"Dotted" date Zimmermann DKiG's

[Stogieman]

Hi Tom, to bring me up to speed....... both the klein and dot piece are considered/accepted as fake? or only the dot piece with the klein cross debated still?

I have heard of "lightweight" DK's, were these made by multiple makers, or strictly Zimmermann?

If made by multiple makers, do other maker's two pieces differ significantly in construction, or strictly in weight??

Thanks!

[Guest hawkeye]

Thanks Rick-

There are light zimmermans and kleins, each weighing about 44.5 grams. The wreaths of kleins and zimmermans are identical, but the rivets are different, as are the maker marks. There are heavy zimmermans which have identical wreaths as the light zimmermans, but they have a slightly different maker mark, hinge plate arrangement and catch compared to the light zimmermans. There are heavy and light juncker pieces, both with identical wreaths, but the difference in weight is apparently due to tombak vs cupal construction. There are also heavy and light deschlers- again with identical wreaths.

There is a fake Klein out there that is slightly under 63 mm in diameter that has a slightly different wreath and date. The reverse hinge, rivets, and catch look very good. It is of excellent construction- frankly better than the dotted DKiG. Yet this Klein is accepted as a fake. Why? Because the maker mark, wreath, and date are different than known kleins. Now the odd thing about the dotted DKiG is the only resemblance to a zimmerman is the hinge, catch, and perhaps the rivets (I think there is some difference there as well). What more do we need to call this a fake? If the Klein is a fake, and the other deschler, godet, juncker,and zimmerman pieces with incorrect wreaths, maker marks, and dates are fakes, why IS THIS ONE real?

The only answer so far is that Bill Shea and Kai Winkler say so. Apparently Detlev Neiman as well, according to Darrel. Is that a good reason? Well, I think we can see and think for ourselves. This cross is different than other zimmermans. There is no question of that as the photos illustrate. I really think this is a situation of the dealers trying to promote and sell a new fake at the expense of the collector. That is my opionion, but the differences in this piece and known originals I think clearly supports this contention.

For those who believe this is a real piece, please state why this is true. I have demonstrated, with the help of Rick, quite clearly why it is fake. If the only "pro" contention is that Bill Shea and Kai Winkler say so, then I think that any rational collector has their answer. As Rick points out, it is odd indeed that those with the financial incentive to promote this as a period piece are doing so. Ask yourself , "why?" and the answer comes quite quickly.

Edited November 4, 2005 by hawkeye

[Stogieman]

Here's my philosophy with "deviations"........ if I see one, I don't sweat it too much. 2 or 3 that have never been seen before, makes me stop and look real hard and start asking many questions. A dozen or more on dealer sites within 6 months. Start thinking "brake lights". I'm not ready to scream fake, I'd like to see a lot more pictures, a lot clearer pictures and a lot more examples of it first. Call me a fool, but I've tried real hard to keep the paranoia out of my collecting. Maybe that's why I never really wanted a DK or RK......... OK, well maybe one in silver.....

[David Gregory]

There is a fake Klein out there that is slightly under 63 mm in diameter that has a slightly different wreath and date. The reverse hinge, rivets, and catch look very good. It is of excellent construction- frankly better than the dotted DKiG. Yet this Klein is accepted as a fake. Why? Because the maker mark, wreath, and date are different than known kleins.

Like Rick, I am not really prepared to spend so much money on something made to fool collectors. Please show this fake and tell us why some Klein-made examples are accepted, and others are considered to be bad.

Now the odd thing about the dotted DKiG is the only resemblance to a zimmerman is the hinge, catch, and perhaps the rivets (I think there is some difference there as well). What more do we need to call this a fake? If the Klein is a fake, and the other deschler, godet, juncker,and zimmerman pieces with incorrect wreaths, maker marks, and dates are fakes, why IS THIS ONE real?

If different = fake, how can a real variant be accepted as such? Are these definitions so absolute?

The only answer so far is that Bill Shea and Kai Winkler say so. Apparently Detlev Neiman as well, according to Darrel. Is that a good reason? Well, I think we can see and think for ourselves. This cross is different than other zimmermans. There is no question of that as the photos illustrate. I really think this is a situation of the dealers trying to promote and sell a new fake at the expense of the collector. That is my opionion, but the differences in this piece and known originals I think clearly supports this contention.

Have all of these different pieces appeared only recently or is it possible that there are some in older collections that the majority of collectors who visit forums such as this do not know about? Surely not every surviving piece is in a well-known collection, or is every surviving example known and documented?

