pour le m?rite

[speedytop]

Hi,

my English must be catastrophic, that a user could misread my comment in that way.

dond:

"If you hold that only awarded pieces are "real" then there are alot of fake EK1s, IABs, PABs, etc... out there. "

That is my text:

"Originals are awarded decorations and/or authorized produced pieces in the award period."

I write not only about awarded pieces!

But the more important part is "... in the award period."

And I don't speak in that comment about fakes.

Daniel Cole:

"... award pieces, and everything else ..."

That should be, and I think better, "... original pieces, and everything else."

"everything else" is for me a copy or a fake.

And there could not be a special section for special copies, e.g. for the PlM.

Once more, there are very fine copies (may be better than the original), and there are of course very fine fakes. A fake must be very good, like the original, if not, everybody could see, that it is not an original, and than it is not a fake, it is "only" a copy .

Yes dond, "... there are alot of fake [copy] EK1s, IABs, PABs, etc... out there". The originality sometimes only exist in the head of the owner.

We all know, that there are "grey zones".

See the discussions about the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, see the discussions about the originality of pieces from Souval or Steinhauer & L?ck etc.

But why we must construct a grey zone for pieces from those everybody knows that they are not original?

Many collectors are glad about the fact that they have in their collection a high-quality copy, under circumstances even from an original manufacturer of the originals. For me such pieces are also worth collecting

I really can understand this, I have in my collection a generals sword of the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich from which one says that it could be produced with some genuine parts (blade) by the original manufacturer. However, it is offered mostly correct as a copy and is sold even though expensive because it is of good quality.

But only because it is expensive and of high quality, a copy does not become an original.

Komtur:

"If this is probability enough for a collector to pay what ever for such a cross, is a decision, that everyone must make by himself."

I agree without limitation.

Regards

Uwe

(I beg your pardon for my insufficient English)

[Harrier]

and/or authorized produced pieces in the award period."

I write not only about awarded pieces!

But the more important part is "... in the award period."

So if an entitled officer, still in service, purchases a PLM in 1939 to replace the one he was awarded in 1917, his purchase is nothing more than a copy? Even if the manufacturer was authorized by the government to produce it?

There is a fine line here, I believe, and there are many who would regard the replacement piece as an original, although not of early manufacture.

[Ed_Haynes]

So if an entitled officer, still in service, purchases a PLM in 1939 to replace the one he was awarded in 1917, his purchase is nothing more than a copy? Even if the manufacturer was authorized by the government to produce it?

There is a fine line here, I believe, and there are many who would regard the replacement piece as an original, although not of early manufacture.

Well, since the government that awarded it no longer existed, how could it authorise anything? His original was not authorised by the government of the moment, so was it illegitimate somehow? Yes, what you describe it is a copy. Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? Just as awards of "South Vietnam" made in the US today are copies, they are not authentic contemporary awards. Perhaps these are not intended to deceive and defraud modern collectors (of whose future existence and micro-arcane discussions our hypothetical PLM recipient probably couldn't even imagine).

Part of the issue may lie in a phaleristic culture that awards pieces of paper, not named or numberd awards. Here's your paper, we'll give you one award (maybe), now go buy others if you want them. Is there a difference between buying them in 1917, 1937, or 1957? I'd suggest there is, on many levels.

[dond]

Hi,

my English must be catastrophic, that a user could misread my comment in that way.

dond:

"If you hold that only awarded pieces are "real" then there are alot of fake EK1s, IABs, PABs, etc... out there. "

That is my text:

"Originals are awarded decorations and/or authorized produced pieces in the award period."

I write not only about awarded pieces!

But the more important part is "... in the award period."

And I don't speak in that comment about fakes.

Daniel Cole:

"... award pieces, and everything else ..."

That should be, and I think better, "... original pieces, and everything else."

"everything else" is for me a copy or a fake.

And there could not be a special section for special copies, e.g. for the PlM.

Once more, there are very fine copies (may be better than the original), and there are of course very fine fakes. A fake must be very good, like the original, if not, everybody could see, that it is not an original, and than it is not a fake, it is "only" a copy .

Yes dond, "... there are alot of fake [copy] EK1s, IABs, PABs, etc... out there". The originality sometimes only exist in the head of the owner.

