EK 1939 The Great RK debate ?

[Dietrich]

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 Had Dr Hansen been successfully silenced, I doubt if Maerz's "Rounder" article would have been withdrawn by its author.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.

Keating mixes up the time line and the evidence. First of all, Dr. Hansen was NOT the only one conducting an investigation. He was, however, the one who nailed down the compound and he deserves credit for this and his overall drive to find the truth. His findings were published at WAF quite some time before he became a Moderator at MCF. Keating is constantly ignoring this. Regarding the withdrawal of the article about the Rounder Keating brings up again and again I can only say that at the point of writing this is what I thought. Just as Mr. Williamson thought the Rounder to be genuine when he published his book, just as a lot of other thought about the subject. Now I openly admitt that I am not infallible and I still have to meet somebody who is. Of course, now everybody knows ...

I resent the notion by Keating that I (and others) did supress information deliberately. It is not true and I can only speculate why he suggests so. He also seems to forget that it was my Rounder, which I did send to Dr. Hansen for his first SEM investigation. And all those findings where published as WAF also.

Now back to the issue at hand:

Keating and anybody else can think whatever they want. I'm not preaching a religion and nobody has to believe it. I think, however, that the findings have helped the community to have a better grip on the issue and I'm delighted that Keating at least agrees with the A and B Type.

[PKeating]

Fair comments there from Rick and ekhunter. I didn't see the original eBay sale page and I think it was pulled quite quickly. Hansen has discussed it on MCF, if I recall correctly. The wording of his ad, as quoted here, seems rather pointed. He may have been taking a swipe. However, that is simply conjecture and not something I am inclined to comment further upon. Whatever the truth of his sale of the "Rounder" might be, it is irrelevant to the central issue and nobody disputes Dr Hansen's findings.

PK

[Mike]

...I agree with ekhunter. But I'm starting to worry about the "tone" of this debate ...After reading through everything again , it's starting to sound more like it's about Dietrich personally ...is this turning into the "REVENGE of THE ROUNDER" thread ?

Here are a few excerpts from previous posts --

*********************************************************************************

--the stringency with which he treats some of the evidence

--Had Dr Hansen been successfully silenced, I doubt if Maerz's "Rounder" article would have been withdrawn .

--the cat was out of the bag and there was nothing Maerz or his fellow moderators over there could do about it.

--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

--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.

--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. --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'.**********************************************************************************

The "Rounder" should never have been brought into this Thread and ...why question Dietrich's integrity ? Is there another agenda here ?

Edited January 9, 2007 by Mike

[PKeating]

Ah! I was waiting for the derailing tactics. Look, Mike, Dietrich Maerz is not being persecuted in this thread. I am just trying to get him to give straight answers to a couple of quite simple questions and he hasn't managed it yet. When one sets oneself up as an authority on a subject, one must expect to be questioned.

PK

Edited January 9, 2007 by PKeating

[Mike]

questioned yes ...but not accused

[Mike]

Ah! I was waiting for the derailing tactics. Look, Mike, Dietrich Maerz is not being persecuted in this thread. I am just trying to get him to give straight answers to a couple of quite simple questions. When one sets oneself up as an authority on a subject, one must expect to be questioned.

PK

Also ..I never heard him to proclaim himself as an "Authority"

[Dietrich]

I am just trying to get him to give straight answers to a couple of quite simple questions. When one sets oneself up as an authority on a subject, one must expect to be questioned.

I have outlined my position several times. That's all I knwo about this subject. Take some crosses and look for yourself.

But we are making progress:

PK, post #13:

"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, post #88, regarding the repaired die:

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

[Stogieman]

Hi Mike, pretty sure the title of the thread is "The Great RK Debate", so there should not be any issue discussing anything to do with the RK's. My interjection was directed at one comment by Prosper. I don't think there's been anything other than lots of questions. The reason the Rounder becomes important in the context of this debate is the fact that clear, expensive, testing showed beyond a reasonable doubt that a cross ("The Rounder") was fake.... Frankly, I'm surprised that no mention has been made of similar testing of "flawed" crosses. It seems to me, if the issue was as critical as many feel, that the process could be employed again.