For those who believe this is a real piece, please state why this is true. I have demonstrated, with the help of Rick, quite clearly why it is fake. If the only "pro" contention is that Bill Shea and Kai Winkler say so, then I think that any rational collector has their answer. As Rick points out, it is odd indeed that those with the financial incentive to promote this as a period piece are doing so. Ask yourself , "why?" and the answer comes quite quickly.

Why do they have state why it is true? I can't follow your conclusion. As far as I am concerned, you have certainly demonstrated that two items display differences. That might be because one of them is a fake, or do you know some reason why they cannot possibly differ and still be right?

Until someone provides reasonable evidence that these pieces have only just started appearing and that they are definitely fakes, I find it very hard to believe that there is a conspiracy by a group of such prominent and closely watched dealers to rob otherwise poverty-stricken collectors who just have to acquire an example of every high-end award under the sun.

The paranoia and price hype attached to these items is one of the reasons why I gave up on Third Reich awards some time ago. That being said, I would still like to keep an open mind and find out more about the pieces without having to invest a small fortune in something that involves such a potentially huge risk.

David

[Guest hawkeye]

Okay -

This is a little different than a difference in a hinge or catch. This is an ENTIRELY different wreath. To believe that this is real, one would have to accept that zimmerman, with no evidence of deterioration of their dies (unlike the S&L RK) would completely abandon their light zimmerman wreath and switch to this. Consider also that the heavy zimmermans, which are presumed earlier, did not involve any such change in the die characteristics of the wreath- they are identical. So why the complete change with no damaged dies?

Again, a few simple questions

1. Why change the dies when there is no evidence of damgage to light zimmerman wreaths?

2. Why would the dies be changed when they were not changed in transition from heavy to light zimmermans?

3. Why did no other DKiG maker change the dies to their wreaths, particular with the change from the early 6 rivet deschlers to the heavy 4 rivet and later light 4 rivet pieces?

4. If other fakes are determined by lack of similarity of maker mark, date, and wreath characteristics, what makes THIS PARTICULAR PIECE different from any other fake? Why are not the fake Kleins, then, real? Their quality of construction and appearance is better than the dotted DKiGs, so if quality of construction is the yardstick, the fake Kleins are real as well.

[David Gregory]

I don't know enough about the pieces in question to make a qualified comment on them, which is why I am trying to learn.

However, I cannot accept your conclusion that a change in manufacturing methods, which we will probably never be able to understand, automatically condemns an item as a fake.

I work for an engineering company in which minor changes are made to products on a regular basis. In 10 years from now, I defy anyone to explain why some of them occured, unless you have access to the design and quality assurance documents that we have to keep on file.

Although I accept the possibility that unexplained differences might be due to fakes, it seems to me that any other explanation is simply disregarded in order to support the "fake" argument. Some of the known and accepted facts (e.g. differences) might support the fake theory, but there may well be a huge amount of information that has been lost, or not yet discovered, that would defeat it or support a quite diffferent conclusion.

Unfortunately, there seem to be few, if any, known records of the various manufacturers still available today and the eye witnesses to the production processes probably died some years ago.

I applaud the questioning of items that seem genuinely suspicious (and turn out to be fakes), but there may any number of reasons why changes occured and we might not ever learn why. There may be no conclusive answer, however unpalatable that may seem to people who have a lot of money at stake.

[Guest hawkeye]

Okay David-

!. Then what makes a fake? If a piece is different than known originals, is not every fake then simply orginal?

2. One is forgetting an important part of the dotted DKiG puzzle- one that the fakers forgot. WHAT ABOUT THE KLEIN DOTTED DKIGS? If there are real zimmerman pieces, there should be dotted kleins, as the wreaths are identical. Where are they?

3. Also - WHAT ABOUT THE SUNBURST AND THE MAKER MARK? The maker mark and sunburst are different. There is no zimmerman flaw on the sunburst and the maker mark is different. Did they simply have the "itch" to change EVERYTHING?

4. Why did the other makers of DKiGs not have a similar compulsion to change EVERTHING on their pieces?

5. Why is not the superiorly constructed Klein and Deschler fakes, which are better in construction and appearance than the dotted DKiG, not real? Why is any fake a fake?

6. I cannot even post photos here. Therefore it would be nearly impossible to go through the Klein fake and a pictorial tutorial as far as the details that make that piece a fake compared to real Kleins. Besides - it appears that if I showed a difference in wreath and maker mark, that would be insufficient evidence and that fake would then be embraced as a variant also.