We all know, that there are "grey zones".

See the discussions about the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, see the discussions about the originality of pieces from Souval or Steinhauer & L?ck etc.

But why we must construct a grey zone for pieces from those everybody knows that they are not original?

Many collectors are glad about the fact that they have in their collection a high-quality copy, under circumstances even from an original manufacturer of the originals. For me such pieces are also worth collecting

I really can understand this, I have in my collection a generals sword of the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich from which one says that it could be produced with some genuine parts (blade) by the original manufacturer. However, it is offered mostly correct as a copy and is sold even though expensive because it is of good quality.

But only because it is expensive and of high quality, a copy does not become an original.

Komtur:

"If this is probability enough for a collector to pay what ever for such a cross, is a decision, that everyone must make by himself."

I agree without limitation.

Regards

Uwe

(I beg your pardon for my insufficient English)

I was speaking to Daniel's claim that only awarded pieces are original.

[speedytop]

Sorry Don,

I apologise, I could not detect that without a hint to the comment or the user, because my comment was located chronologically behind the comment from Daniel .

Kind Regards

Uwe

[Les]

A few comments from me, and I'm letting go.

Steve. There isn't enough clarity in the photo to determine specifically which type of the two similar PlMs with the fancy birds it might be. Epsomgreen's example is a Rothe. That should not be taken to mean I'm saying it was what you call the "Berlin" type. There is not enough clarity in the Linde image to rule out either type. If I don't state something, please don't infer something from what isn't said.

To all others:

Until 1945, German laws regulated who could make and sell military (and related) medals. There were also laws regulating who could purchase, own, and wear military decorations, uniforms, etc.

When the Kaiser abdicated in November 1918, formal awards of the military order of the PlM stopped. However, laws regulating manufacture, ownership, etc, still applied. You could not buy one without having been awarded the medal, and an Urkunde. The Urkunde by the way was more important than the medal, because it was not only proof of entitlement to wear the award, but carried with it legal and pension benefits. Trivia. But important to remember.

When the TR/DR surrendered on 7 May 1945, Allied occupation laws prohibited -all- public display of military medals regardless of whether they were from the Nazi or Imperial time period. In Germany,medals could not be manufactured again, until 1957, when the law was changed. Then -ANYONE- could buy medals, whether or not they were ever awarded them. Anyone with the money could buy them, and display them. Wearing medals you didn't "earn" could still get you into trouble though.

S&L we know made DR/TR medals after 1945, even with the Hakenreuz. The firm made PlM copies starting in 1957. If the firm made them before 1945, catalogues and other documents would have appeared. They haven't. Questions to S&L about medals often gets a response that they don't know anything. Photo evidence? (Verzeihung' bitte, aber.....Pfurzen!)

I am interested in the technical methods used to make medals, and the only interest I have in S&L pieces is that there are signs of die wear over time. There are pieces where the feet can be seen, and others not at all. There are other losses of detail that suggest the dies were worn.....but not as badly as the WWI era Wagner dies used to make the silver-gilt pieces were wearing. Something very similar happened to the Rothe made pieces. In fact, there are at least two sets of Rothe dies that were being used to make post-war Rothe PlM copies. The workmanship also shows signs of going from "zo-zo" to "Schmuck/Druck." In fact, Rothe copies start out being made from several pieces with applied eagles, to being stamped in one piece, etc. There are parallels to what happened to the Imperial and immediate post-war made German pieces, but what that means....I'm not saying. Wait for the book.

Lastly, I'm interested in facts, and logic. Logic in particular, because it's not something that's always used when claims are made, or people say things. Ed, like you I taught college level courses and have often wondered how (not what) students "think." Ed, both of us probably have opinions of the educational system that doesn't belong here, and is ....... ;-)

Les

Edited January 2, 2009 by Les

[Harrier]

In recent discussions on other forums, a time line for post-World War II production in Germany (not Austria), given the existance of both the Allied Control Commisssion and German law, was suggested, as follows:

1945-1955- NO new manufacture of anything. Perhaps finishing (assembly, adding pins, etc.) to existing leftover stock (of which there was, apparently, an abundance), for sale to "the entitled" or to occupation forces.

