Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That is a beautiful early '57 RK! It is interesting to see on this piece (and also on the early piece posted in the link), the beading flaws on the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock arms.

It would be very interesting to see a full breakdown showing, on these "Type B" cross frames, the full and exact progression from the earliest, minor, beading flaws to the most heavily involved flawing on multiple arms. Even Dietrich's fine work on the RK, which shows a difference in exact bead locations between flawing on the "A" type frame when compared to the "B" type, does not contain such a study.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a side note, unflawed silver frames observed on 1957-pattern Steinhauer & L?ck crosses are sometimes said to be leftover wartime stock used by the firm after the 'restitution' of the Knight's Cross in August 1957.

However, silver bullion of any description and in any form was impounded by Allied forces after the surrender in 1945 and given into the custody of the Foreign Exchange Depository, set up by the US Army at the Reichsbank in Frankfurt. In November 1945, the FED was officially tasked by the 12th Army Group to serve as the central repository for all captured "gold and silver bullion and coin, foreign currencies, foreign securities, precious stones or jewels, jewelry, gold teeth, and other similar valuables."

The FED was assisted by Bank of England officials and evaluators and, Steinhauer & L?ck's L?denscheid remises being in the British Zone, any silver bullion, whether in unstamped sheet form, sheets of uncut RK frames or prepared RK frames, would have been duly impounded and sent to the FED in Frankfurt, where it would doubtless have ended up in ingot form, just like other precious metals seized by the Western Allies from businesses all over Germany, the Soviet Zone aside.

Following the establishment of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland and the return to the German nation or part thereof of a degree of autonomy in 1949, the FED handed over all seized assets bar some industrial diamonds, platinum ingots and a few stray stocks and bonds. The FED was closed down in December 1950, with any remaining assets held by the FED transferred to the custody of the Bank Deutscher L?nder.

So, any .800 silver frames observed on 1957-pattern S&L crosses are likely to have been produced either after the August 1957 restitution of the RK in de-nazified form or sometime after 1949, in other words, in the 1950s for 1939-pattern crosses requested by recipients or families of recipients as replacements for lost or stolen crosses. It follows that any S&L RK, whether of 1939 or 1957 pattern, with flawed frames postdates the August 1957 restitution while all that can be said for any unflawed 1939 cross without verifiable provenance is that it might predate May 8 1945.

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is your view, Prosper, that between 1945 and, at the earliest, 1949, S&L had no silver on hand with which to produce crosses, and also had no leftover stocks of frames (the same having been impounded and melted down)?

What do you say about the apparent use by Deumer, in its production of 1957 EK's, of frames stamped L/11? (Edit: forgot to add - Would they have differentiated between grades of silver content?)

Very interesting and I would certainly like to hear more.

Best,

Harrier

Edited by Harrier
Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is your view, Prosper, that between 1945 and, at the earliest, 1949, S&L had no silver on hand with which to produce crosses, and also had no leftover stocks of frames (the same having been impounded and melted down)?

I don't know if S&L managed to hang onto any silver bullion in any shape or form. That kind of knowledge is likely by now to have been lost forever in the mists of time. All I can say is that the Allies were quite diligent when it came to locating and impounding the defeated nation's assets and that medal and badge manufacturers were obvious targets. Prior to the formalisation of Allied plundering, there was also the question of soldiers helping themselves to anything of any value if they thought they might get away with it.

What do you say about the apparent use by Deumer, in its production of 1957 EK's, of frames stamped L/11? (Edit: forgot to add - Would they have differentiated between grades of silver content?)

Very interesting and I would certainly like to hear more.

Deumer was not an authorised manufacturer of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939. On Page 264 of Gordon Williamson's highly researched reference work The Iron Cross of 1939 (Bender 2002), GW shows the reverse of a KC with the following caption:

An unusual and apparently genuine Knight's Cross bearing the "800" silver content mark stamped in individual numerals along the edge of the lower arm. The upper arm bears a crudely constructed L/11 logo. Enquiries made to the Deumer firm who never manufactured the Knight's Cross responded that they had indeed purchased a few Knight's Crosses from one of the authorized manufacturers to fill out their display cases.

