EK 1939 The Great RK debate ?

[Dietrich]

I prefer not.

Would you care to retract it then?

[PKeating]

A "Rounder", for those who haven't seen one.

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!

I think you just scored an own goal, old bean. I rather like Dave Kane's rather spare but nonetheless eloquent riposte. All you have done is confirm that Hansen was prevented from publishing his material on the WAF, as anyone reading this thread you cite can see for themselves.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...mp;postcount=14

Hansen was suspended because he had been trying to post the information subsequently posted by Peter Wiking. The version of Hansen's findings and remarks currently extant on the WAF website differs somewhat from Hansen's posting of his findings on MCF, where they were not subjected to any form of censorship. For anyone interested in reading Hansen uncensored, click here.

Post #4 in the MCF thread started by Hansen is quite interesting.

PK

[PKeating]

Would you care to retract it then?

No

[PKeating]

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

Doesn't need explaining...

[PKeating]

Can we get back on topic? This thread is about Knights' Crosses although the flawed S&L KC has really been done to death. What about mint Klein & Quenzer KCs?

PK

[Mike]

Can we get back on topic? This thread is about Knights' Crosses although the flawed S&L KC has really been done to death. What about mint Klein & Quenzer KCs?

PK

I don't think we should change direction here ...as I read it , the Rounder part was ended back in Post #11 ..but keeps poping up like a fog (when needed )

We were and are talking about our beloved S&L's ...let's sort that out first and stay on track

[PKeating]

Ah, so you have an interest in seeing flawed S&L KCs declared indisputably original, do you? So do I but the difference is that I am literally putting my money where my mouth is in maintaining the obvious conclusion. The S&L question has been resolved: flawed S&L KCs are questionable because nobody can prove when they were made or when the frame dies were damaged, repaired and damaged again. The thread is about KCs, as Stogieman has already pointed out, which is quite a broad definition. Questions have been raised about some K&Q KCs as well. This falls well within the remit of this thread. But if you have anything new to add to the S&L-oriented debate, go right ahead. Share your knowledge. That's one of the functions of forums. Can you post a picture or two of your cross, just to add some colour to the thread. Might as well have something pretty to look at.

PK

Edited January 10, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

I think you just scored an own goal, old bean. I rather like Dave Kane's rather spare but nonetheless eloquent riposte. All you have done is confirm that Hansen was prevented from publishing his material on the WAF, as anyone reading this thread you cite can see for themselves.

No, old chap, I did not! You asserted (wrongly) that the delete button was pressed several times. This was not the case. I don't know whether you will understand it but I give it a try. Maybe you will understand since you were for quite some time the second man at MCF and you should know basic procedures:

If somebody has been suspended by the Administrator I didn't think and I still don't think that it would be appropriate as a moderator of that forum to post for the just supended member. The more so if that member send materail unasked and creates a big fuzz about it later. So Dr. Hansen contacted Peter Wiking and he posted for him. By the way, I suggested that to him via e-mail! If I would be such an evil man as you try to portray me desperately, wouldn't you think the post would be still standing ???? Or would even be up for a second?

Hansen was suspended because he had been trying to post the information subsequently posted by Peter Wiking. The version of Hansen's findings and remarks currently extant on the WAF website differs somewhat from Hansen's posting of his findings on MCF, where they were not subjected to any form of censorship.

That is of course flat out wrong. He was suspended because of his E-bay sale (here and at WAF) and subsequently banned for calling all kinds of people names and for registering under two more false accounts. But you could not know that since you couldn't follow that thread, I guess. But a lot of people did and it is still in the Association area.

To suggest that the post by Peter Wiking was somehow altered is again flat out wrong. Dr. hansen might have changed/refined his findings later on but nothing has been changed at WAF. Another unsupported allegation.

It is understandable that Dr. Hansen was and is still bitter and this bitterness has been expressed in multiple threats he started at MCF because of this experience. Now we have to take evrything he says as the full truth and everything PK says also? I venture to say that this is not so and a lot of people here know that. too

I find it astonishing that Keating, after leaving MCF, still drags his former field of activities into other fora and - more interesting - presents Dr. Hansen (who was banned from MCF at one time) as the ultimate bearer of the truth. But who could honestly suspect that he would say that he was banned because of his E-bay sale?

But for the 'ultimate RK debate' this is all inconsequential. It just has a certain entertainment value and I guess we (or more specifically I) will hear this for a very long time. Fact is and will be that:

- his findings were posted at WAF, unaltered

- they are still there for everybody to see and read

- the Rounder is a fake and Dr. Hanson did a decisive step in discovering this

Everything else is drama for people who strive on drama!

So tell me, are we done with S&L? Is it now "who told what, when and who was supressed, suspended, mistreated time". Before you say that I don't like this topic, I clearly admit so. Why? Because debate about lies, rumors, allegations are always unpleasant. The more so if one is not as good as other people at that game. I rather stay with facts.