1955-57- (1955 being the effective end of the Control Commission), some limited new production, but under German law, NO swastikas. Presumably,Imperial awards could be produced. Still, "proof of entitlement" by German citizens was supposedly required in order to purchase. Based on some German dealer catalogs from this time, it is likely that some companies, especially S&L, may have commenced illicit new actual production of badges with swastikas at approximately this same time.

1957-Present- Except for swastika awards, no restrictions on production or purchase. (Obviously, the swastika ban hasn't been enforced very well!)

I certainly hope that Les, or someone, will produce a book (and soon!) examining in detail die changes and wear, with links to specific time periods.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Harrier

[speedytop]

Hi Les,

you really believe in it, until 1957?

"In Germany,medals could not be manufactured again, until 1957, when the law was changed."

That is not correct, and we all know it. Please see your own comment:

"S&L we know made DR/TR medals after 1945, even with the Hakenreuz."

With the "Ordensgesetz" of 1957 it was stricly forbidden, to manufacture and to offer and sell decorations with "nationalsozialistischen Emblemen".

Therefore, "...logic. Logic in particular ...", S&L made DR/TR medals between 1945 and 1957.

The Allied law say, as you write it: "military insignia and decorations" (Law No. 43, dated 20 December 1946, Prohibition of the Manufacture, ... and Storage of War Materials, Schedule A, Group III, g)".

Military, but not civil insignia and decorations.

And not only S&L made civil and military decorations in Germany, chronologically far before 1957.

It is also not correct, that -ANYONE- could since 1957 buy all decorations.

It is not correct, till this day, for "Orden und Ehrenzeichen" of the Federal Republic of Germany.

And it is strictly forbidden by law to wear medals without authorization.

Hi Harrier,

"1945-1955- NO new manufacture of anything. Perhaps finishing (assembly, adding pins, etc.) to existing leftover stock (of which there was, apparently, an abundance), for sale to "the entitled" or to occupation forces."

Please see my comment above.

"Based on some German dealer catalogs from this time, it is likely that some companies, especially S&L, may have commenced illicit new actual production of badges with swastikas at approximately this same time."

No, not "this same time", the production started before 1957, long before 1955.

What do you think, what e.g. Fahnen-Fleck, Erich Beinhorn, Die Ordenssammlung and Friedrich Sedlatzek offered in the "Der Deutsche Soldatenkalender 1953", produced in 1952? Chewing gum with small plastic medals?

No, "Originale wie verliehen", "originals pieces as awarded", and really not only from leftover stocks .

(see Dietrich Maerz, Knights Cross ot the Iron Cross, page 374 to 389)

Why do so many Non-Germans think, that they know more about the life in Germany after 1945 and that they know the German laws and regulations better than the Germans themselves?

The Morgenthau Plan was not implemented!

The regulations of the Control Council for Germany are the theory, the real life in Germany was the practise.

In sozialism there is a motto: Theorie und Praxis = Marx und Murks.

Rough translation: theory and practise = Marx and botch

Regards

Uwe

[Les]

Hi Les,

you really believe in it, until 1957?

"In Germany,medals could not be manufactured again, until 1957, when the law was changed."

That is not correct, and we all know it. Please see your own comment:

"S&L we know made DR/TR medals after 1945, even with the Hakenreuz."

With the "Ordensgesetz" of 1957 it was stricly forbidden, to manufacture and to offer and sell decorations with "nationalsozialistischen Emblemen".

Therefore, "...logic. Logic in particular ...", S&L made DR/TR medals between 1945 and 1957.

The Allied law say, as you write it: "military insignia and decorations" (Law No. 43, dated 20 December 1946, Prohibition of the Manufacture, ... and Storage of War Materials, Schedule A, Group III, g)".

Military, but not civil insignia and decorations.

And not only S&L made civil and military decorations in Germany, chronologically far before 1957.

It is also not correct, that -ANYONE- could since 1957 buy all decorations.

It is not correct, till this day, for "Orden und Ehrenzeichen" of the Federal Republic of Germany.

And it is strictly forbidden by law to wear medals without authorization.

.........

