EK 1939 Evidence of an Unknown RK

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

I was hoping maybe Gordon had seen one like this or could more readily help us in the direction of discovering this piece's maker?

[Gordon Williamson]

I was hoping maybe Gordon had seen one like this or could more readily help us in the direction of discovering this piece's maker?

Brian,

I applaud your serious attempts to broaden knowledge on the numbers of RK variants. For sure there are other makers "out there" that have yet to be positively identified. For instance W?chtler & Lange list the RK as one of their products in an original wartime publication. Of course the recent batch of nouveau riche "Tom Dick and Harry" collectors and their acolytes will no doubt squeal that such things can not exist because (a) they don't have one in their recently bought collections or (b) the wartime publications in question have not been subjected to a SEM scan.

Sadly, serious debate on such matters has been reduced to personal attacks and ego trips on a certain formerly respected site which (if the PMs I have received are anything to go by) many now feel has been reduced to little more than the equivalent of a trashy tabloid newspaper. Fortunately, such crap is not permitted here and I am informed that moves are afoot to provide a serious forum for such discussions, but for me I now find that Imperial Iron Crosses offer a far better and infinitely more civilised and interesting field of study, being so far devoid of the attentions those who have done so much to make what was once an interesting field of study into something interminably boring, so I am unwilling to be drawn into pointless debate on far less interesting 3rd Reich issues.

I wish you all the best in identifying the elusive manufacturer of the Cross on your photos.

[Guest Darrell]

Sadly, serious debate on such matters has been reduced to personal attacks and ego trips on a certain formerly respected site which (if the PMs I have received are anything to go by) many now feel has been reduced to little more than the equivalent of a trashy tabloid newspaper. Fortunately, such crap is not permitted here ...

One of the two main cuplrits got his butt banned, and the other was warned when he tried to stir up the same crap here.

I applaud the efforts of the Moderators and open minds like Gordon. Doctor degrees and Millionaire clubs mean nothing over here

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

Thanks Gordon, as you know, I have no desire to stir up any debate. Finding evidence is my goal and seeing if a bit here or there brings up any matches. I know if you did have something in a box that matched you'd bring it forward and that when you find something new, as always, you'll share and bring delight to people like me! I think the day you illuminated my Legion Condor Tank Badge was one of my happiest collector moments. Thank you.

[Guest Dave Kane]

One of the two main cuplrits got his butt banned, and the other was warned when he tried to stir up the same crap here.

I applaud the efforts of the Moderators and open minds like Gordon. Doctor degrees and Millionaire clubs mean nothing over here

Come on now boys! Let's stick to the task at hand....not a good old boy's club but a Gentleman's Club, yes?

More importantly, however, gentlemen shouldn't lessen one's Academic and surely not count someone's money.

Stick to the topic at hand...

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

Bye Dave

[PKeating]

The RK zum EK has been convincingly faked since the 1950s even if many people prefer to delude themselves that the best fakes or repros around in the 1960s came from Rudolf Souval. The KC is a wonderful award but only if owned in conjunction with the recipient's other decorations and, importantly, documents. Otherwise it is just an overpriced Iron Cross and not even particularly rare as an object. The dealers' showcases and websites are full of them, just as they are full of Glider Pilot Badges, solid silver Spanish Crosses and all sorts of other things that used to be rare.

The bottom has to some extent fallen out of the KC market because of all the revelations about Steinhauer & L?ck and Klein & Quenzer dies and all the opposing viewpoints and articles about this decoration. It seems that hardly a year goes by before we have some other variant proposed and accepted into the fold by a certain clique of self-appointed experts. The only KCs I am inclined to trust are those by C E Juncker and Zimmermann, who also made the KCs supplied by Godet. We can be quite sure of this for the simple reason that had Godet been the maker of the Zimmermann/Godet crosses, Frau Klietmann would have put those dies back to work in the 1960s and 1970s and Zimmermann/Godet crosses would not be as rare as they are.

I'd also trust the 'half-loop' crosses and maybe the Otto Schickle ones but unless I can identify a cross as being the same one around the neck of its original owner - through visible damage, for example, to the core finish - then I wouldn't touch anything by S&L and K&Q or any other firm now hailed as a wartime producer of the award. I also wouldn't touch a 'rounder'. Too much controversy surrounds these things to risk tying up thousands of euros in something that is 'in' today and 'out' tomorrow. I have a couple of nice originals and that'll do for me.

