The only S&L KCs I have seen with RKT provenance had no flaws.

The original S&L debate was initially centered about the beading flawed crosses. All of them were considered post war since there were the very ugly unmagnetic unmarked pieces which also showed beading flaws and were clearly post war. The existence of non-beading flawed 57 crosses would make one think that ALL beading flawed crosses are therefore post-57. However, some people clearly testified to the existence of pre-45 flawed crosses. This was the riddle.

Who "testified"? Who are these people and where is the evidence?

The discovery of two die stages in conjuction with the different beading flaw pattern at least did prove one thing for sure: The pre-45 A-Type crosses with flawed beading do pre-date the 935-4. Thus the existence of genuine flawed crosses (A-type) was proved when taking the 935-4 Klessheim found into consideration.

This is your opinion. The unflawed 935-4 "Schloss Klessheim" crosses might just as easily rank alongside unflawed 1957 pattern crosses in terms of your "timeline". More than a few objects have been attributed to "Schloss Klessheim" without any hard proof to support the claims.

There is, however, one scenario that is perhaps possible. And I guess this is what Mr. Keating is aluding to:

IF the die was repaired in (lets say and for the sake of discussion) in 1950, logic would tell us that crosses possibly produced between May 1945 and 1950 would all be heavily flawed A-Types (since not yet repaired) and all other non-beading flawed B-types must have been produced between (to stay with the example) 1950 and 1957 (after the repai) or maybe some even later.

The only difference to what I am thinking is the 935-4 model. I believe this to be a good one and the others to be in a 'grey area'. Whether this grey area is 1946-1957 or 1950 to 1957 is for determination of 'genuine' irrelevant. The other difference, however, is the possibility of pots-war flawed A-Types.

My position hinges on the Klessheim found of 935-4's and - to a certain extend - on the quality of those crosses. Up to now, the following B-Type crosses made by S&L are considered 'genuine' in the lierature: 935-4, 935, 800-4, 800 incuse, 800.

I do not share this believe. How could such a stance be considered dealer friendly, by the way?

It renders more crosses less questionable. It is also 'collector-friendly' in that it seeks to remove the question marks hovering over flawed S&L KCs. Your theses might be absolutely correct but you can no more prove them than I can prove mine. For this reason, I see no point in wasting time writing an article about the topic. I will simply be preaching to the converted or provoking those who take an opposing view. My view is shared by quite a few people. Others reserve their opinions. Your camp is determined to establish your opinion as fact.

The interesting thing, for me, is the effort you and your supporters appear to devote to attacking me for not falling into line and agreeing with you.

PK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PKeating

[PKeating]

I didn't challenge you but thanks for the list anyway! For which one's did you serve as an editor, if I might ask? Just curious.

Why do you want to know?

PK

[PKeating]

Many Collectors are reading this thread and ... I think

Dietrich has a great point. Instead of all the facts being clouded by jumping

around between the various Flaws and who held what or knows what ...and

since it's obvious his findings are being questioned here , I for one would like to see

an article written to refute his work on a point by point basis. This is the

only way to settle it.

I'm not "jumping around"! I have remained doggedly consistent for over five years, since this subject was initially aired in 2001.

Point by Point ..no other comments , no back tracking , no excuses ..this subject should be brought to a head now.

I think I have expressed the opposing view to Maerz's theses with absolute clarity and simplicity. There is no point in a point-by-point refutation of Maerz's theses because the simple questions I have posed address all of his points in a broad manner.

PK

[PKeating]

I believe Mike is right. I think Dietrich's point, or points, are in the consensus, and many would like to see this come to some type of conclusion one way or another.

What "consensus"? Are you trying to imply that everyone agrees with Maerz's assertions? The conclusion is that some people distrust flawed S&L KCs and others don't. That's it in a nutshell. Neither camp can prove its theories. The salient aspect, for me, is the aggressive and personally abusive manner in which the camp in favour of the questionable flawed crosses seeks to silence or discredit those who disagree with them.