Regards

Uwe

Uwe,

You are right about - illegal - medals being made between 1945 and 1957. Laws are made. They are not always followed, particularly when money can be made. Dietrich Maerz has shown that S&L made new parts for illegal Ritterkreuz immediately -after- the war ended. His "die wear" study shows that clearly. S&L pretends nothing like that happened.

When I said that (military) medals could not be made between 1945 and 1957 in Germany, that meant they could not be made there legally. Making, selling/buying and wearing are three separate things.

It has been possible to legally buy decorations since 1957. It happens openly, and collectors do buy medals and decorations openly, over the internet, u.s.w. As you say, wearing them publicly is subject to Federal regulations and an entirely different matter.

We aren't disagreeing. My way of saying things is not as simple as it could be and you may have misunderstood me.

Les

[Harrier]

I believe we have had this same conversation before.

I have seen the same catalogs you refer to (1952, etc., and also a note from Mr. Sedlatzek in 1956). There was speculation that these dealers were selling newly-made copies at this time, BUT NO PROOF. There was, however, abundant information regarding the large quantities of leftover original wartime material available for sale at that time.

I have no PERSONAL doubt that some material was being illicitly produced prior to 1955 (not 1957), but between 1945 and 1949 (with the new German government just in place), there is NO evidence of any new production whatsoever. Even after the new government was installed, the Allied Commission, until 1955, enforced the ban, albeit with decreased vigilance. Ludenscheid was in the British Zone of Occupation, and the British very strictly followed the prohibition (more so than the Americans did).

As I told you before in another forum, I would LOVE to see real evidence of production in the early postwar years. That evidence was not forthcoming then. I am still, however, eager to see it.

Les - Dietrich has undoubtedly demonstrated, by die wear, that S&L began new manufacture of RK's (in swastika form) prior to the 1957 re-issue of that award. Some of those 1957 awards have unflawed beading (but with the 3 o'clock dent row), but others have the beading flaws all over, a clear sign that frame manufacture was re-commenced prior to 1957. There is, however (and Dietrich and I have discussed this many times), no way to know when that first occurred. At this point, it is sheer speculation that new manufacture (new stamping) began immediately after the war. At some point, certainly, but not in the immediate postwar period by any measure of PROOF whatsoever.

We are now considerably so if this conversation is to continue, we should move it.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Harrier

[Komtur]

We are now considerably so if this conversation is to continue, we should move it.

:cheers:

[Les]

No, not "this same time", the production started before 1957, long before 1955.

What do you think, what e.g. Fahnen-Fleck, Erich Beinhorn, Die Ordenssammlung and Friedrich Sedlatzek offered in the "Der Deutsche Soldatenkalender 1953", produced in 1952? Chewing gum with small plastic medals?

No, "Originale wie verliehen", "originals pieces as awarded", and really not only from leftover stocks .

(see Dietrich Maerz, Knights Cross ot the Iron Cross, page 374 to 389)

Why do so many Non-Germans think, that they know more about the life in Germany after 1945 and that they know the German laws and regulations better than the Germans themselves?

Uwe

Uwe,

This is off-topic. It doesn't really belong here, but your comment is worth a response.

My father was born during WWI near Saarbruecken, and my mother was born in the Tirol. I grew up in the US, can speak, read and write German. I visit my relatives in German often and keep in contact with them. I wasn't born until after WWII. My family and many of their friends have told me quite a bit about how life was in Germany before the 1960's. Beginning in the 1960's I started visiting Germany (and the rest of Europe) enough to form my own ideas. I'm old enough that I remember the public reaction when Willi Brandt's son was seen "playing" with an Iron Cross in during the late 1960's. People did not like it, but no one said it was illegal, and nothing happened to him.

Unless someone was alive and living during the years after WWII (particularly between 1945-1955 in the west, and much later in the east), children grew up hearing stories about life after the war and before the Wirtschaftswunder don't -really- know what Germany was like. If you are older than 60, or maybe an Ossi, you have direct experience. If you're younger you've been told, heard, or read about life at that time.

There are differences between Americans, Germans and other Europeans. There are also differences between "Wessis" and "Ossis." Those differences are changing, and whether Germans will admit it or not, Germans are in many ways becoming Americanized.