The LDO marks were intended for retail pieces. If Deumer acquired some KCs for their display cases, which was not unusual amongst medal and badge makers of the period, they would have been unlikely to have stamped these with the L/11 mark and even if they had done so, they would surely have used a stock L/11 punch rather than stamping the reverse frame with a crude composite mark. I have never seen a 1957-pattern KC bearing an L/11 mark. There is no legitimate or logical reason for the existence of such a hallmark on any KC, whether of 1939 or 1957 pattern.

Regarding silver grades, I am not quite sure what you mean. There is certainly a legal onus to differentiate between grades of precious metals. To mark 800 silver as 925 or 935 silver would be illegal. Or do you mean, perhaps, differentiating between prices in charging more for a 935 piece than an 800 piece?

PK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Prosper. I should have been more clear.

Many medal firms would have had on hand quantities of both EK and RK frames. While the RK frames would mostly have been in the "800" category, and stamped from sheets of that grade of silver, some EK frames would also have been stamped from sheets with silver content. (I did not mean to imply that Deumer was an RK manufacturer, only that in making 1957 version EK's, they used frames which were stamped L/11, leading to the idea that these frames were wartime leftovers).

Did the authorities ONLY seize silver of a certain content level?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Prosper. I should have been more clear.

Many medal firms would have had on hand quantities of both EK and RK frames. While the RK frames would mostly have been in the "800" category, and stamped from sheets of that grade of silver, some EK frames would also have been stamped from sheets with silver content. (I did not mean to imply that Deumer was an RK manufacturer, only that in making 1957 version EK's, they used frames which were stamped L/11, leading to the idea that these frames were wartime leftovers).

Did the authorities ONLY seize silver of a certain content level?

The authorities seized any kind of gold and silver bullion they could find. I think you'll find that silver-framed EK2s and EK1s 1939 are rather scarce. The LDO only got tough about the materials used in production of the KC. The authorised KC producers were:

C E Juncker

Godet

C F Zimmermann

Steinhauer & L?ck

Deschler und Sohn

Klein und Quenzer

Otto Schickle

Godet and Zimmermann's KCs were identical and were probably made on dies owned by Zimmermann, otherwise there would have been many restrikes produced by Godet in the 1960s and 1970s. So, we are looking at six basic types of KC, ultra-rare variants like the "half-ring" type aside.

As I said, there would be no legitimate or logical reason for any KC frame to bear an L/11 hallmark. I have not seen any of these 1957-pattern KCs with the L/11 hallmark you describe so I have no opinion to offer on the provenance of such frames. Were it established that these frames were made on wartime dies, that would be worth a discussion. However, the L/11 hallmark would seem to be illegitimate. Perhaps some fool stamped them with this Nazi-era hallmark afterwards. Are there any old three-part 1939-pattern KC fakes bearing the Deumer LDO hallmark and are the frames in question the same as these 1957-pattern "L/11" KCs you mention?

Do you have any clear pictures of a 1957-pattern L/11 KC?

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prosper,

Again, I was talking about 1957 EK'S by Deumer, not RK's. Many EK's, as you know, have some SMALL degree of silver content in their frames (although very few would rise to the 800 level).

The point seems to be, from what you are saying, that authorities seized silver in whatever form (sheets, frames, etc.) they could find. Would that be correct, regardless of the actual percentage of silver content? ("Bullion" generally has a meaning of 99.9% purity).

Thanks,

Harrier

Edited by Harrier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Darrell

......The authorised KC producers were:

......Deschler und Sohn......PK

Really? Must have missed reading the proof for that. Care to show some PK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you say about the apparent use by Deumer, in its production of 1957 EK's, of frames stamped L/11?

I initially assumed that you meant KCs as I cannot recall seeing any 1939 EK2s with hallmarks anywhere but on the ring. I didn't catch the clarification. I presume you're talking about EK1s, then. I'm discussing the Knight's Cross here. Many firms had wartime medal and badge components in stock after the war. Again, I am talking about the 1957 KC and the question of unflawed Steinhauer & L?ck frames. I think you've introduced a bit of a red herring here.

