"Dotted" date Zimmermann DKiG's

[Dave B]

Hello all,

The dotted date Zimmermann DKiG's we know have been discussed on other forums but I wouldn't mind seeing what the opinions are on this forum.

I do not own an example so cannot post pics of one but if anyone has a dotted date DKiG or a photo then please post it here.

So,for or against?...if you think they are original wartime examples then please say why,if you think they are postwar then also please give your reasons.

I think one of the big dealers has a dotted example for sale but I can't remember which one??...anybody know who is selling it?

Cheers

Dave

[Guest hawkeye]

There have been two posted on WAF. I do not have one. Not only was the date "dotted" on the pieces posted, but the wreath was different than other zimmermans/kleins. If we are to accept these as real pieces, we have to ask-

1. Why a different wreath than other zimmermans?

2. If they are real, why don't we see "dotted" Kleins?

I think if we are patient enough, dotted Kleins will also appear, however.

[Mike]

One thing I find interesting though ....did you notice how, ever since the "dotted date" controversy started ..we rarely see them for sale now. If they are fakes , I'm sure whoever would be making them would pull them off the market so the wreath can be fixed.

[Guest hawkeye]

I think that is exactly what happened. Fortunately for us, the wreath is different also, therefore the chances of them being able to reproduce the zimmerman wreath accurately are low. I do not think that they can correct their error with the existing wreath and would have to have another crack at it with an entirely new wreath.

[Mike]

I think that is exactly what happened. Fortunately for us, the wreath is different also, therefore the chances of them being able to reproduce the zimmerman wreath accurately are low. I do not think that they can correct their error with the existing wreath and would have to have another crack at it with an entirely new wreath.

I know they'll try though ..At today's prices ,it would be worth it for them to recall the dotted ones ..take them apart and re-rivet them back together with new repro wreath. The Internet must be a real pain to them!

And then what will they do about the Zimmermann flaw at the 10 o'clock position of the starburst ? (& other flaws) ..I think it's getting harder and harder for them

[Dave B]

Anybody have a clear photo of a dotted date DKiG?

[Guest hawkeye]

I saved a comparison of the maker marks. I do not have the allowable space to post the image, unfortunately.

[Guest Darrell]

Well ... Detlev Niemann, Kai Winkler and Bill Shea amongst many others have examined these and have absolutely no problem with them. In fact the one I own is from Detlev Niemann himself, and I asked to comment on this controversy at WAF.

Even after that ... he is 100% in his belief they are A-Ok.

Funny how the "experts" at WAF are so fast to pass judgement on pieces they have never examined in hand.

The examples that showed up when the cross "first" appeared had been in collections for years, not suddenly a few that showed up on the market in bunches all at the same time.

After the trashing they took on WAF ... would you expect anyone to admit they had one? pfft ... give me a break.

BTW ... any doubters ... ask Detlev. Many here buy items on his site on Friday's so fast they can't even examine the piece, that's because he'is trusted and offers full refunds on reproductions if they get past his eye. This one never got past his eye ... he is aware of their existence ... and has approved of them

Take the word of a self-appointed 2 Year Collecting "expert" on WAF or those of someone that's held more DKiGs than that guy has seen in his entire life !

Edited November 2, 2005 by Darrell

[Guest hawkeye]

Perhaps then Darrel, you could explain the differences in the wreath and maker mark between that piece and the other light and heavy zimmermans? Does that certificate make it real? Could you enlarge that image and show that the date is dotted in that example? Why the sudden removal of these pieces from the market? Why do the light and heavy zimmermans have identical wreaths, yet the dotted ones have different wreaths?

I think we should think for ourselves and examine the pieces. If things don't add up, then that information is more important than a certificate. Perhaps you could post the images of the dotted DKiG that you returned so that it can be examined in detail.

Also, if they are real, why did you return yours ???????? That is the best self indictment of the piece that you can demonstrate. I guess if I thought that a piece was real, I would hold on to it, regardless of what anyone else thought and would be confident in my own analysis. If it is a zimmerman, beside the 20 stamp, which is incidentally different from the light and heavy "20" stamp on other zimmermans, show us why this is real.

Edited November 2, 2005 by hawkeye

[Guest Darrell]

Perhaps then Darrel, you could explain the differences in the wreath and maker mark between that piece and the other light and heavy zimmermans? Does that certificate make it real? Could you enlarge that image and show that the date is dotted in that example? Why the sudden removal of these pieces from the market? Why do the light and heavy zimmermans have identical wreaths, yet the dotted ones have different wreaths?