Or, has it, but the data not published? Inconclusive?

[PKeating]

I am not accusing Maerz of anything. I am simply recounting what happened when Hansen tried to express his opinions and publish his research. I daresay that a thread like this would last about five minutes over there too. That is one of the aspects of all of these discussions, the marked tendency to censor or suppress any alternative or dissenting opinions if the individual whose statements are being questioned happens to be "one of the boys". The Chairman of GMIC and his management team have very generously supplied a level playing field, so to speak, for this discussion and all I am seeing from the visiting team, as it were, is obfuscation, claims to the gallery of unfair treatment, implicit accusations and persecution and, occasionally, blatant derailing tactics. So, here are some of the simple questions again:

Dietrich, how do you know with certainty that Steinhauer & L?ck repaired their KC frame dies in 1944?

How do you lknow that some flawed S&L KCs predate the end of WW2?

PK

[PKeating]

I have outlined my position several times. That's all I knwo about this subject. Take some crosses and look for yourself.

Oh, but I am very familiar with the Steinhauer & L?ck KC...

But we are making progress:

PK, post #13:

"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, post #88, regarding the repaired die:

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

Predictably, you are quoting me out of context. My position on the repairs to the frame dies has been consistent in that while it is obvious that attempts were made to repair them, I tend to believe that the firm did this long after WW2, because the frame dies as used during the war represented a commercial asset of some importance. The "dispute" is not about whether or not repairs were made but when they were made.

Now, please try to give me clear answers to my questions above. I am sure a lot of people are waiting.

Thanks.

PK

[Mike]

I am not accusing Maerz of anything. I am simply recounting what happened when Hansen tried to express his opinions and publish his research. I daresay that a thread like this would last about five minutes over there too. That is one of the aspects of all of these discussions, the marked tendency to censor or suppress any alternative or dissenting opinions if the individual whose statements are being questioned happens to be "one of the boys". The Chairman of GMIC and his management team have very generously supplied a level playing field, so to speak, for this discussion and all I am seeing from the visiting team, as it were, is obfuscation, claims to the gallery of unfair treatment, implicit accusations and persecution and, occasionally, blatant derailing tactics.

PK

In my Post #103 I pasted your comments so , it's clear ...no smoke here

Ours is a small community ..and anyone who claims to be an expert , is a fool. When any collector feels there's nothing left to learn or allows his Ego take over and feels he's better, has a larger Collection or knows more than other Collectors ..he's no longer a part of our Community.

And Yes , I know Dietrich ...We went through some of the Archives at West Point last Summer ...when the Curator handed him the first case to examine , he opened it and looked at me and said --" If these Awards were in a European Museum , our Collecting Community would never have had access to them like this ...through these High Res Scans , the minute details of these Awards will be shared with Collectors worldwide "

Not exactly what you'd expect a self proclaimed "Authority" to say ...but something you would expect a Historian to say.

We are here to Learn ... and to Collect ..Not to compete

[PKeating]

No response yet? Ah, gotta think about those questions, eh? I am beginning to experience an insight into how Jeremy Paxman feels as he barks at some dissembling politician or wideboy: "Just answer the question!"

PK

[PKeating]

Mike, that's very touching but you're preaching to the converted in my case. I don't think Dietrich Maerz needs the sympathy vote, mate! I think he needs to back his assertions about flawed S&L KCs up with some hard evidence. He's the one stating with utter conviction that the dies were repaired in 1944 or thereabouts. I am simply suggesting that we do not know or cannot be sure when they were repaired. So, once again, those questions...

PK

[Dietrich]

Dietrich, how do you know with certainty that Steinhauer & L?ck repaired their KC frame dies in 1944?

I do NOT know and I never said I did. To quote myself out of this threat:

"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!"

"If the die was repaired after 57 then the 935-4 which are alledged to be found in Klessheim are also post 57. And so are the 935, 800-4, 800, 800 incuse. Surely a possiblity if one discounts the Klessheim provenance"

"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."