As for the definition of bullion, the word is used colloquially in Britain and the United States to describe gold and silver stock. Embroiderers will use it to describe gold and silver wire used in embroidered insignia. Expanding on that, representatives of the FED would have taken any gold and silver they could lay their hands on, all of which would normally have been smelted into ingot form, with impurities removed. These metals are alloyed to render them more useable in manufacturing terms, hence .375 and .585 grades of gold. Pure silver is not quite as soft as gold, of course, but still requires the addition of a small amount of other metal to render it harder and harder-wearing, hence .800, .925 and .935. This is not to say that ingots are not made of lower grades. Of course they are. But for bank reserve purposes, the metals are usually smelted into their purest form. So, 800, 925 and 935? It would all have gone into the smelting pot and come out as "bullion", according to the purest definition.

Darrell: I don't have a Deschler KC. I think Gordon Williamson might be able to provide some pictures of Deschler KCs, which are extremely rare. I would say that they are rarer than "20" and L/52-marked KCs. There is an example in his book, on Page 293, bearing an 800 silver mark and the firm's PK hallmark '1'. I know that there have been other books written on KCs but I consider Williamson to be the most reliable extant authority on the subject, his inclusion of the "Rounder" variant notwithstanding. I have handled a "1" KC and I recall its overall quality as conforming to that one expects of Deschler und Sohn. This firm, however, seems to have focused particularly upon NSDAP-related awards and upon enamel pieces. Perhaps they felt that the market was already well-covered by the other firms, hence the scarcity of their KCs.

PK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Darrell

Darrell: I don't have a Deschler KC. I think Gordon Williamson might be able to provide some pictures of Deschler KCs, which are extremely rare. I would say that they are rarer than "20" and L/52-marked KCs. There is an example in his book, on Page 293, bearing an 800 silver mark and the firm's PK hallmark '1'. I know that there have been other books written on KCs but I consider Williamson to be the most reliable extant authority on the subject, his inclusion of the "Rounder" variant notwithstanding. I have handled a "1" KC and I recall its overall quality as conforming to that one expects of Deschler und Sohn. This firm, however, seems to have focused particularly upon NSDAP-related awards and upon enamel pieces. Perhaps they felt that the market was already well-covered by the other firms, hence the scarcity of their KCs.

PK

PK, I prefer to see actual proof from period documents rather than rely on pictures in a book or someone's "gut feeling" that a cross is from an authorized manufacturer. Gordon's book is 8 years old. Since then a great many items have been proved period and others not. Like you say, the Rounder being a prime example (although a certain UK dealer still tries to peddle them as original :rolleyes: ).

While Gordon's book was the ground breaker and a good reference at the time, it did not go into the detailed study of the RK like Dietrich's book. I would hardly call those two books "equals" on the topic of the RK. I'd rather approach this from a scientific approach with facts. If you don't, people will come up with a list of "authorized" manufacturers a mile long.

Dealer have alway liked that .... good for sales I'll admit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm discussing the Knight's Cross here. Many firms had wartime medal and badge components in stock after the war. Again, I am talking about the 1957 KC and the question of unflawed Steinhauer & L?ck frames. I think you've introduced a bit of a red herring here.

PK

I certainly hope not.

You have indicated S&L had no leftover stock of RK frames and no thin sheeting because these were seized at the end of the war by the Allies. Let's clarify a few things here.

The actual name of the document which led to the seizure of German assets was:

"Agreement Between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on Certain Additional Requirements to be Imposed on Germany; September 20, 1945"

It provided as follows:

"15. (a) The German authorities and all persons in Germany will hand over to the Allied Representatives all gold and silver, in coin or bullion forms, and all platinum in bullion form, situated in Germany, and all such coin and bullion situated outside Germany as is possessed by or held on behalf of any of the institutions or bodies mentioned in sub-paragraph 14 (a) above or any person resident or carrying on business in Germany."