Dr Hansen continues to be vilified, having been banned from the website on which Mr Maerz moderates the Iron Cross forum for trying to publish his opposing, scientifically-based findings about "Rounder" KCs while those involved in promoting these fakes or fantasy pieces remain in good standing there. These people include the individual who made up a cock-and-bull story - and later admitted in public that he had lied - to provide 'provenance' for a "Rounder" used as a cornerstone of Maerz's thesis in that article. He was then the target of smear tactics after he or his son resold the "Rounder" he purchased for testing purposes. The fact that he sold it for a fraction of the price of a real KC was naturally ignored by the lynch mob.

Why would I or any other fairly serious-minded person waste time arguing this matter on a point-by-point basis with people who are not interested in getting at the truth? It would be like arguing with Flat Earthers or fundamentalists of any kind. Futile! We have our take on it and you have yours. Why can't you just let it go at that? Buy as many dodgy S&L KCs as you like. Trade them amongst yourselves for thousands of dollars, euros or pounds. If you're all so convinced that Maerz is right, why keep hammering away at heretics like me? Just tell yourselves that I am mad and ignore me.

PK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PKeating

[PKeating]

Me again, sorry. But the editing by the poster while I'm typing a response is sometimes throwing me off.

There is a difference between "theory"/"thesis" and "misinformation" - at least in my understanding. I clearly state why I think the die was repaired during the late war period. A misinformation in my book is presented if I would deliberately and categorically state so, but I would know better. So please "tolerate" my theory. No need to tolerate misinformation since there is none.

You should be glad that I am editing and moderating my posts. Anyway, thank you for tacitly admitting that you "think" the die was repaired during the late war period. I "think" it was repaired after the war, for reasons I have stated in this thread and elsewhere. It boils down to the question of probability versus possibility. It is possible that the die was repaired in 1944 but is it really probable? I think it improbable. You think otherwise. Even you have been unable, so far, to produce a single flawed S&L KC with provenance confirming it to be a cross awarded to and worn by a Ritterkreuztrager before 9.5.1945. When we showed an unflawed 1957 KC, you ignored it at first but when pressed, insisted that it was a post-1957 "second type" despite the fact that this was clearly not the case. You even cited another unnamed person who had high definition photographs of it to prove your assertion but, of course, that came to nothing in the end.

I have to say that the criteria you employ in deciding what constitutes proof when composing your theses are, as the record shows, rather lax. I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible about this but how else can I say this? I think you tend to try to make the evidence, such as it is, fit the pre-conceived opinion rather than allowing the evidence to lead you towards a conclusion. This is why you took Brian Hildemann's story about his "Rounder" at face value, without exercising due diligence or even asking Hildemann the kind of probing questions that caused him to blow a fuse online and admit that he was lying, after offering several different accounts of his "Rounder" KC's history.

I take no pleasure in this, by the way. I wish you'd just let it drop or, at least, stop peddling it here on this website where people are not banned for disagreeing with you. This, for me, is about as sporting as shooting a tethered nanny goat with a 10-bore elephant gun at close range.

PK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

The salient aspect, for me, is the aggressive and personally abusive manner in which the camp in favour of the questionable flawed crosses seeks to silence or discredit those who disagree with them.

Please tell me where I was aggressive and abusive to you or anybody else and I will edit my post and issue a sincere apology!

Dr Hansen continues to be vilified, having been banned from the website on which Mr Maerz moderates the Iron Cross forum for trying to publish his opposing, scientifically-based findings about "Rounder" KCs while those involved in promoting these fakes or fantasy pieces remain in good standing there. These people include the individual who made up a cock-and-bull story - and later admitted in public that he had lied - to provide 'provenance' for a "Rounder" used as a cornerstone of Maerz's thesis in that article. He was then the target of smear tactics after he or his son resold the "Rounder" he purchased for testing purposes. The fact that he sold it for a fraction of the price of a real KC was naturally ignored by the lynch mob.

I don't know why Keating is bringing this up again and again. I have stated several times already my position on this - the last time at the beginning of this threat. And for the record, the findings of Dr. Hansen were published at WAF and they are still there for everybody to see. The only reason I can see here is to somewhat discredit my S&L theory by muddling it up with this never-ending 'Rounder' thing. By the way, "these fakes and fantasy pieces" are not my invention and have been published by others before. People who are and should be in good standing.