After WWII, many American servicemen were stationed in Germany. Many of them married German women, and brought them to the United States. There are more than one or two people on this list that have a German mother, or grandmother. German women who "ausgewandert nach Amerika" remember what they left behind, and many told their children and friends about their lives.

Friends, outsiders, and foreigners often see things about ourselves that we don't see. What humans forget is that we are more alike than we might think. What that means in regards to your statement about non-Germans thinking they know more about German laws than Germans, is this.

Find a law that was written and hasn't been broken. Laws will not stop anyone from doing what they want to do. When money is involved, laws are not always followed.

Regards,

Les

[speedytop]

Hi,

yes, we are partial off topic, but not complete, because the base was (and for several collectors is), that a PlM made after 1918 could never be an original.

Move it or not, I accept it.

Hi Les,

We aren't really disagreeing.

The first IC 2nd class (1914 version) came into my collection in 1958. Is that old enough for you?

Hi Harrier,

why it is so important for you, that we have to differentiate between the period 1945 to 1949 and the later period up to 1957? Why it is not enough, to look on the period from 1945 to 1957, before the "Ordensgesetz"?

One of the problems, to locate a specific period, you can find in Post 81: "Questions to S&L about medals often gets a response that they don't know anything."

That is also my experience.

It is to late for us, to gather precise informations about the whole period or confined time periods.

I think, that I have proofs for the period before 1952, only small parts, minis. But my investigations are not concluded yet.

It is integrated in the investigations for the time period of the sports badges DRL without swastika.

Progress could be achieved, also with the help of another collector, but this does not suffice me yet as a real proof.

"There was speculation that these dealers were selling newly-made copies at this time, BUT NO PROOF."

What do you need as a proof?

The list from Friedrich Sedlatzek in 1956 (Preisliste Nr. 7; I think list No. 7 after 1945, list No. 11 is only a few years later) with 6 pages and several hundred positions is for me proof enough. Do you really believe, that he would sell a before 1945 produced "Deutscher Adler-Orden, Gro?kreuz in Gold (vergoldet) achtspitziger Stern" for 100,- DM, and a West German "Gro?kreuz mit Schulterband und Stern" he sell for 300,-DM?

Did he have the authorization before 1945 to produce such pieces like Ritterkreuz (echt Silber), Eichenlaub mit Schwertern (echt Silber), Ehrenpokal der Luftwaffe in Silber or Alpaka, the complete list of DR/TR and several imperial and foreigen decorations?

"Originale wie verliehen!"

That does not mean "Originale"! Or made from original parts!

It is a handwritten addition in January 1957, knowing, that some months later he could no longer offer all these parts with swastika!

Everybody can form his own opinion on that.

As a marginal note:

"RK's (in swastika form) prior to the 1957 re-issue of that award."

There was no re-issue in 1957, only the allowance to produce, to sell, to buy (and collect) and to wear those 1957 versions.

Regards

Uwe

[Harrier]

Uwe,

I got my first RK (also in 1958!!) as a gift from a vet. It has been an uphill struggle since then!

Eventually, I hope we will have the answers we need, as more and more pieces are catalogued. Thank goodness for the internet!

You are right, the 1957 RK was not technically a "re-issue". It was a new version authorized for production and wear.

I have no doubt that Sedlatzek and the others dealt in fakes (and real items, too). Just when they switched to primarily fakes is an interesting question. It could have been in 1952, or 1953 or 1955. It was not, however, IN MY OPINION, before the very early 1950's.

Best regards!

Harrier

Edited January 2, 2009 by Harrier

[speedytop]

Hi,

and now back to the roots!

I have played a little bit with the second picture from Post 1, rotating and stretching. And I have copied it on the different here shown PlM.

The best, nearly perfect match I find with the two PlM in Post 25 from Steve.

I can show you the complete picture, but I can not show you the special effect in my program "Microsoft Photo Editor", an old program from 1998.

When I copy the grey part into the picture of the PLM, there is a special effect possible, before I complete the copy. I can scroll (with correspondig imagination) the picture with the not yet included part. At that time it is possible, to slide the included part in any direction, but it is placed on the correct position. When I move the scroll bar horizontal (or vertical), in different speeds, I can see alternating the included part and the part below the included part, it is like a movie, an animated cartoon

.