There is no language which states or requires that items "which can be melted down, re-processed and converted to bullion" will be handed over. If your interpretation was correct, Germans would have been forced to give up any jewelry, wedding rings, photograph frames, etc., etc., which could have been re-converted to bullion form. This simply did not occur (although certainly looting of such items by soldiers did occur and this became after the war, at least in the areas under the control of the Western Allies, an offense punishable by court martial).

Under U.S. law and regulation, promulgated under the Comptroller of the Currency:

"The term "bullion" refers only to uncoined gold or silver in bar or ingot form."

Further, by this same regulation, these bars or ingots must have minimum purity levels as follows:

Gold: 0.995

Silver: 0.990

Platinum: 0.9995

Similar laws and regulations are applicable in the UK and France. I have been unable to locate, in the English language, Russian requirements for purity of bars or ingots legally considered as "bullion".

Neither the thin sheeting used by S&L (and others) in the manufacture of RK frames, nor the completed frames themselves, would ever have met the definition of, or qualifications for, "bullion". Further, I can find NO reference in any literature concerning the activities of the Allied Control Commission or its associated military units, that medal manufacturers, either in Ludenscheid or elsewhere, were targeted for asset seizure (although the Assmann firm did claim that British troops had destroyed some of their dies in an early "de-nazification" sweep). Similarly, a close friend of mine who is a researcher for the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and who has spent, literally, months going through Allied records regarding asset seizure, has confirmed to me that he has NEVER seen any such accounts. On the other hand, there are voluminous records of the seizure of gold and silver bullion and coins from German banks, financial centers, hiding places such as mines and vaults, and even trains. "Bullion", in ingot or bar form, was seized from some private firms whose work involved the actual further refining of those ingots or bars into other forms for military or scientific applications. The firms in Ludenscheid did not have that capability or equipment.

As a final note, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of flaws to the beading of S&L RK's, whether produced during the war or postwar.

It is now generally accepted, based on Dietrich Maerz's work, that flawing of different identifiable type and location, can be found on S&L RK's. In one type of cross (which Mr. Maerz refers to as the "A" type) a flaw can be found at the juncture of the 9 and 12 o'clock arms of the cross. Additionally, and more importantly, the actual beading on the different arms of THIS type cross developed, over time, a series of defects, first on one arm, then spreading to others. The exact location of these various "beading flaws" can be "mapped", located with precision and identified. On another type of cross (which Mr. Maerz refers to as the "B" type), there are defects at the juncture of the 6 and 9 o'clock arms (referred to as the "bridge flaw", as there is an actual "bridge" of material extruding from the beading and crossing between those arms at this juncture), as well as what is called a "dent row" of indentations to the beading on the lower 3 o'clock arm, on the right hand side of that lower arm. This "B" type cross, with the "bridge flaw" and "dent row" (NOT found on the "A" type cross) ALSO developed over the time of its manufacturer (WHENEVER you might happen to believe this occurred) a series of defects in the beading on its arms, which (as with the "A" cross type) grew and spread, initially involving one arm and then visible on the other arms. These beading flaws on the so-called "B" type cross, as with the "A" type cross, can also be "mapped", located with precision and identified. Very plainly, these beading flaws are NOT located in the exact same positions as the beading flaws found on the "A" type cross, although, to the casual obsever, they "look" to be the "same".

Whether you believe in Mr. Maerz's theories of the "timeline" of the manufacture of S&L RK's or not (and there are some parts I personally do not agree with)(as he well knows), it is indisputable, from a physical review, that the "A" and "B" types of RK frames identified by him do, in fact, exist, and are different from one another. Whether this is the result of the existence of one die (repaired) or two dies, or even more produced from a "mother die", is the subject of ongoing discussion and debate. These debates have viciously divided the RK collecting community into warring camps, which is unfortunate, as there is a great deal of knowledge to be discovered and shared, and now people feel compelled to only associate themselves with one camp or the other. I don't think it is that simple. At present, because no one can produce PROOF of an "A" type cross, with the 9-12 o'clock flaw, and whether with or without arm beading flaws, being produced by S&L in the postwar years, the argument seems to favor one repaired die.