Why would I or any other fairly serious-minded person waste time arguing this matter on a point-by-point basis with people who are not interested in getting at the truth? It would be like arguing with Flat Earthers or fundamentalists of any kind. Futile! We have our take on it and you have yours. Why can't you just let it go at that? Buy as many dodgy S&L KCs as you like. Trade them amongst yourselves for thousands of dollars, euros or pounds. If you're all so convinced that Maerz is right, why keep hammering away at heretics like me? Just tell yourselves that I am mad and ignore me.

I know this is not directed at me, but again for the record, I consider myself very serious minded. I for sure do not hammer at you, I'm only trying to express what I think and - believe me - I do not exspect you to change your mind. But this is a discussion forum and others are reading, too and might enjoy the several aspects of the debate.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Dietrich

[Mike]

I see that the cavalry has turned up. Sorry, gents, but Dietrich is the 'challenger' here. I am not about to reiterate posts ad nauseam on demand. However, I will address his latest post.PK

The "Cavalry" might be here but , I'd be more inclined to compare us to a UN Cav unit -- Just Observers

We simply want to sit back , sip our Tea and learn as both "Schools of Thought" present their case.

As far as Dietrich being the "Challenger" here ...it sounds to me as if it's his work that's being Challenged.

If you're all so convinced that Maerz is right, why keep hammering away at heretics like me? Just tell yourselves that I am mad and ignore me. PK

This thread sat dormant for 3 days after your last post ...you resurrected it now..so obviously , you're not done with it .

You know ...I really do respect you and admire your style ..you have quite a way with words and have an ability that very few can match ..but we are now starting to cloud the facts and change a threads direction. It seems like this is turning into a Fencing Match ...BUT , I don't think that the Collectors reading this want it to turn into a competition or see who "Wins" -It is not a Game to us ..we're simply interested in learning more about the S&L Flaws and the ability to establish a time line based on their progression.

Dietrich posted his findings ...if his findings are to be questioned , you should take the time and write an article documenting (in your opinion but also backed with Photos and facts) why his S&L theory is being questioned point by point ..this way the "Cavalry" can read, compare and decide for itself .

Edited January 10, 2007 by Mike

[Dietrich]

When we showed an unflawed 1957 KC, you ignored it at first but when pressed, insisted that it was a post-1957 "second type" despite the fact that this was clearly not the case.

There are a lot of unflawed 57 B-Type crosses. That is exactly the point. Please read again my post # 80. I don't feel pressed at all, by the way.

I have to say that the criteria you employ in deciding what constitutes proof when composing your theses are, as the record shows, rather lax. I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible about this but how else can I say this? I think you tend to try to make the evidence, such as it is, fit the pre-conceived opinion rather than allowing the evidence to lead you towards a conclusion.

There is not even one piece of physical evidence you could not verify on your own. And thank you for being diplomatic with me!

This is why you took Brian Hildemann's story about his "Rounder" at face value, without exercising due diligence or even asking Hildemann the kind of probing questions that caused him to blow a fuse online and admit that he was lying, after offering several different accounts of his "Rounder" KC's history.

Again I do not understand why you are bringing this up again and again. I take - as an example - your story about the sale of the flawed die in England also at face value. Maybe it's not true, maybe it is true. I happen to believe you.

I take no pleasure in this, by the way. I wish you'd just let it drop or, at least, stop peddling it here on this website where people are not banned for disagreeing with you. This, for me, is about as sporting as shooting a tethered nanny goat with a 10-bore elephant gun at close range.

So in other words, I just should leave, keep my opinions to myself, stop peddling here? May I kindly remind you that the owner of this site was opening this threat and specifically expanded it to the subject of the S&L dies. I gave my opinion, which - so I hope - I'm entitled to. Sure, I'm arguing with you on a factual basis, explaining my points. I don't consider this peddling. Nor do I in any way shape or form handle you in a disrespectfull way. Furthermore, nobody was ever banned from any site for disagreeing with me. Not banned by me nor anybody else. This is a track record some people do not have, by the way. Don't forget, Dr. Hansen was also banned form this site where I have no saying.