All these attempts to validate crosses that are familiar only to people who have been around for the past five years or less have a ring of desperation about them. There is only a limited amount of Third Reich memorabilia in circulation but demand is rising or, rather, supply is falling and so the demand has to be supplied. Consequently, we are now expected to believe that all sorts of previously unobserved variants and medals and badges long-dismissed as fakes are all genuine pre-May 1945 pieces. Sure...pull the other leg, it's got bells on.

PK

[Dietrich]

Prosper,

on a pure monetary point of view, i.e. having a or an abundance of Knights Crosses and enjoying the annual growth rate, you are absolutelt right. Nobody looking at investment or security of mind should buy a Rounder or other 'questionable' pieces. I have said this so often, it's not ven funny anymore!

But for me that is not the point. As Gordon said, there is still a lot to be discovered and learned and if you look into the early books, like Bowen and even Geissler, you will see what has changed since then!

I'm certainly willing to learn and research, but I'm not doing it to run out and buy something newly discovered to enrich myself. I do it for my intellectual pleasure. Some people think that 'finding out more' is putting a dent into their investment (and into their 'aquired knowledge')

Look at the famous 'unkonwn' in Detlev's price guide. Unknown maker with provenance. So they did only make one? Very unlikely. What about Deumer? What about W&L? As Gordon mentioned so often!

It is kind of sad that the hobby has taken a monetary direction, fuelled by buying frenzies.

There is never, ever a discussion about a new EK2 maker or even EK1 for that purpose. Never a discussion when somebody finds out that parts have been shared between makers of the EK1 or EK2. Why is that? Because of the money issue!

Now you come up with an S&L frame and a previously unknown core (Mike P.) and all hell brakes loose!

I'm sometimes very dis-encouraged by this attitude and have found myself very often thinking: should I even mention this new insight? Is it worth the hazzle?

Sad, really sad!

[Rosenberg]

Dear Gentlemen,

I am not even close to a position to take actively part in your discussion.However I do have thoughts about some points raised in discussion....

-Why is a dealer saying the ?rounder?is a fake when he could use your

discussions to make money?-in this dealer?s opinion,which he usually sells,hence must be a risk of getting caught selling fakes when participating in this hype,or does he simply know better?

-IMO there is no real way to be 100% sure about any TR item,it?s just some items have this magic and others don?t.Those that do have magic happen to be the ones that seem to be traceable via pix,docs etc

-Why do the participants of this discussion present in-the-process research to an open audience,making themselves vulnerable on points they haven?t found conclusions,instead of presenting a rock-solid result with the usual following discussion?

As usual I want to add that I do by no means want to stir things,these are just thoughts of a by-passer open to be ignored by anybody

Cheers

[Dietrich]

This is not about the Rounder nor should it be.

It is about a strange resistance to find out more about the production/manufacturing timeframe between 1939 and 1945. A resistance which is fueled - in my mind - by the monetary aspect and a uncomprehensable clinching to the status quo.

If that mind set prevails we might as well go back to the days where K&Q was made in California and L/12 was a sure sign of a fake.

Unfotunately, it only takes one stupid rumor to destroy a possible good piece, but it takes years of research and digging to dispell such a rumor. That's not progress and it seems to be 'on purpose'.

Brian's cross pictures are a perfectly good example of what might be still out there. As well as Detlev's unknown maker cross.

Dietrich

[PKeating]

I agree entirely with you, Dietrich! My post was not a dig at you, by the way. I was actually thinking of something I read about "L/64 A" Assmann FSA (LW)! I respect your abilities not just as a researcher and historian of the RK but also as a writer, even if we disagree on some points.

On one level - and you have clearly understood my meaning and empathise with it - I remain absolutely open-minded about 'rounders' and other variants. After all, apart from anything else, Dr Doehle was not prompted to get heavy with manufacturers purely because of non-regulation Ritterkreuze with zinc and brass cores and white metal frames. He also intended to signal to other, non-approved firms that manufacture of the RK without a licence was not allowed. This is probably what informed his decision, as head of the LDO, to forbid retail sales, thereby removing any incentive to produce the RK for non-approved firms.