I think we should think for ourselves and examine the pieces. If things don't add up, then that information is more important than a certificate. Perhaps you could post the images of the dotted DKiG that you returned so that it can be examined in detail.

Also, if they are real, why did you return yours ???????? That is the best self indictment of the piece that you can demonstrate. I guess if I thought that a piece was real, I would hold on to it, regardless of what anyone else thought and would be confident in my own analysis. If it is a zimmerman, beside the 20 stamp, which is incidentally different from the light and heavy "20" stamp on other zimmermans, show us why this is real.

1. I didnt return it.

2. They didn't disappear off the market ... Bill Shea has one for sale on his site.

3. Nice nickname .. Tom.

Edited November 2, 2005 by Darrell

[Guest hawkeye]

Thanks-

1. So why are the maker marks and wreaths different?

2. Does Bill Shea selling them make them real?

The whole issue of variants is interesting. Usually in any are of science, when a new item is presented, the burden of proof is to show that the item is authentic. In militaria, it appears that many times the opposite is true- it is real until proven fake. This is where advanced testing through SEM or IR spec is helpful in dating materials.

Given the deviation from known zimmerman pieces, perhaps you could have the enamel analyzed through IR spec and demonstrate when this was produced. I have done this with the rounder and will have results in a couple of weeks. This process will definitively date the compounds used in the paint such that there is no question regarding the manufacture date. Perhaps in this case, given your firm conviction, this would be helpful in proving your beliefs regarding this piece. Reliance on quality of construction is helpful, however I am sure with improvement in technology and materials better and better fakes will be brought in to the market and reliance on more concrete information, as is done in art collecting, will be helpful.

[David Gregory]

Usually in any are of science, when a new item is presented, the burden of proof is to show that the item is authentic. In militaria, it appears that many times the opposite is true- it is real until proven fake. This is where advanced testing through SEM or IR spec is helpful in dating materials.

Given the deviation from known zimmerman pieces, perhaps you could have the enamel analyzed through IR spec and demonstrate when this was produced. I have done this with the rounder and will have results in a couple of weeks. This process will definitively date the compounds used in the paint such that there is no question regarding the manufacture date.

For the sake of collectors that feel obliged to spend money on scientific research to "believe" that an item is authentic, I hope that the method is reliable and the process is performed correctly.

Are anonymous pieces of metal, paint and enamel really worth this expense and effort?

[dond]

When a piece of metal costs $2-6000 it is.

Don

[Guest Darrell]

Thanks-

1. So why are the maker marks and wreaths different?

2. Does Bill Shea selling them make them real?

The whole issue of variants is interesting. Usually in any are of science, when a new item is presented, the burden of proof is to show that the item is authentic. In militaria, it appears that many times the opposite is true- it is real until proven fake. This is where advanced testing through SEM or IR spec is helpful in dating materials.

Given the deviation from known zimmerman pieces, perhaps you could have the enamel analyzed through IR spec and demonstrate when this was produced. I have done this with the rounder and will have results in a couple of weeks. This process will definitively date the compounds used in the paint such that there is no question regarding the manufacture date. Perhaps in this case, given your firm conviction, this would be helpful in proving your beliefs regarding this piece. Reliance on quality of construction is helpful, however I am sure with improvement in technology and materials better and better fakes will be brought in to the market and reliance on more concrete information, as is done in art collecting, will be helpful.

1. I'm not a millionaire like you and your buddy. I dont have that kind of money to buy a medal for $3500 to get it analyzed for the sake of making a name for myself. You may have an overwhelming desire to become the Doctor of Collecting ... I don't.

2. I sure wish you would get your facts straight before you spill your filth over this forum like you stunk up the other one.

3. Why the incognito? ... it takes 10secs of your rubbish bullcrap to know who you are.

[Guest hawkeye]

I thought this was supposed to be a gentlemanly discussion. As that is what the rules of the forum state, I will refrain from responding to your ungentlemanly personal attacks.

As above-

1. Can you explain to us why the wreath and maker mark are different?

Scientific testing is not filth. It is what every method of study uses to arrive at the truth. I am sorry that it makes you uncomfortable, but such results can help dissuade detect fakes when observational analysis fails. No one can be perfect in examining a piece and such information will provide a useful adjunct.

