Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

For the benefit of readers to whom all of this is new, I wasn't present when they were sold and I have never claimed to have been present. I was present when they were offered to the crook for whom I worked from time to time as a runner before I got a life. He passed on them because of the damage to the frame dies. We heard from the broker that they had been sold to a top London dealer, well-known amongst his fellow crooks, who may still have them although he probably hasn't used them for a long time. This was twenty-eight years ago.

PK

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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:

I fail to see how anything I have written here could "offend the forum". I suppose my continued rejection of beliefs adopted in the wake of Dietrich Maerz's book might offend a few people but I think you're stretching it to suggest that my beliefs where KCs are concerned are offensive to the members in general. I think that a loose cabal of dealers, fakers and their shills might find some of my posts extremely irritating, especially when they interfere with attempts to introduce new 'variants' unseen in the past six decades, or with the apparent new strategy of trying to rehabilitate certain medals and badges long dismissed as questionable by serious, time-served students of the subject.

The afore-mentioned list of firms authorised by the LDO to produce Germany's highest award is widely accepted as accurate and reasonable by many serious students of the subject. There is no known proof of the kind you presumably envisage but when Deschler's status as a supplier of awards to the regime is taken into account, along with the handful of known, marked crosses in advanced collections whose quality conforms to the sort of quality one might expect of this firm, it is reasonable to entertain the notion that Deschler was one of the authorised makers, even if the firm did not produce hundreds or thousands of KCs during the war. You're perfectly entitled to reserve your opinion in the absence of proof. The Deschler KCs might be as genuine as the "Rounders" you and your friends so passionately defended a while back. If you are able to put a coherently argued case against the probability or possibility of Deschler-made KCs, I am sure it would be taken seriously. I know I would make an effort to give you a fair reading.

This discussion is about 1957 KCs. 1939 KCs by Steinhauer & L?ck qualify as on-topic for obvious reasons. A recapitulation of the names of firms authorised to supply the KC during the war is also legitimate in the wider context of the topic. So is the discussion about precious metals in Occupied Germany between 1945 and 1949. Attacking facts and conclusions based upon study and logic with sophistry and semantics in a manner redolent of our adversarial justice system is probably legitimate too, from the viewpoint of people on an agenda, with a lot to lose if items in their collections are shown to be questionable, but facts are facts and in the absence of facts, or proof, it is reasonable to form opinions and to draw conclusions based on available information, logic and hearsay. Juries do this all the time. So do judges and magistrates. Probability and possibility play major r?les in the study of history, which is why I consider the majority of KCs by Steinhauer & L?ck to be questionable. I can't prove that they are fakes but I can't prove them genuine either, which is why I have never bought one.

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to "B" type cross frames with raised beading flaws, I would agree with Prosper that these ALL appeared postwar. It is my PERSONAL feeling, as well, that at least most were actually stamped postwar. As far as the stamping is concerned, I say "most" because (again, in my personal opinion) there was at least one "die run" of the "B" type cross during the war and no one can know if the die deterioration might have occured during the course of that run, or not, and, in my opinion, S&L very likely had at least some stock of frames leftover for later use which escaped looting. (If it did not, it makes no difference in the end, as all "B" frames with raised beading flaws which have been offered for sale are, to me, postwar.) Very possibly, the die used to stamp the "B" frames was the repaired die originally used to stamp the "A" frames, and subject, because of those repairs, to more rapid deterioration. I am personally acquainted with "B" type crosses which came from American vets who were not occupation soldiers, but who returned to the U.S. in the Summer of 1945 for possible re-deployment to the Pacific, had zero interest in collecting after the war and who (being the parochial sort of people we are) never went to Europe again. As my friend Bob Hritz says: You can huff and puff until you are unconscious, but that is the truth and it won't change.

The consensus today in the collecting community is that "A" type crosses constituted the vast bulk of all S&L crosses produced and awarded during the war. The further consensus is that the die used to produce these "A" crosses deteriorated and, that as a result of this deterioration, "A" type cross frames with raised beading flaws were actually delivered to the PKZ and awarded before S&L (or the PKZ, or both) decided that the point had come where the die could no longer be used, in its current state, to produce this high decoration of the Reich. This consensus is bolstered by a number of awards featuring the "A" type frame which seem to have excellent provenance and which have various stages of raised beading flaws and, further, by the total lack of any cross featuring the "A" type frame (whether with or without raised beading flaws) which can be established as coming from S&L (including the 1957 version) postwar.

The dies which Prosper saw being offered for sale in London were, I believe, the "B" dies, which were, in turn, probably the repaired "A" dies, which had deteriorated even further by the time they were being offered for sale. S&L, for its remaining cross production, both swastika and non-swastika, used a new frame, which is the one we see today.

Again, this is the consensus in the collecting community today, based on the information we have today, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO, the information from Dietrich Maerz. A significant basis to this is the acknowledgement of the existence of "A" and "B" types. This is not hard to verify and I have personally looked at dozens of S&L crosses and satisfied myself that the distinction is 100% valid. If you don't believe it, you can look yourself.

I would be happy to be PROVEN wrong, as I personally already have the S&L's I want and am now looking for a few pieces a bit further afield.

That's all for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, Rick. Harrier and I are both adults. These discussions only become fraught when the retards arrive. That's the nature of the internet. In real life, we could all sit around at a bar and discuss these questions quite robustly and emphatically without falling out because we would all pretty much blank any well-known idiots who tried to join in. It's harder to blank them on the web.

PK

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to "B" type cross frames with raised beading flaws, I would agree with Prosper that these ALL appeared postwar. It is my PERSONAL feeling, as well, that at least most were actually stamped postwar.