"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."

I cannot see anywhere here or at any other place where I categorically state that "I know". So let's dimiss this question as a "Fangfrage"

How do you lknow that some flawed S&L KCs predate the end of WW2?

Again, I do NOT know But several things can I state: First of all, I happen to believe that some people are telling the truth. You know of two of them, at least. Secondly, as outlined several times, I also happen to belive that the 935-4 is a pre may 45 product and I also base that on (for me) reliable sources. I one accepts that, the question is answered.

Now, since we are into absolutes now, let me ask you this:

How do you know that flawed A-Type crosses are post war?

How do you know that the 935-4 was NOT at Klessheim

How do you know that all the provenance for flawed A-Types must be wrong

And I know that you don't know!

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dietrich

[Dietrich]

No response yet? Ah, gotta think about those questions, eh? I am beginning to experience an insight into how Jeremy Paxman feels as he barks at some dissembling politician or wideboy: "Just answer the question!"

PK

Patience, young man, patience!

[Dietrich]

I think he needs to back his assertions about flawed S&L KCs up with some hard evidence. He's the one stating with utter conviction that the dies were repaired in 1944 or thereabouts. I am simply suggesting that we do not know or cannot be sure when they were repaired. So, once again, those questions...

You can twist, turn, divert or whatever, but you will not find any 'utter conviction' in this threat ..... at least not from me.

I hope that the mayority of the reader understand what I'm trying to say and on what I base my arguments on. To push me into the corner of a 'stuborn authority' will not work.

By the way, I'm waiting for your answers.

[PKeating]

And finally there was light! That's the conclusion regarding flawed Steinhauer & L?ck Knights' Crosses: nobody knows if they are OK or not. Therefore...they are questionable. That's all I was ever pointing out!

Q...E...D...

PK

[Dietrich]

And finally there was light! That's the conclusion regarding flawed Steinhauer & L?ck Knights' Crosses: nobody knows if they are OK or not. Therefore...they are questionable. That's all I was ever pointing out!

Nope! Not quite so! And not that easy!

First of all, to make the above statement, you need to answer my questions. Don't forget, behind the assumptions I was making is some credible evidence. I don't think you can or will call numerous people liars or part of a great conspiracy just to make it 'questionable'.

Furthermore, there is more than just the flawed/unflawed issue. There are the multiple other S&L types which are unflawed and surely need to be addressed. Some of them are or were still considered pre May 45. I don't think so and that debate is for sure not over. Or do you know where thoses types fall: 800-4, 935, 800 incuse, 800 B-Type? Pre or post May 45?

And lastly, the community hopefully realizes that there are two types of flawed crosses. A-Types and B-Types. And do not mix them up!

The S&L saga is for sure not over and I never claimed that it is. However, it is a better picture than it was 3 years ago and I hope the awarness level regarding the B-Types has been raised inside the community. And, I might say, I did not make friend with dealers by trying to do so...

[PKeating]

Now, since we are into absolutes now, let me ask you this:

How do you know that flawed A-Type crosses are post war?

I don't. But who can say with certainty that they are not? I wouldn't want to "bet" thousands of dollars on it!

How do you know that the 935-4 was NOT at Klessheim

I don't. But I have seen many things accorded "Schlo? Klessheim" provenance...

How do you know that all the provenance for flawed A-Types must be wrong

I don't. But do you have any examples of such provenance that you would like to share here?

Remember, provenance can seem watertight, as George Petersen thought when he purchased the two Paul Conrath formal RK documents "directly from the Conrath" family in a deal put together by two well known Hamburg dealers. They were very good forgeries, in original folders. That scam was conceived by a couple of naughty dealers and took years to come to the surface.

I know of at least one RKT who has sold his KC to trusting, awestuck collectors several times over. I also know of an Austrian family who conned a fellow with a couple of fake documents for a KC awarded to an uncle.