[Dietrich]

What about mint Klein & Quenzer KCs?

Now that is a good one! Go ahead! What do you think?

[Stogieman]

No-one has answered my question.... why has the exact same technique not been used to date the flawed crosses?

If this has been done, why are the details not put forward?

It seems to me that despite much rhetoric and supposition, the bottom line here is that there is no definitive answer on these flawed crosses other than the fact that they create an awful lot of questions and much doubt.

There's an uninitiated, non-collector perspective for you. There is a similar debate regarding people heavily invested in Imperial Aviation Badges.... much conjecture, but nothing definite! No precise facts. No provenance for the questionable pieces.

And much frustration for all....

[PKeating]

We're never going to go on a roadtrip together, are we?

PK

[PKeating]

No-one has answered my question.... why has the exact same technique not been used to date the flawed crosses?

If this has been done, why are the details not put forward?

I don't think anyone has tested flawed crosses. I expect someone will, one of these days. The question is, who will be brave enough to lend their examples for laboratory testing? Subjecting an obvious fake like the Rounder - Dang! Here comes that fog again! - to tests involving the removal of paint and metal is one thing but when it involves crosses that might be genuine, that's another matter entirely, isn't it?

Tricky question...

PK

[ekhunter]

Can we get back on topic? This thread is about Knights' Crosses although the flawed S&L KC has really been done to death. What about mint Klein & Quenzer KCs?

PK

I think I am the one that originally brought the K&Q's into this discussion. Minty, Hmmm! I'll only say that personally I find them ugly, no matter what year they were made. At least they (K&Q) were fairly consistent with their markings, i.e. no incuse 65's. That is a whole new thread there. Also, Prosper, please don't show that ugly 'Rounder' again. It's like seeing a picture of Rosie O'Donnell, when you expect to see Heidi Klum.. Back to S&L's. I think someone brought this up on WAF and I don't remember if anyone answered this question. Has anyone ever tried to track down former employees of S&L to see if they could shed any light on the debate. They might remember more than we think and could shed some light.. Anyway, back to flawed B-types. I think the market shows what the majority of collectors feel about these crosses. Some of those that have them, love them, so more power to them, but I just don't see a great demand for them today, and I think that about says it all.

[Naxos]

Quote: "Has anyone ever tried to track down former employees of S&L to see if they could shed any light on the debate."

Maybe Frau Hannelore Kutscher, Vertrieb von Orden und Ehrenzeichen at Steinhauer und L?ck, can help?

info@steinlueck.de

http://www.steinlueck.de/index.php?rubrik=kontakt

Regards, Hardy

Edited January 10, 2007 by Naxos

[Nick]

I think we have done the Dr Hansen topic to death. I am not interested in the minutia of the why, when and where falls of Dr Hansen and his fall from WAF grace. Stogieman has explained the reasoning behind his dismissal from GMIC and that is the end of story. As for his dissertation, this was linked to GMIC from MCF back in February 2006 (the link is now dead at the MCF end) so there was no attempt to hide any facts here and I was happy that his findings were made available on GMIC.

I do feel that things are starting to go round and round in circles and we need to draw a line under the Rounder debate with the fact that at least we all agree that it is Fake so lets move on to something new.

[Dietrich]

No-one has answered my question.... why has the exact same technique not been used to date the flawed crosses?

If this has been done, why are the details not put forward?

The only thing I have done so far with S&L is test one 935 (NOT 935-4) under SEM. The silver is 935 grade and the paint composition checked out with pre May 45 paint. There was nothing unusual at all. Lending of pieces was not a problem so far. Never. There is no removal of metal or paint with SEM and only a miniscule part with FTIR. No medals have been or will be harmed. I have a student working till June of this year in the SEM labratory to test a multitude of crosses (most EK's) to create a material database. There will be the occasional Knights Cross tested also.

If S&L used the same paint up till let's say 1957 and even beyond there's nothing to prove. If the Rounder fakers would have used old paint we would still not know.

[PKeating]

Regarding Steinhauer & L?ck, there have been a few recent attempts to instigate discussions with the firm and with individuals who work or worked for S&L but these came to nothing. This is understandable, given current, rather paranoid official attitudes to all things "Nazi" in Germany. S&L simply won't discuss it. They don't need tabloid attention. Even back in 1981, they entrusted the disposal of their KC dies to an outside "consultant". It has always been a 'delicate' subject but if anything, it is even more sensitive today.

PK

Edited January 10, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Regarding Steinhauer & L?ck, there have been a few recent attempts to instigate discussions with the firm and with individuals who work or worked for S&L but these came to nothing. This is understandable, given current, rather paranoid official attitudes to all things "Nazi" in Germany. S&L simply won't discuss it. They don't need tabloid attention. Even back in 1981, they entrusted the disposal of their KC dies to an outside "consultant". It has always been a 'delicate' subject but if anything, it is even more sensitive today.