So, between September 1939 and March 1941, there must have been all sorts of variants around, some of which would have been acquired by recipients for everyday wear or whatever. We know that there were variants. The photo posted by Bryan and the existence of the "half-ringers" etcetera prove this beyond reasonable doubt. My caution arises from my belief that 90% or more of dealers are crooks and that, in the absence of proof that would satisfy, say, a court of law or inquiry, any Ritterkreuz des EK touted by a dealer or someone close to the dealer fraternity - anyone close to, say, that whole MAX Mafia or the Hamburg Harlots - as a 'rounder' or a variant made in 1940 or early 1941 by Helmut Splink und Sohn must be considered with much circumspection.

Clear though the images Bryan posted are, in terms of showing something that could well be a 'rounder', they are not sufficiently clear, as I am sure you will all agree, to provide a basis for detailed comparison with any cross offered as a 'rounder' by dealers or, recently, a certain well known collector of Ritterkreuze who purchased a genuine and very rare Juncker neusilber and zink RK from me last year.

PK

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

My point to posting was show beyond a doubt there is a cross from 1941 which we cannot identify as an RK "in hand" conclusively but can without question state the RK is one not yet identified.

I came into a group of 250 ORIGINAL photos from the Prop. Ministry and the VAST majority of the crosses CANNOT be identified.

Yet, HERE, is, amongst the very few clear photos, a clear RK we cannot identify. There is a part of the puzzle here to the future identification of this cross as I am sure other photos will appear that will complete the entire picture albeit in parts. Surely the beading is not readily available in this photo but all the other features tell us it's not one we know, yet we know, it's a real RK, it's a wartime photo.

I'm not much for opinions on RKs, at least my own, because I'm not smart enough on them to make an informed opinion so I stick to facts. But I am smart enough to see when someone is bending science to fit their preconceived view of reality.

[Stogieman]

I will interject that new images come to light even now.... A rather explosive example being the discovery of a war-time photo of a Luftwaffe Pilot clearly wearing the Retired Pilot Badge (WW2 example!) long before the end of the war... In addition, a document for same surfaced in Germany this year from an entirely different source. So here we have a badge that was hotly contested (as the innumerable fakes of same should be), contested to the point where many, many collectors felt strongly that there was no evidence that the badge was even produced.......... and BAM! Period foto appears...... Not much wiggle room now on that badge......

[Manny]

I agree entirely with you, Dietrich! My post was not a dig at you, by the way. I was actually thinking of something I read about "L/64 A" Assmann FSA (LW)! I respect your abilities not just as a researcher and historian of the RK but also as a writer, even if we disagree on some points.

On one level - and you have clearly understood my meaning and empathise with it - I remain absolutely open-minded about 'rounders' and other variants. After all, apart from anything else, Dr Doehle was not prompted to get heavy with manufacturers purely because of non-regulation Ritterkreuze with zinc and brass cores and white metal frames. He also intended to signal to other, non-approved firms that manufacture of the RK without a licence was not allowed. This is probably what informed his decision, as head of the LDO, to forbid retail sales, thereby removing any incentive to produce the RK for non-approved firms.

So, between September 1939 and March 1941, there must have been all sorts of variants around, some of which would have been acquired by recipients for everyday wear or whatever. We know that there were variants. The photo posted by Bryan and the existence of the "half-ringers" etcetera prove this beyond reasonable doubt. My caution arises from my belief that 90% or more of dealers are crooks and that, in the absence of proof that would satisfy, say, a court of law or inquiry, any Ritterkreuz des EK touted by a dealer or someone close to the dealer fraternity - anyone close to, say, that whole MAX Mafia or the Hamburg Harlots - as a 'rounder' or a variant made in 1940 or early 1941 by Helmut Splink und Sohn must be considered with much circumspection.

Clear though the images Bryan posted are, in terms of showing something that could well be a 'rounder', they are not sufficiently clear, as I am sure you will all agree, to provide a basis for detailed comparison with any cross offered as a 'rounder' by dealers or, recently, a certain well known collector of Ritterkreuze who purchased a genuine and very rare Juncker neusilber and zink RK from me last year.

PK

I was very impressed by what Paddy had to say

[PKeating]

Well, the cat is out of the bag now about these so-called "rounders"! Anyone considering the purchase of one of these hitherto unlogged variants should read this dissertation by Dr Tom Hansen.