Of course, in 99% of cases, a verifiable line of provenance to the recipient or his immediate family-cum-estate is generally fine but just because some old geezer was decorated for valour once upon a time and has white hair and twinkly blue eyes now, it is no guarantee that he is not a con artist.

Just saying something is so doesn't make it so, as you found to your cost in the case of the famous Freiherr von Pretzel cross all the way from the frozen snows of Stalingrad. There was a Rounder KC with provenance...not.

And I know that you don't know!

Well, I should hope so because I have stated it often enough...

PK

Edited January 10, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

I don't. But who can say with certainty that they are not? I wouldn't want to "bet" thousands of dollars on it!

See, there's a difference! I would bet a $ 1000.- on a flawed A-type. I trust my research.

I don't. But I have seen many things accorded "Schlo? Klessheim" provenance...

Sure. And I have seen a lot of things from Klessheim that are real. The Westpoint medals as an example. And other things..

I don't. But do you have any examples of such provenance that you would like to share here?

No! Why? Because I will not drag some people into this debate and maybe let their honesty be questioned. Just leave it like I said: I believe it.

Just saying something is so doesn't make it so, as you found to your cost in the case of the famous Freiherr von Pretzel cross all the way from the frozen snows of Stalingrad. There was a Rounder KC with provenance...not.

Okay, the Rounder again. Oh well ... However, there are ton's and ton's of good provenance and some of it has to do with S&L, Godet, Klein and so on. Sure, there is fake provenance and always will be. But if you work on something and you approach from different sites it just might shake out. So far, it did! At least for me!

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dietrich

[PKeating]

Keating mixes up the time line and the evidence. First of all, Dr. Hansen was NOT the only one conducting an investigation. He was, however, the one who nailed down the compound and he deserves credit for this and his overall drive to find the truth. His findings were published at WAF quite some time before he became a Moderator at MCF. Keating is constantly ignoring this.

Revisionism...

Regarding the withdrawal of the article about the Rounder Keating brings up again and again I can only say that at the point of writing this is what I thought. Just as Mr. Williamson thought the Rounder to be genuine when he published his book, just as a lot of other thought about the subject. Now I openly admitt that I am not infallible and I still have to meet somebody who is. Of course, now everybody knows ...

And some people did not take it at face value...

I resent the notion by Keating that I (and others) did supress information deliberately. It is not true and I can only speculate why he suggests so. He also seems to forget that it was my Rounder, which I did send to Dr. Hansen for his first SEM investigation. And all those findings where published as WAF also.

Someone hit the Delete button several times in a row as Hansen tried to post his research and then Hansen was deemed "no longer part of the community", as your friend Mike might put it, and "expelled", joining a long line of dissidents.

Now back to the issue at hand:

Keating and anybody else can think whatever they want. I'm not preaching a religion and nobody has to believe it. I think, however, that the findings have helped the community to have a better grip on the issue and I'm delighted that Keating at least agrees with the A and B Type.

I have never had any reason to disagree with it. As we now agree, Dietrich, nobody can be sure of when any of the repairs were made to the frame dies. Of course, one can say that some crosses predate others, as you have explained very well to people, but we cannot be precise about the year or even the decade in which some of the 1939 pattern S&L KCs were actually made.

PK

[Dietrich]

Someone hit the Delete button several times in a row as Hansen tried to post his research and then Hansen was deemed "no longer part of the community", as your friend Mike might put it, and "expelled", joining a long line of dissidents.

Absolutely untrue! Dr. Hanson was 'suspended' at that point in time and could not post. His findings were posted by Peter Wiking and can still be found here:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ghlight=Rounder

The Dr. Hansen's suspension was lifted to explain the E-Bay sale and during this process happened to what Stogieman eluded to and Dr. Hansen was banned, at WAF and here also. It was NOT beacuse of the Rounder!

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dietrich

[Dietrich]

Revisionism...

Could you elaborate please?

[PKeating]

I prefer not.

PK

Edited January 10, 2007 by PKeating

[Mike]

Revisionism...

PK

You tossed that comment on the Table ..now you won't explain it ?