I wouldn't dismiss this possibility at all.

As far as the stamping is concerned, I say "most" because (again, in my personal opinion) there was at least one "die run" of the "B" type cross during the war and no one can know if the die deterioration might have occured during the course of that run, or not, and, in my opinion, S&L very likely had at least some stock of frames leftover for later use which escaped looting.

Again, very possible.

(If it did not, it makes no difference in the end, as all "B" frames with raised beading flaws which have been offered for sale are, to me, postwar.) Very possibly, the die used to stamp the "B" frames was the repaired die originally used to stamp the "A" frames, and subject, because of those repairs, to more rapid deterioration.

We're almost on the same page here.

It's one thing to rework or try to rework a die but quite another to attempt to repair cracks. Repairing cracks would entail skilled welding followed by recutting. Even skilled welding to steel causes considerable damage to the surrounding metal, to the point that it might be considered less trouble just to make a fresh set of dies.

I am personally acquainted with "B" type crosses which came from American vets who were not occupation soldiers, but who returned to the U.S. in the Summer of 1945 for possible re-deployment to the Pacific, had zero interest in collecting after the war and who (being the parochial sort of people we are) never went to Europe again. As my friend Bob Hritz says: You can huff and puff until you are unconscious, but that is the truth and it won't change.

This still begs the question of how unflawed Type 1 frames are seen on early 1957 crosses, doesn't it?

The consensus today in the collecting community is that "A" type crosses constituted the vast bulk of all S&L crosses produced and awarded during the war. The further consensus is that the die used to produce these "A" crosses deteriorated and, that as a result of this deterioration, "A" type cross frames with raised beading flaws were actually delivered to the PKZ and awarded before S&L (or the PKZ, or both) decided that the point had come where the die could no longer be used, in its current state, to produce this high decoration of the Reich. This consensus is bolstered by a number of awards featuring the "A" type frame which seem to have excellent provenance and which have various stages of raised beading flaws and, further, by the total lack of any cross featuring the "A" type frame (whether with or without raised beading flaws) which can be established as coming from S&L (including the 1957 version) postwar.

Whose consensus?

The dies which Prosper saw being offered for sale in London were, I believe, the "B" dies, which were, in turn, probably the repaired "A" dies, which had deteriorated even further by the time they were being offered for sale. S&L, for its remaining cross production, both swastika and non-swastika, used a new frame, which is the one we see today.

My 'boss' rejected them because they were damaged. They were described as the S&L frame dies and he, coming from a family of die-cutters and toolmakers with connections to The Royal Mint and the Franklin Mint, satisfied himself that they were the dies on which the frames a couple of "4" marked KCs he had were struck. But he said they were "shagged" and that he couldn't sell anything made with them. He tried to buy the core dies.

Again, this is the consensus in the collecting community today, based on the information we have today, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO, the information from Dietrich Maerz. A significant basis to this is the acknowledgement of the existence of "A" and "B" types. This is not hard to verify and I have personally looked at dozens of S&L crosses and satisfied myself that the distinction is 100% valid. If you don't believe it, you can look yourself.

I'm not so willing to align myself with this consensus. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. Who knows? All I know is that all of this seems like an attempt to prevent the bottom falling out of Steinhauer & L?ck KCs. The very least one can say is that the S&L KC is a "problematic" item. Of course there are genuine Nazi-era examples out there. But there are a lot of postwar restrikes too. That is pretty much all I am saying.

I would be happy to be PROVEN wrong, as I personally already have the S&L's I want and am now looking for a few pieces a bit further afield.

That's all for me.

I would want to be proven wrong too, before I blew a load of money on several S&L KCs. At the moment, there are only three makers with which I feel comfortable: Juncker, Godet and Zimmermann. The last two used the same dies so that's two types of KC upon which I would spend money. The rest I prefer to leave to advanced collectors and advocates of KCs approved by this recent consensus.

PK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you, Prosper. :)

Good. That's how it was intended. I'd be more than happy to argue with you until we had no spit left and then buy you a beer. I'd also take it gracefully if you out-argued me. Maybe this is a debate that should take place offline or in a closed environment, to prevent distractions.]

PK

Link to post
Share on other sites

This still begs the question of how unflawed Type 1 frames are seen on early 1957 crosses, doesn't it?

PK

Now this is a really interesting point and one which deserves to be looked at.

I have never seen a 1957 version cross with the 1st type ("A") frame with the 9-12 o'clock flaw. I can't say they don't exist, only that I have never seen one and I have looked at a lot. The ones that I have seen which don't have the "dent row" and the 6-9 o'clock "bridge flaw" ("B" type identifiers) always turn out to be the later, new, frame S&L created after the "B" die failed completely (probably in the late 60's or early 70's), and, on close examination, don't have the 9-12 o'clock flaw either.

If such crosses exist, I can only imagine three scenarios for that existence:

1.) SOME "A" frames survived and were found, and utilized, by S&L; or

2.) The original "A" frame die was re-created from a "mother die"; or

3.) The original "A" frame die survived and was used again after 1957 to make

crosses

If scenarios 2 or 3 apply, I would expect to have seen very many 1957 crosses with the "A" frame (including the 9-12 o'clock flaw). If scenario 1 applied, I would think the number of such crosses would be very limited.

Is there such an "A" frame 1957 cross, with 9-12 o'clock flaw, which can be shown here and closely examined?

I am entirely open.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 years later...

11 years since this topic was last addresed; I ask the question: Are S & L type A (with or without die flaws) 1. Before may 1945; 2. were made post war or 3. something else.

Do not want to open old wounds, just want to know the truth; thank you!

Edited by jhvelez
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...