Again- The simple question- What makes this different than any other fake? If this is real, then the criteria that we use to establish authentic from fake pieces (deviation from known standards) dictates that all fakes are real. If we embrace this piece, why not the latvian fakes or the fake Klein? Are they not just simply variants as well?

Edited November 4, 2005 by hawkeye

[David Gregory]

I can't discuss the specifics of the Klein pieces, or any other DKs for that matter, because I don't know enough about them (yet, I hope).

When the sources and suppliers of items such as the Latvian RKs are known, then there is no doubt about them being generally accepted as fakes.

There is an enormous spectrum between known fakes (e.g. Latvian RKs) and pieces that cannot be proved to be bad, but which most serious collectors avoid like the plague.

Between and beyond those two poles there are almost certainly items that are in fact fakes, but not recognised or generally accepted as such, and may remain undiscovered for a long time (forever even?). By the same token, there are almost certainly authentic items that have been discussed and contended to the point where no one wants to have them, even if they are good.

While I can't argue for or against the Klein DKs you discuss here, I am not prepared to dismiss them out of hand because they don't fit the little information that I accept as reliable.

Perhaps some changes were made on a whim, or for reasons we will never know. Neither you nor I, unless one of us knows something the rest of the world does not, can give a reason why one manufacturer made changes, but another did not.

As far as I am concerned, there is not enough reliable information available on these pieces to make a decision either way. Until more comes to light, I prefer to regard them with the same suspicion as other expensive Third Reich awards - they are prone to much faking and I refuse to treat them as cut and dried. We simply don't have enough information and comparisons and speculation about them will remain just that.

I accept fakes known to have been made and supplied by a purveyor of fakes. I also accept original items known to have come from the men (or their families) that received them. Within certain limits (my own definition), I will also accept items identical to the latter with a certain margin of deviation. All the rest remains very much a grey area - we will probably never know.

That is why I mainly stick to inexpensive Imperial documents and awards that give me hours of research pleasure, rather than worrying about an anonymous piece of metal that I can never be sure about.

Each of us must make his own decision about what he is prepared to accept as real (by your definition no different to what you are happy with). Other collectors, and dealers for that matter, may or may not agree with you, but that is their choice. Collecting militaria is not an exact science and absolutes tend to be more a matter of opinion rather than fact.

[Mike]

Does anyone know if the dotted ones are lightweight versions -- if they have a cupal frame ? I'd think it would be really hard for anyone to copy that sandwich effect.

[Dave B]

About wreaths not being identical etc,I think Robin Lumsden has a 20 marked Zimmermann piece with a Deschler/Godet type wreath.

If you are reading this Robin,perhaps you could post a pic of your Zimmermann DKiG?

Dave

[Guest hawkeye]

Dave-

Robin's piece has a deschler wreath and rivets. I guess it would be a deschler and not a zimmerman. The wreath matches a deschler and therefore is not a fake.

Mike-

Anything can be faked. Fortunately the fakes tend to be worse, so they are easier to detect.

Again, the question that no one will answer and begs to be answered

IF DIFFERENCES IN THE WREATH AND MAKER MARK FROM KNOWN ORIGINALS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A FAKE, WHAT DOES?

It is stated above that it is a fake only if we know where it came from. Is that reasonable? I would say that the vast majority of fakes are of unknown origin. Also, it is stated that when there is "provenance" it can be accepted as real. What fake does not have a "vet acquired" story behind it?

Also, look at the quality of finishing of the dotted DKiG. It is very poor relative to a real zimmerman. Look at the details of the wreath- again poor.

David-

The Klein fake has been hashed over by experts on the DKiG and felt to definately be a fake. There is no question. Incidentally, no one knows where it came from, yet by the criteria above, it would be embraced as rreal becuase it is of unknown origin and does not share characteristics of authentic pieces. Heck, Detlev feaatured it once as his fake of the week.

It is important to establish SOME characteristics of observation to avoid a situation like that created with the rounder. Otherwise, twenty years later we will be forced to pursue expensive SEM and IR spec work to PROVE that a piece is definately fake when the visual characteristics suggested that decades before. Let us spare other collectors the expense of being saddled with fakes and tackle this issue early to prevent the propogation and sale of this piece.