You should also allow me to answer to some of your points, especially when they are not quite correct in relation with the Rounder (which I did not bring up constantly). Why don't you just concentrate on the S&L issue and your viewpint in contrast to mine.

However, if the owner of the site contacts me and asks me to "stop peddling" or drop the issue, I surely will do so.

[ekhunter]

What "consensus"? Are you trying to imply that everyone agrees with Maerz's assertions? The conclusion is that some people distrust flawed S&L KCs and others don't. That's it in a nutshell. Neither camp can prove its theories. The salient aspect, for me, is the aggressive and personally abusive manner in which the camp in favour of the questionable flawed crosses seeks to silence or discredit those who disagree with them.

Dr Hansen continues to be vilified, having been banned from the website on which Mr Maerz moderates the Iron Cross forum for trying to publish his opposing, scientifically-based findings about "Rounder" KCs while those involved in promoting these fakes or fantasy pieces remain in good standing there. These people include the individual who made up a cock-and-bull story - and later admitted in public that he had lied - to provide 'provenance' for a "Rounder" used as a cornerstone of Maerz's thesis in that article. He was then the target of smear tactics after he or his son resold the "Rounder" he purchased for testing purposes. The fact that he sold it for a fraction of the price of a real KC was naturally ignored by the lynch mob.

Why would I or any other fairly serious-minded person waste time arguing this matter on a point-by-point basis with people who are not interested in getting at the truth? It would be like arguing with Flat Earthers or fundamentalists of any kind. Futile! We have our take on it and you have yours. Why can't you just let it go at that? Buy as many dodgy S&L KCs as you like. Trade them amongst yourselves for thousands of dollars, euros or pounds. If you're all so convinced that Maerz is right, why keep hammering away at heretics like me? Just tell yourselves that I am mad and ignore me.

PK

First, let me say that I too feel that Tom Hansen has been vilified and raked over the coals unjustly for way too long while others have gotten away with some pretty nasty stuff. I personally don't like flawed S&L's RK's, and feel that all of the B-types(possibly excluding the 935-4) fall into a post war grey area. Assuming the story of Schloss Klessheim is true, then the 935-4 would be the first B-type, and the probable last wartime RK made. Assuming the story is false, then the first of the B-type (935-4) would be the first of the post wars. Correct? How many flawless 57 RK crosses are out there? One, two? Who knows? Who's to say that these weren't assembled with flawless pre-45 frames that were still at S&L, no one knows for sure. Just speculating possibilities here, so no need to eviscerate. I'm not implying that everyone agrees with the timeline that Dietrich asserts, and I never said I was one of those in the consensus, but I do believe that his theory does make some sense in a rather muddy field when laid out, and is a pretty good foundation for trying to lay out some type of time table on these S&L, RK's. It is however, an opinion.

[PKeating]

As the late, inimitable William C Stump used to say: believe it or not. Believe whatever you wish to believe. I reserve the right to consider all flawed 1939 pattern S&L KCs questionable. In fact, I consider all 1939 S&L KCs questionable unless they fall into the shrinking category of truly verifiable examples. But hey, that's just me. I could be wrong. I could be right. Who knows?

PK

[PKeating]

Regarding #96: I have never been in disagreement with the opinions summarised by your post, ekhunter. As I said, Maerz's work has merit. He wonders why I refer to the "Rounder" issue. I think it is relevant in terms of establishing the stringency with which he treats some of the evidence upon which he relies when advancing his opinions. Had Dr Hansen been successfully silenced, I doubt if Maerz's "Rounder" article would have been withdrawn by its author. Once I gave Dr Hansen a platform on MCF to publish his findings, the cat was out of the bag and there was nothing Maerz or his fellow moderators over there could do about it.