Any discussion of S&L RK's which merely classifies them into the two categories of 1.) a cross with no flaws or, 2.) a cross with flaws, is superficial and misses the point. The REAL discussion should be: WHEN was the "B" type introduced and how many versions of that type were produced during the war. This is so because no one has been able to show an "A" type, of any kind, which can be proved to have been produced subsequent to, probably, mid-1944. Awards of "flawed "A" types, with provenance, certainly occurred until the latter part of 1944 (although, again, it is not known exactly when these were produced). Of the "B" type, the 935-4 and 800-4 (both, of course, bearing the "4" number assigned by the PKZ to S&L) are believed by the bulk of the collecting community (although Mr.Maerz cannot confirm the 800-4) to be wartime productions, with the 935-4 having been reported by U.S. veterans to have been found both at Schloss Klessheim and from German prisoners. Other U.S. veterans report obtaining 800-4 versions from both German prisoners and from medal storage areas (which MAY have been the S&L factory or, possibly, Schloss Klessheim, as some of the same U.S. units were at both locations). Other respected collectors (and dealers) believe that a few other "B" models were produced wartime (including Bob Hritz, who has a non-"4" marked "B" type cross acquired by him from an American officer, who claimed to have acquired it from a German pilot who surrendered at Kitzingen, together with another cross, also acquired by Mr. Hritz from him, which was a Juncker with Godet Oakleaves, both confirmed as genuine, which the officer said was obtained at the same time, with supporting photos showing the officer with the pilots involved).

Again, it is simply unknown when a particular cross frame was stamped, when the frames were assembled into a cross and when (in the case of wartime pieces) a particular cross would be pulled off the shelf for distribution. Of the over 7000 crosses awarded during the war (and even more manufactured) only a small minority have been viewed and subjected to any sort of intense scrutiny concerning the existence or non-existence of certain flaws. Mr. Maerz has stated that all crosses he has so far examined fit his "timeline", although others contend that crosses which might not fit the timeline have not been considered or, if considered, have been rejected simply because they do not fit the "timeline". Those arguments need not be re-hashed here. The important point is to acknowledge, as a basic step, that the "A" and "B" types do, in fact, exist, both with and without beading flaws. That is a physical reality and, whether or not you agree with Mr. Maerz on other issues, that discovery should be credited, in very great measure, to him.

The "red herring" here is the attempt to lump ANY S&L RK with flaws into the "postwar" category and, then, to try to support this claim by reference to activity which simply did not occur according to records which are publicly available or to accounts of immediate postwar activities by those who were present in Ludenscheid at the time. We have NO IDEA how long flaws took to develop or how many frames were stamped at a time. It is entirely possible that flaws appeared and spread in the course of a single run or just a couple of runs. S&L may have conducted a repair and then made another "run", only to see other flaws develop in a similarly short time period with products from the repaired die (if there was such a thing).

The truth is that manufacturers had leftover stocks of awards, both finished and unfinished, after the war, including RK's and their component parts and that, at some point, once their wartime materials stock was exhausted, commenced re-manufacture

of those awards. A lack of frames and silver sheeting did not determine this time frame. Instead, that time frame was determined by stocks on hand and by "what they could get away with" in the political climate then-existing.

By the way, I would love to see a Deschler PKZ marked RK, which I am unaware was ever awarded. I have heard of such a cross, in non-magnetic form, but wouldn't that violate PKZ core requirements after 1941?

Edited by Harrier
Link to post
Share on other sites

PK, I prefer to see actual proof from period documents rather than rely on pictures in a book or someone's "gut feeling" that a cross is from an authorized manufacturer. Gordon's book is 8 years old. Since then a great many items have been proved period and others not. Like you say, the Rounder being a prime example (although a certain UK dealer still tries to peddle them as original :rolleyes: ).

While Gordon's book was the ground breaker and a good reference at the time, it did not go into the detailed study of the RK like Dietrich's book. I would hardly call those two books "equals" on the topic of the RK. I'd rather approach this from a scientific approach with facts. If you don't, people will come up with a list of "authorized" manufacturers a mile long.