This rash of pseudo-academic articles about rare or valuable decorations - see the thread elsewhere on this website about the 1914 Bar to the 1870 EK2 for another example - by people who no traceable history as far as anyone who has been collecting this stuff for decades is concerned appears to conform to classic disinformation strategies.

PK

[Dietrich]

Dear Prosper,

the truth was already out before his posting, as everybody can see at WAF in the link that is posted in your forum. Even there, Dr. Hansen could voice his opinion while being suspended. Something very, very rare these days. And no, the thread was not edited or changed, as Dr. Hansen can for sure testify.

The substance about the Rounder is correct, the conspiracy he surrounds it with, are not. And neither is the interpretation of the e-mail he so often refers to. It was an e-mail between Brian and Dave, so maybe they can say something - if they wish to.

I'd like to make a comment on your "pseudo-academical articles", since I feel that I might have written one of them you call so. For me an article is good or at least worth while considering, if the content can be verified by everybody who took the patience to read and has the background knowledge to follow it's contents. Now every article that brings up a new thesis or invention or findings is only so long 'good' as long as nobody can clearly disprove it. This is valid for your articles, my articles and the one the Doctor just produced (who has no history reaching back decades, something that doesn't matter at all, IMHO). I know you are getting paid for your articles, I surely was not (nor in any other way reimbursed by favors or such ...) and I'm sure neither was Hansen when he posted at your site!

I can, of course, only speak for my articles and I venture to say that the S&L article can be veryfied by everybody who owns or has access to an A-Type and a B-Type. It's clear as it can be and goes together with the time line, the Klessheim hort and the recollections of the former Prokurist of S&L.

My theory goes along with every visual and factual evidence available. It checks out with the provenance of flawed crosses. As long as somebody cannot disprove it by other and better founded evidence (not just opinions and speculations of "what could have happened") it stands as what is known today. That is the strict and worldwide accepted standard of academical writings, whether one likes it or not. Wheras I do not claim that the S&L article is an academical work, rather a "reasonable conclusion".

So, there are flawed A-Type crosses that are clearly pre-57 and even clearly pre-45. And I wish I had one!

Some articles, however, do not give the reader a chance to verify the proposed theories. Those I would call also "pseudo-academical". Such articles, and they do certainly exist, are very, very dangerous and serve sinister goals such as disinformation or even fake peddling.

The trick here is, I think, that one has to free oneself from preconceived ideas, hardened opinions, political aspects (Oh, HE did it, so it must be WRONG), where it is published (MCF, WAF, GMIC, magazines, Germany, France, USA, ....) and so on. That is tough, I admitt! e only must jdge by the content and it's merits regarding verification. That is the ONLY way we will make steps forward. If we don't do that, we wll circle around and around and that only help our common enemy - the fakers.

I'm the first to admitt that I was wrong about the Rounder. I was the strongest, if not THE strongest, proponent of this piece. Based on what I saw, discovered, heard and discussed with many people. Now "everybody and his child" can see that this is a fake - it's sooo easy! Monday morning quaterbacking, isn't it? But there is still a lot to be discovered. The "when" for instance, and the "who" and the "where".

So I was wrong, proven wrong by Allan's and Hansen's nearly parallel studies. So that makes me (and all the others, now a fake peddler and dealer slave and a dishonest person because I believed in the piece? Then, so my conclusion, we are all fake peddlers, because we were all wrong at some time. Everybody here and elsewhere!

Anyway, I will continue to persue my studies, right or wrong, and I will share everything with everybody as I did up to this very second! There is a lot more to discover, as we all know. So brace for more hopefully not "pseudo-academical" articles! And I brace myself for more dirt and venom to be spilled over me. Comes with the territory!

Dietrich

Edited February 20, 2006 by Dietrich

[PKeating]

Hallo Dietrich,

Actually, I am one of the people who pointed out that you approached the "rounder" subject with circumspection. As for my remark about pseudo-academic articles, it was actually directly elsewhere. I do not agree with everything you have written, as you know, but I have always expressed admiration for the way in which you make your points. I think, however, it is fair to say that your articles about Knights' Crosses have been tilted towards convincing readers that Steinhauer & L?ck RK with beading flaws are wartime and that "rounders" could well be wartime.

[George Stimson]

I would be interested to know whether Gordon has revised his opinion of "Rounder" RKs based on the new evidence which has been gleaned by the recent testing.