PK

[ekhunter]

Regarding #96: I have never been in disagreement with the opinions summarised by your post, ekhunter. As I said, Maerz's work has merit. He wonders why I refer to the "Rounder" issue. I think it is relevant in terms of establishing the stringency with which he treats some of the evidence upon which he relies when advancing his opinions. Had Dr Hansen been successfully silenced, I doubt if Maerz's "Rounder" article would have been withdrawn by its author. Once I gave Dr Hansen a platform on MCF to publish his findings, the cat was out of the bag and there was nothing Maerz or his fellow moderators over there could do about it.

PK

The whole 'Rounder' affair has no doubt been a cancer to the collecting community. After reading about it and seeing it for the first time in Gordon's book, I found it to be a rather ugly RK that I ranked right underneath the K&Q. Thank God that by the time I came around to maybe purchasing one of these turds, it had already been exposed for what it was. Fortunately, it was exposed right after a Floch had burned a hole in my hand. That would have probably sent me packing to collect rocks, sticks, or something else. Back to the S&L's. I personally, only have faith in the unflawed A-types. If these were somehow ever proven to be post war, I would tuck tail and stay away from Third Reich for good, and return to Imperial Crosses forever. I use to be an owner of a 935 unmagnetic B-type piece. So I know a little of how they have fleeced a few collector's over the years. The unflawed A-type is the only S&L that I will ever own. But hey, that's just me, but anyway, I love a good healthy debate about these damn things. As I told StefanK the other day, I'm always learning something new every day.

[Stogieman]

OK, at this point I would like to interject a little bit of history. Dr. Hansen took a cross (known as a "rounder") and proved through sound science that the materials used to manufacture and paint it were clearly postwar. I have no issue thus far, and commend him for investing his time, his money and his brain. Clearly here was a piece that was being flogged off on collectors world-wide as authentic when it was not.

Dr. Hansen then placed the cross on eBay and cited a book by Gordon Williamson as the "proof" of the "authenticity" of the cross. It was NOT CLEARLY stated in the listing that the cross was most assuredly a "Post-WW2" cross. The implied appearance of the eBay listing was "Here's a cross that is identical to the example in noted author's book on the Iron Cross".

OK, he doesn't exactly state it to be real; but he doesn't exactly state it to be fake, does he?

It was (and remains) my firm opinion that there was a an attempt to offer a piece to unsuspecting and/or uninformed eBay buyers. This is a constant modus operandi of dubious sellers (NOT necessarily the constant action of Dr. Hansen). I am sorry, but placing a known copy for sale without clearly identifying the piece for what it is and then alluding to a reference (that Dr. Hansen had already clearly, publicly stated his disagreement to) is not the sort of thing I could condone.

If I sell a "crown" Imperial Pilot Badge that I am clearly opposed to as authentic, but cite a (previously published and wrong) reference from an accepted "expert" BUT I sell it at about a third of the value of the authentic badge...... this is morally acceptable?? Not for me.

When many of us called Dr. Hansen's behavior out on the carpet, his original rebuttal consisted of "It's not mine, I gave it to my son". Many of us felt this was a morally incorrect action as well. The "discourse" took a rather ugly turn at that point and there's no need to re-hash all of that here. It's done, it's over. But the facts of what happen remain etched in stone.

I wish to be clear. I think Dr. Hansen's research is commendable and his findings appear to be soundly based in science and I have no issue whatsoever with this aspect. However, I (continue) to feel quite strongly that Dr. Hansen's activity after the fact were morally unacceptable to me. This is my opinion. Not the opinion of this website, the moderator's, the administrator or anyone else.

However, I also feel that to not interject the history clouds the issue(s) being stated here by Prosper. Yes, perhaps Dr. Hansen has been "punished" for his actions too long.... but it was his direct actions that tainted his character.

Again, the science he used was sound. The results I cannot dispute. However, it was tainted, IMO, by the sale of the item after the fact.

Now, since I left another site over this issue and have not returned, I cannot comment about the efforts to "silence" the research and/or debate. Also, I have no dog in this race. I do not, nor ever will, collect KC's. My sole issue, having followed the entire debate since its' inception, was "hey, that wasn't a nice thing to do".

Remember, not saying it's wrong; is the same as saying it's right.