Dealer have alway liked that .... good for sales I'll admit.

The rules prevent me from answering this post in an appropriate manner.

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "red herring" here is the attempt to lump ANY S&L RK with flaws into the "postwar" category and, then, to try to support this claim by reference to activity which simply did not occur according to records which are publicly available or to accounts of immediate postwar activities by those who were present in Ludenscheid at the time. We have NO IDEA how long flaws took to develop or how many frames were stamped at a time. It is entirely possible that flaws appeared and spread in the course of a single run or just a couple of runs. S&L may have conducted a repair and then made another "run", only to see other flaws develop in a similarly short time period with products from the repaired die (if there was such a thing).

QED...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly, a close friend of mine who is a researcher for the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and who has spent, literally, months going through Allied records regarding asset seizure, has confirmed to me that he has NEVER seen any such accounts.

Here endeth our dialogue.

Sorry.

PK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving on, let's get back to the question of Steinhauer & L?ck KCs.

1. Unflawed 1957 S&L KC: made sometime after August 1957.

2. Flawed 1957 S&L KC: made sometime after August 1957.

3. Unflawed 1939 S&L KC: made sometime before August 1957.

4. Flawed 1939 S&L KC: made sometime after August 1957.

5. A & B cores: irrelevant to the question of the flawed dies.

6. Repaired frame dies: how exactly does one repair such dies?

7. Flawed dies: I saw the flawed dies in question myself in London in 1981.

8. Dies in question purchased by a 'top drawer' London dealer.

9. Advent of internet enables sharing of such information more readily than before.

10. Book appears easing pain of collectors who have paid thousands for flawed S&L KCs.

Maybe I am wrong. I am sometimes wrong. I have no problem with admitting this. But in this case, I prefer to remain very wary of any S&L KC, unless it has very convincing provenance indeed. Even then, there is always that little doubt in the back of the mind. Therefore, I prefer to stick to crosses with no questions attached.

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Darrell

.......What I find interesting is the energetic reaction from the usual suspects encountered each time I state my opinion. ....

Well when you come up with the proof and can lay it out (without offending the forum) please do ... we are all ears (errr eyes) :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to see that I am considered one of "the usual suspects"! :D

This must be confusing to Dietrich Maerz, who has considered me one of the "usual suspects" in the opposite direction for quite some time now.

Prosper, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that you were present when flawed S&L dies were sold in London. I only wish those dies were available today for inspection, as they would be able to answer, in my opinion, an awful lot of questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Blog Comments

    • Lapsang Souchong, when i first tasted this I thought it was like stale cigarette ends...it's an acquired taste for sure.  
    • I like my tea strong enough for my spoon to stand up in. My father got me into it. When my father was at RAF Dum Dum 1943-47 most of his fellow officers drank ice cold drinks to mitigate  the heat, his Sikh batman warned him against it and said that strong hot tea would cool him down, most certainly did. So years later in the UK when everybody else was drinking iced drinks on a baking day the wood family was inbibing copious quantities of hot strong brews of Assam's finest. P
    • Hi ccj, Thanks for your comments. Funny how, for me at least, coffee has become a habit more than a conscience choice. It's the old, "Well if you having one (coffee) pour me as well". When I get together with my son-in-law, a former Brit, it's tea all the way. Thanks again. Regards Brian  
    • I live and grew up in the south (USA) and the drink of choice 7 days a week was cold sweet tea. I was unaware Lipton was British because that’s what most southern use for brewing tea. When I joined the army I learned most people in the north and western parts of the USA drank unsweetened tea and that was perplexing to my young brain. Now days I can’t stand sweet iced tea but it’s still the most common drink in the south, but, you can get unsweetened ice tea in the south. Im familiar with ho
    • I drink tea every day (Chinese tea), I used to buy Sri Lankan black tea at the fair before, it was great! I have been reluctant to drink them all. . The tea I’m talking about is just brewing water, not adding other substancesI
×
×
  • Create New...