The dark elements on the grey picture are concordant with parts of the crown on the coloured picture, all the other parts of the eagles are corresponding too.

Regards

Uwe

[Steve Russell]

Thanks Uwe for that fine piece of picture work. It seems to support what I stated earlier about the Linde cross. Steve

[Les]

Thanks Uwe for that fine piece of picture work. It seems to support what I stated earlier about the Linde cross. Steve

Not at all if you consider there's not one cross, but three that can be compared to the image in the Linde photo. He used only one of the crosses, and didn't bother to try with the other. You can't arbitrarily choose one, and then ignore the other because the "pet one" fits supports the claim you want to make. That's "stacking the deck" and not scientific at all.

I'll repeat what I've already said several times. The outlines of the two "Berlin" examples, AND the one Epsomgreen/Charles one all have the same shapes and the eagles look very similar. You can't be certain that is one, or the other. Neither can be said to be "the one" or ruled out either. That means the only thing that can be honestly said is.....no one knows for certain. How many times does this have to be repeated?

That approach Uwe used is not much different than the police holding up a picture and asking "is this the man" and not telling you there are other people that also look like him (and could also have done it).

Les

Edited January 5, 2009 by Les

[speedytop]

Hi,

Les:

"and didn't bother to try with the other."

Uwe:

"And I have copied it on the different here shown PlM."

I have dealt with it more than two hours, over and over again other enlargement and new experiments.

And that was and is my answer:

"The best, nearly perfect match I find with the two PlM in Post 25 from Steve."

Uwe

[Les]

Hi,

Les:

"and didn't bother to try with the other."

Uwe:

"And I have copied it on the different here shown PlM."

I have dealt with it more than two hours, over and over again other enlargement and new experiments.

And that was and is my answer:

"The best, nearly perfect match I find with the two PlM in Post 25 from Steve."

Uwe

If you did both, then show the results of both comparisons so other people can see and judge. Also, tend us the method and steps you used. How did you determine what the "best" and "most perfect" match was? Any time you start changing a photo, what you see is the results of it being manipulated, and what changes are done.

Here's a test To show us that you can produce real results. Are you able to take the three photos of the same identical Austrian pilots badge that I photographed from three angles and "merge" them? (There is a link to the badges I'm referring to earlier in this thread.) I can tell you the answer now. No. If the angles are more than one or two degrees different, what you are doing is forcing your idea of what you want to see, onto the results.

Forcing information is not a reliable way to get real and reliable results.

[Daniel Cole]

I think this discussion is totally in the ditch. What was the original question again? Did someone think they had von der Linde's PLM, or was it just one like his? Were we certain that is actually von der Linde in the photo and not Billy Bob at a local reinacter convention?

[Steve Russell]

Uwe,

I appreciate you taking the time to show why you believe something and actually posting a picture to support why. We have not always agreed on things and that is fine. It is easy to be quite the contrarian on any and every issue, but instead, you took the time to investigate yourself and came to a similar conclusion that a great many of us have.

Les, I read a lot of talk. You seem to ignore the different angles between the Rothe cross of Charles and the Berlin / Grant specimens that I overlayed earlier. You also seem to ignore the raised crown that plays prominently in the cross and the Linde pic. You think it is something else--fine. Let's SEE something to back up these other crosses you seem to defend. You--not someone else to do it for you as you asked Uwe above. Would love to see you make your case without the off-topic chases that you think prove why everyone else is off the mark but you and only you on almost anything that gets posted. OK, fine, you are entitled to your educated opinion--now show us. And yes I do still value your opinion. But I want to SEE the case made. So far, I don't think you have made it, so I guess that makes us even?

Daniel, we had a lengthy discussion on this PlM at the WAF, so it may appear disjointed when references to the two threads are combined. I think there is little doubt that the pic looks like Linde. If someone thinks it may be someone else, then they need to make that case. Komtur has stated that his pic is quite authentic. So, short of questioning his integrity, it has fallen to study who the pic might be, since it should be identifiable with a TR-era living PlM recipient. And most that have studied it seem to think it is Linde.