PK

Prosper is absolutely correct. Don't forget, S&L is still producing the highest German order, the Bundesverdienstkreuz, and they would be stupid to disclose to anybody that they produced 'swastika items' after the war, after 57 and even into the 80's. It would seriously destroy their business.

[PKeating]

Sidenote: I seriously wish you the best of luck with the book, our disagreements over a few points aside. Contrary to what has been suggested, this really isn't an attempt to "get" you or anything like that. There are two distinct schools of thought regarding these flawed crosses yet, paradoxically, they are united in their lack of ability to prove their respective viewpoints. Your work in studying and identifying the flaws, dents and likely timelines thereof is really very, very good and highly valuable in the context of the study of the award in general. The debating point is merely the question of when the damage occurred and when the repairs were made. That's all. It has taken eight pages of argument to get to this point, and years of sometimes quite acrimonious argument on other forum websites.

In my opinion, you ought to make it clear in your book that there are differing schools of thought and that, as things currently stand, the question remains unresolved. People can make up their own minds about whether or not they wish to 'invest' thousands in a flawed S&L KC. Some people will, and they will have no difficulty in finding others who share their optimism if the day comes when they have to get their money back out of their flawed S&L KC. Others will prefer not to include these crosses in their collections. I really do not understand why this latter attitude has provoked so much fury and hysteria during the past five or six years. Well, let me rephrase that: I do understand very well but I find it irrational as do others who share this point of view. It is almost fascist or Puritan, in fact, and tantamount to saying to people that they must agree with approved opinions or face exile from "the community".

Quite a few of us were indeed 'cast out' by "the community", which is why websites like MCF and GMIC came into being. GMIC is a more civilised environment than MCF but they have both served the wider "community" since they came into being rather than the relatively limited interests served by the one-time "Big Two" forum websites. It has a lot to do with money, of course. The "Big Two" are very commercial in nature and any dissenting opinion that threatens the earning abilities of the dealers and others who support those websites or profit by them is very likely to be suppressed by whatever means necessary. As I previously remarked, this thread would not have lasted beyond the first page on the website where you are a moderator, my dear Dietrich. If at times I seemed to be unduly harsh with you, it could have something to do with the company you keep. But I have nothing personal against you at all.

Pax vobiscum...

PK

Edited January 10, 2007 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Sidenote: .... It is only my opinion but I think you ought to make it clear in your book that there are differing schools of thought and that, as things currently stand, the question remains unresolved. People can make up their own minds about whether or not they wish to 'invest' thousands in a flawed S&L KC.

Since the chapter for the S&L is mainly done I can tell you that this is exactly what I have done. Presenting the A and B Types, presenting the flaws, presenting the possibilities, giving my viewpoint and other possible scenarios for the reader to decide. I have and will maintain this approach thru out the whole book. I will not postulate my viewpoint in this matter as gospel.

And Thank You for the best wishes. Really appreciated.

[PKeating]

I really must stop editing my copy so fast! Still, it says pretty much the same thing so no problem. I look forward to reading your book. As you rightly said, none of us is infallible. Perfection is but an aspiration and as the Muslims believe, only God can achieve it.

PK

[Dietrich]

As I previously remarked, this thread would not have lasted beyond the first page on the website where you are a moderator, my dear Dietrich. If at times I seemed to be unduly harsh with you, it could have something to do with the company you keep. But I have nothing personal against you at all.

Pax vobiscum...

There are numerous threads like this at WAF, about the Rounder and about S&L and other controversial things. None have been erased or stopped in infanity. Some have been edited, yes. But only the 'improper language' and insults. Maybe is was different in earlier days - I can only speak for the time since I'm a co-moderator there. I have never ever erased or manipulated a thread. And neither did George.

But I respect what you are saying. Sometimes certain things reflect on a person but they shouldn't. I don't think we should judge people by the (voluntary or unvoluntary) company they might have or had in the past but rather by their own deeds and actions.

.. et cum spirito tuo

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dietrich

[DavidM]

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 ...

Hello

Actually this isn't true. I made a request to the Imperial War Museum in London to examine all of their Iron Crosses, whether displayed or not. The request was granted and I was left with the awards in a room and able to photograph them, handle them and examine them in detail. I can't speak for other countries museums, but here in the UK what you did at West Point is certainly possible.

Incidentally, the only RK that I was shown as being in their collection was a cased, unflawed, S&L. I'll dig out my photos and notes at some point, (they are still packed away somewhere having not long since moved house), as the one in the IWM has provenance from 1944 if I remember correctly.

[Stogieman]

Just a quick sidebar, can we please use the word "thread", instead of "threat".......... They are distinctly different things. Thanks!!

[Dietrich]

Actually this isn't true.

Maybe my remark was not quoted correctly in the sense of "Europe". I certainly can only speak for Germany and there it IS extremely tough if not impossible w/o serious connections or a very, very good reason. One might always be borderline "nazi" when putting up such a request.