[Dave B]

This is an interesting discussion but please keep it civil and on topic

Darrell,could you possibly post an obverse/reverse scan/photo of your DkiG please(if possible)

Cheers

Dave

[Guest Darrell]

Tom,

It doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least. Why would it. After all I still have it. I have nothing to prove. Detlev has been questioned about the piece several times since. He says it is 100% ok. It's not one that has fell through the cracks so to speak.

This has been hashed to death on WAF. I have nothing to prove, so it ends here.

Dave,

I understand, however, this thread will NOT be turned into a "Assumption" and "2 member hanging jury" like what happened over there (if I have anything to do about it). It is an interesting thread, but the nature of the topic and the participants involved will not allow it to remain civil for long.

I'm out.

P.S. Tom, go bash the RK's on WAF ... that's your "specialty".

[Guest hawkeye]

Darrel-

I do not claim to be an expert at anything beside medicine. We are all learning and continue to learn about these items.

In order to learn more, please post detailed images of the wreath and maker mark of your piece. This can be compared to known original zimmerman pieces. If the piece deviates from known originals, the two possibilities are-

1. fake

2. recently discovered variant

The acceptance of a recently discovered variant is a faith issue. If a piece deviates from what has usually been accepted as the characteristics of an original piece, then we have no standard by which to evaluate the piece. Then it becomes an issue of quality of construction. I think in a few weeks I will be able to show that reliance on quality of construction will fail us in some instances as well. Without objective evaluation of the materials and dissimilar structural appearance, is that not the means by which we determine what is fake and what is real?

[Stogieman]

Ladies & Gentleman, might I suggest that before the debate continues much further, we get some images of the examples in question., both accepted/controversial. I think it would encourage additional discussion.

Can anyone cite an example of the controversial piece coming from anywhere other than a dealer? I have no horse in this race. However I am very interested in seeing this discussion carried through in a respectful manner.

[Guest hawkeye]

Well, for anyone interested who can post photos, I have a nice comparison of the date, wreath, maker mark, rivets and hinge of Bill Shea's dotted piece and a traditional zimmerman DKiG. One can see the differences in these photos. Anyone have an email who wants to post these? I have tried and apparently cannot post photos.

I think that an honest discussion can begin after these photos are viewed.

Edited November 2, 2005 by hawkeye

[Stogieman]

OK, here's a series of photos provided by Tom. I'd like to preface a further discussion on this controversy with a couple of points/observations/recommendations.

A) Whatever "baggage" anyone is carrying, please leave it at the door when you come here. Is it a perfect world? Certainly not. However, we can all conduct ourselves as Gentleman when discussing even a difference of opinion. Or we can certainly learn to. Please keep this in mind when participating on this forum.

B) In my opinion after reviewing these montage shots, the two crosses are different pieces.

C) I do not believe these images to be of "diagnostic quality". I would not venture to even attempt to infer authenticity of either DKiG based on these pictures. I'm pretty good with photo interpretation and have made it a "required" skill. I couldn't work with these pix.

D) I'm not a DK/RK guy. My opinions are based strictly on the pix provided.

So......... enjoy the debate and for Jiminy Cricket's sake, get some better photos to work with before we go diving into a mud puddle. Let the civil discourse commence!

[Stogieman]

Additional foto, hinges.

Please note, in my eyes, even with these very fuzzy pictures, I see way more consistency in these two hinges than perhaps others do. But, note the very sharp contrast in the shape of the "star" points immediately above both upper corners of the hinge block......... the hinge, the mounting block and the pin are so close impossible to call, but the "star" very big differences.

Is it possible for one maker to have two very different stars?

[Stogieman]

Next foto, series of "20" maker marks...... no idea what is what, Tom & darrell will have to point these out for the rest of us.

[Stogieman]

Final foto, this pix IMO is not too great, but I can see differences rather clearly. However, both pieces could very well be authentic, or not. Again, not the same piece, but not my area of expertise.

[Guest hawkeye]

Thanks Rick!

That illustrates the situation further. The conventional zimmerman DKiG is different than the dotted piece. There is differences in the date and wreath and even absence of the zimmerman flaw on the sunburst. The dotted piece does not share the characteristics of authenitc pieces with regard to the wreath , sunburst, and maker mark.

Given that, I would ask this question. What makes this not a fake? There is a nice fake Klein DKiG that is well constructed, but has a different wreath, date, and maker mark. The rest of the cross looks great. That piece is accepted completely as a fake for the above reasons. Now the dotted zimmerman satisfies these criteria as well, but is considered by some to be real. Why the inconsistency here?

Edited November 3, 2005 by hawkeye