This pic, coupled with a pic of the Berlin museum cross just happened to surface at about the same time a totally different discussion on this type of cross began by totally different collectors with a completely different example. Upon survey, the two crosses matched each other and are now tied to a pre-45 picture of a recipient--hence the discussion and excitement generated on the possibility of a pre-1945 PlM variant. Steve

Edited January 5, 2009 by Steve Russell

[Les]

Les, I read a lot of talk. You seem to ignore the different angles between the Rothe cross of Charles and the Berlin / Grant specimens that I overlayed earlier. You also seem to ignore the raised crown that plays prominently in the cross and the Linde pic. You think it is something else--fine. Let's SEE something to back up these other crosses you seem to defend. You--not someone else to do it for you as you asked Uwe above. Would love to see you make your case without the off-topic chases that you think prove why everyone else is off the mark but you and only you on almost anything that gets posted. OK, fine, you are entitled to your educated opinion--now show us. And yes I do still value your opinion. But I want to SEE the case made. So far, I don't think you have made it, so I guess that makes us even?

.....

Steve

Steve, kindly remember to look in the mirror and read what you posted.

You've consistently ignored the fact the Linde image is not (1) an original photo you've looked at personally and are relying exclusively on a digital image posted to the forum, and (2) the image does not have the detail you seem to think it has. The "raised crown" you think you see is not necessarily caused by irregular enamel you think you see there. I've already said more than once, images can be deceiving. "Darker" areas can be caused by several things other than the item itself.

As for words....I've shown on this forum before, and cited the link to the discussion, how the same item, photographed with the same camera can and does appear to be not two, but several badges that the eye and brain would make you think were not the same badge. And that's with decent lighting and not dealing with two or more images from entirely different sources.

Steve, you can ignore -facts-. Indulge in all the speculation you want, but clearly state that's what it is. But don't start claiming the case is a strong one, etc. That's ego talking, not facts.

On WAF, you've frequently counter attacked and asked skeptics to show their point of view is correct. If you start making claims that "are", it's entirely up to you to make the case. I recall someone posting that it wasn't up to them to prove anything because they were questioning you.

I'll remind you of what Martin Popper said and what quoted earlier in this thread, about scientific theory. It's possible to disprove something. It's never possible to prove something. When someone claims that something -is-. that -is- should be verifiable. When someone says something -is not- scientific thought states it is not possible to proove a negative or that something does not exist.

What I've said more than once, and seems to be overlooked, forgotten, or simply ignored is the "data" isn't good enough to make the case for or against the specific type of cross seen in the Linde image. That's regardless of whether the Linde image is real, faked, or whatever.

Let me repeat that once more. I'm not saying any of the crosses are or are not the same as the one in the Linde photo. There's not enough detail in the Linde photo to make a case that would stand up in court.

Steve, don't make accusations others are dealing in words and you want them to show you when they question what you state and then try to make the case for "is". I guess you don't see the irony do you?

Les

[Steve Russell]

Well too bad Les. I was hoping for some pictures and some examples to discuss from you. Instead it is just more words and diversion to other posts. Not much action. Komtur has laid things out. So has Uwe. So have I.

I suppose it is true there are some, not saying you, that would only be satisfied if Linde himself came back from the dead and appeared wearing the entire ensemble and then it would be rejected because it would be impossible that he should be alive and therefore all must be fake.

I think it is fair to deduce possibilities from examples and photos. It is done all the time on this forum. You seem to put high stock in the fact that we are seeing only a digital image. To say it is fake is to question Komtur's integrity--or worse--insulting him and saying that what he himself does have in hand he is not smart enough to interpret. But we are not talking about ego I guess, are we. We were hoping to talk about the PlM in question.

By the statements you have made, it is quite impossible to prove anything to be a possibility. Your opinion on my view has been noted and I appreciate it. I could only hope to see you make a case of your own instead of only tear other ones down. Thanks, Steve

[Les]

Well too bad Les. I was hoping for some pictures and some examples to discuss from you. Instead it is just more words and diversion to other posts. Not much action. Komtur has laid things out. So has Uwe. So have I.

I suppose it is true there are some, not saying you, that would only be satisfied if Linde himself came back from the dead and appeared wearing the entire ensemble and then it would be rejected because it would be impossible that he should be alive and therefore all must be fake.