This issue should not be subjective. It should be fairly cut and dried. If we agree that if a piece has a different wreath and maker mark, then it is a different piece. Other fakes have "20" stamps as well. Some are better quality than the dotted DKiG, yet they are recognized as fakes. The only difference we have here is that THE DEALERS are TELLING US that this piece is real. What about Ivan or Pieter? They are not dealers and have stated that the dotted DKiG is a fake. Why? Becuase THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO SELL THEM.

Edited November 4, 2005 by hawkeye

[David Gregory]

Again, the question that no one will answer and begs to be answered

IF DIFFERENCES IN THE WREATH AND MAKER MARK FROM KNOWN ORIGINALS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A FAKE, WHAT DOES?

Differences to a known original might indicate that the piece is a fake, however, they might equally indicate that the piece is simply as yet unknown. By your reasoning, anything which is different and unknown is a fake. Of course I agree that there are poor fakes that are likely to fool only complete beginners, but I cannot automatically condemn things out of hand just because I have not seen one before.

It is stated above that it is a fake only if we know where it came from. Is that reasonable? I would say that the vast majority of fakes are of unknown origin. Also, it is stated that when there is "provenance" it can be accepted as real. What fake does not have a "vet acquired" story behind it?

I did not state that an item is only a fake if it is known to come from a bad source, I did state that there can be no doubt about it in such cases. I agree that the vast majority of fakes are of (to us) unknown origin. In my view, that does not automatically make any item of unknown origin a fake. My statement was not an absolute ruling on what is and is not a fake.

The Klein fake has been hashed over by experts on the DKiG and felt to definately be a fake. There is no question. Incidentally, no one knows where it came from, yet by the criteria above, it would be embraced as rreal becuase it is of unknown origin and does not share characteristics of authentic pieces. Heck, Detlev feaatured it once as his fake of the week.

As I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, I would assume that the experts (whoever they may be) are probably right. My criteria do not dictate that a previously unknown and "different" item is real. I simply believe that logic dictates that it might just as easily be real as well as fake. Both are very real possibilities, neither of which I would discard out of hand.

It is important to establish SOME characteristics of observation to avoid a situation like that created with the rounder. Otherwise, twenty years later we will be forced to pursue expensive SEM and IR spec work to PROVE that a piece is definately fake when the visual characteristics suggested that decades before. Let us spare other collectors the expense of being saddled with fakes and tackle this issue early to prevent the propogation and sale of this piece.

A scientific approach (with or without laboratory equipment) is laudable and helps to provide evidence for or against a particular item. To be honest, I stopped following the debate on the rounder when, in my view, conclusions were drawn on the basis of flawed logic despite the presentation of apparently sound scientific evidence.

This issue should not be subjective. It should be fairly cut and dried.

Unfortunately, the issue seems to remain highly subjective. In my view, conclusions can only be cut and dried when we know all the facts. However unpalatable it may be for some people, I don't think we ever will know all the facts. For that reason, I prefer to steer clear of something that I will never be sure of. If someone else wants to make the leap of faith and is satisfied with what is known so far, then that is his choice.

If we agree that if a piece has a different wreath and maker mark, then it is a different piece. Other fakes have "20" stamps as well. Some are better quality than the dotted DKiG, yet they are recognized as fakes.

Yes, we can agree that it is different. I am not disputing the fact that it might be bad. However, I think we disagree that this automatically condemns it as a fake, the possibility of which I will not rule out.

The only difference we have here is that THE DEALERS are TELLING US that this piece is real. What about Ivan or Pieter? They are not dealers and have stated that the dotted DKiG is a fake. Why? Becuase THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO SELL THEM.

Despite what dealers tell me, I still have the choice not to buy their goods. Perhaps Ivan or Pieter know something that the rest of us don't. The body of opinion (evidence?) presented so far suggests that these items are not good, which certainly puts me off even considering buying one.

Given the risks involved in investing in a DK, I would only ever consider one with sound provenance. If that means that I will probably never be able to find or afford one, then I will happily do without a DK and stick to Imperial documents. But that is my choice.

David

[Stogieman]

I'd like to make a suggestion. Tom, many of us have no clue what we're discussing here, but have a serious interest in how this plays out on moral, ethical, curiosity or whatever grounds. You're going way too fast for us students and we're entering into a debate over what constitutes real vs. fake as a broad-spectrum topic as opposed to a specific topic RE the pieces that started the thread.

Could we please table the discussion until some decent photographs of originals, suspect and outright fakes can be placed out here to make this a little easier for us neophytes to follow?