I think it is fair to deduce possibilities from examples and photos. It is done all the time on this forum. You seem to put high stock in the fact that we are seeing only a digital image. To say it is fake is to question Komtur's integrity--or worse--insulting him and saying that what he himself does have in hand he is not smart enough to interpret. But we are not talking about ego I guess, are we. We were hoping to talk about the PlM in question.

By the statements you have made, it is quite impossible to prove anything to be a possibility. Your opinion on my view has been noted and I appreciate it. I could only hope to see you make a case of your own instead of only tear other ones down. Thanks, Steve

Steve,

Daniel is quite correct, this entire thread has gone into the ditch.

"Truth", facts, and logic isn't s show of hands and shout out for people who agree with a point of view that supports one's beliefs. A person who makes their mind up, is driven buy faith or agendas, isn't going to be subject to verbal persuasion. People make decisions based on emotions, beliefs, and facts. Usually that's the order of the process. When emotion or beliefs kick in, facts are not important to many people, and the facts get manipulated or ignored. Add ego factors, and what gets pawned off as logic gets crazy or funny depending on your point of view. Military history right up to this very moment is chock full of people who saw what they wanted to, and made wrong decisions.

Questioning something does not imply questioning the integrity of the person. Perhaps you might think so, but then that can happen when someone reads far too much into what they think, see, or read. I said questions of the photos originality aside, there are problems dealing with second hand digital images used to base conjecture on. You never saw the original. You looked at a digital copy which has less actual "information" in it than the one Komtur has. I have consistently said the cross (not the eagles) doesn't have the degree of clarity and details necessary to make the claims you've pushed. If you want a strong(er) case, find more photos of Linde or someone else wearing that style of cross.

You imply motives, when earlier in this thread, I specifically asked you not to infer what I did not specifically state. You ignored that, as you've ignored other points that don't fit your obviously biased agenda centered around post-1918 and pre-1945 copies of actual Imperial awards.

Photographs of German soldiers easily number in the millions. One photo of Linde wearing a medal becomes the basis for you proclaiming a "strong case" for a new type of PlM. I've stated there were problems with the photo. Let's move on. During the 1918-1945 era photographs were easier and cheaper to make than PlMs. Shouldn't there be other photos to support your claims out there? One photo alone is shaky grounds for build any kind of case. If you want a strong case, find more photos of that particular type of PlM. The person making the claims something "is" is required to dot every "i" and cross all of the 't"s. When someone takes you to task, you go on the offensive and challenge them to "show" otherwise. That's a pattern seen on WAF, and repeated here.

I wish I'd gone to a third rate bible college where faith, hope, in a state maligned as being largely rednecks, that tolerated and approved attempts at proving inspired agendas and offered degrees in "finger-painting" subjects and was an important feature of "education." I didn't. Perhaps I should have. I'd would be far more willing to accept ideas that switch between inductive versus deductive guesses, not logic if I had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY

Les

[Steve Russell]

I wish I'd gone to a third rate bible college where faith, hope, in a state maligned as being largely rednecks, that tolerated and approved attempts at proving inspired agendas and offered degrees in "finger-painting" subjects and was an important feature of "education." I didn't. Perhaps I should have. I'd would be far more willing to accept ideas that switch between inductive versus deductive guesses, not logic if I had.

Les

Les,

I am aghast at this statement. I simply cannot believe someone who purports some sort of decent decorum, and one who lectures others about it (see post 20, para 2), would fall prey to make such a personal and outrageous attack on another individual in this forum. In it, you insult my faith, my undergraduate degree (public speaking and debate), the university itself (rated for over 20 years in the top 10 in US News & World Report in academics), and the people that live in the state of that institution. Your statement is filled with no small bit of vitriol and prejudice. I would gladly compare resumes and life accomplishments with you, but why stoop to the level you have reduced yourself to with this rude insult? It is not the purpose of this thread and something I thought did not happen in this forum. Since you cannot discuss this cross without reducing yourself to personal attacks and insults, I am quite finished with this thread. I bear you no malice and hope you may come to hold less jaundiced views about people from different walks of life.

Moderators - I think some form of apology is in order. Thanks, Steve