I know that many of you know exactly what's being discussed here, but for many of us, we need to see some examples of what's OK, what is suspected as not OK and a comparison thereof.

Thanks!!

[Guest hawkeye]

Woops!

Sorry Rick, I did not see your post as I was typing. I think that is a good idea. In order to go through all of the flaws on the zimmerman crosses takes dozens of photos. I cannot seem to post any photos here, so that would be impossible. I would go to the WAF site and look up the thread "Are Zimmerman and Klein wreaths identical?" as this has been presented there in detail.

Edited November 4, 2005 by hawkeye

[David Gregory]

I offer my apologies for straying off topic.

Like many others (I suspect), I know too little about these pieces to make a decision with any confidence. Although I am unlikely ever to acquire one (but never say never), I would like to know more about them and be able to form an opinion of my own.

[Stogieman]

Where does this one fit into the picture? We have what was described as a 20 maker DKig, lightweight, 4 hollow rivets, reverse engraved w. recipients name, copy of soldbuch, etc.

Is this one the same as the one suspected of being fake?

Photo courtesy of Niemann-Hamburg

[Guest hawkeye]

Is this the fake Klein?- No

Is this zimmerman a good one? The reverse componants look good. I cannot make out the details of the wreath, date and sunburst to make a comment one way or another.

[Stogieman]

OK, so there are two different "light" DKiG, purported to be made by Zimmerman. One reputed to be a fake, one not?

Is there anyone able to make a photo comparison between the suspect DKiG (light-20) with this one sold by Detlev Niemann this AM??

[Guest hawkeye]

There is one light version of the zimmerman. There is one heavy version. The difference between the light and heavy versions, beyond the cupal vs tombak reverse, is the position of the hinge plate at 12 oclock, the shape of the "20" stamp, and the catch. The wreaths are identical, as is the sunburst.

There are a multitude of zimmerman fakes- probably too many to count. The dotted DKiG is just one of the many fake zimmermans out there. All are characterized by lack of resemblence to the features of the original zimmerman pieces.

Regarding Detlev's piece, the reverse looks good. I cannot see the details of the wreath or sunburst at all to make a comment one way or another.

Edited November 4, 2005 by hawkeye

[Guest Darrell]

In case anyone starts to take Mr. Hansen's words too much for "Gospel" .. I would hope everyone would take the time to read this thread:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=128613

That's what really scares me about this hobby. So called "experts" throwing around opinions that others are so fast to take as "Gospel".

Be careful people who you listen to .... be VERY CAREFUL.

This is my LAST comment about this guy ....

Edited November 10, 2005 by Darrell

[Stogieman]

Darrell, thank you for bringing this to our attention.

[Stogieman]

** Members should be advised that Dr. Hansen aka Tom Hansen, aka hawkeye has had his membership priviliges on this Forum suspended. In addition, he has been suspended from Wehrmacht-Awards.com due to the serious breach of good judgement and ethics. **

[David Robertson]

Hi guys,I am quite familiar with these DK's.I'm the first one to post one on WAF!! First it was given a thumbs up and then Tom Hanson started his crusade against them. Funny thing about Tom is just 6 month before this all started he was a self proclamed novice?? and then he was the worlds foremost expert!! Any way I got my dotted DK along with two cloth DK's from a vets son at a local gun show (I think I payed 600 for the three)He was looking to buy a Colt 70 series 45 and that what the gun cost. He also had several common badges and tinnes ETC: but wanted way too much money for them. There is no dought in my mind there ok. Both cloth DK's are mint and have the flaw in the nine, so I don't think he was putting one over on me. I will pay 300 for mint cloth DK's all day long!! I will post photos later I may have to take some new ones (new PC and some things did not get transfered).

David Robertson[attachmentid=15619]

[David Robertson]

Hi here is the other one,I will have to take photos of the dotted DK (Sunday)

Edited November 13, 2005 by David Robertson

[Rosenberg]

I didn?t take enough time to study your cloth one so I can?t comment on that.Expert or no expert I take sides with Mr.Hansen on this issue,yeah do good shots of your dotty one and so will I with my not so dotty one and then we should be able to compare.

Why is there not even a sentence on those in any reference book?Again I?ve seen what happened to Hawkeye out here,I don?t want to leave this place through the roof,so I hope I didn?t offend anyone.Anyway I wouldn?t touch a dotty one nor take it as gift.These are not dotted ones but dotty ones to me

Regards