[PKeating]

Approved wartime RK manufacturers: C E Juncker; Godet*; Zimmermann; Klein & Quenzer; Steinhauer & L?ck; Otto Schickle; Deschler & Sohn.

*Godet's RK clearly produced and supplied to them by Zimmermann.

Some early war variants, like the "half-ring" and so-called "Schinkelform" RK known and recognised as legitimate. Some people believe the "half-ring" crosses to be Deschler pieces. The Steinhauer & L?ck and Klein & Quenzer dies are known to have been used since 1945.

That's all, folks. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change anything.

PK

Edited February 20, 2006 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Hallo Prosper,

Thank you for your remarks. I didn't really think that the "pseudo-academic" article was directed towards me. However, I thought I make a comment of my viewpoint regarding this matter. And yes, it is absolutely and undeniable true that "your (mine that is) articles about Knights' Crosses have been tilted towards convincing readers that Steinhauer & L?ck RK with beading flaws are wartime and that "rounders" could well be wartime"

That is the purpose of an articel! To express one's viewpoint. In the case of the S&L I'm still convinced (and a lot of others, by the way) that I'm absolutely right. With the Rounder, I was alweays expressing my opinion, but also everytime giving my caveat. So I was wrong! You were never wrong??? Are you now "scum" (as I've been called lately) because you were wrong? At least once?

I was proven wrong. By partially my own efforts, I must say. I did give my Rounder to Hansen to conduct (another) SEM test. Would I do that if I was peddling fakes or getting paid to push fakes (as had been alledged at another spot....) I did send my Rounder to Dave Kane for him to have a look! Now that is what I call suicide . Nobody, neither here, nor at other places, has the right to call me what I have been called in the last 2 days! And nobody should support that with a dual strategy either.

If everytime somebody discusses a high priced or controversial item is accused by the usual suspects of fake peddling, dealer supporting, money making, or whatever - we, the whole community will suffer. Why? Because there will never be a consense and that is exactly what the real bad people want. Discord! Name calling (because it's so nice, the latest now is that I'm scum!), insults and building of huge walls!

I've been also accused of not having the guts to post in my "defence" - as if there would be something to defend!. This is not a court martial, nor a public trial. It is only what some people make out of it! You certainly do not run to every spot where somebody might say something stupid about you and the masses declare a peoples court for you to come and justify yourself. And neither should you! I'm already guilty at least 90% because I'm a Moderator at WAF. That is enough to curse me and my family for the next 5 generations! I must be guilty! I guess you know that feeling, don't you?

This is all nonsense! The Rounder is proven to be post-war, that's it. If it serves the peace in the hobby, let Hanson have the glory (not Allan). But remember, Prosper, it was at WAF that I posted his results after he was suspended! There was no need for me to do so! And I surely did not do it to please him but to let everybody know. I asked Dave Kane to post the whole report, which he didn't do for whatever reason.

And no matter how often somebody says that the thread was altered to show what it is today - that is flat out a stinking lie! Nor more nor less. And serves only to what I said above: discord, fences, walls, fun for the fakers, meat for the masses!

Dietrich

Edited February 20, 2006 by Dietrich

[Dietrich]

But back to the subject of this thread. You say:

"I am absolutely consistent in what I am saying here and over on MCF in relation to your articles promoting what I believe to be postwar crosses."

I'm clearly identifying two types of S&L flawed crosses - the flaw pattern is different between the two types, wheras consistent inside each group, i.e. the ones with the dent row (B-Type) have always the same flaw pattern, which is different to the ones with the knee flaw and without dent row.

And one is pre-45 and one is post 45. The A-Type is pre-45, the B-Type is post 45. Take the time, read it again (I know it's very boring, but thats just how a an engineer writes...) have a look at an A and B Type and you will honestly and clearly see for yourself. It is there for everybody to see! I might have been wrong with the two dies, I think now (based on discussions with Dave and Brian) also that the repaired die is the correct answer.

Now, you believe (as I did believe in the Rounder, I guess...) and we both know now how believe can be turned into a wrong believe! So I could take the liberty to say that you, based on your believe, might declare a perfectly genuine cross post war or a post-war cross w/o flaws (i.e. a 935) as a genuine piece. Isn't that supporting fakes or dealers based on believe??? Isn't that the arch sin I'm accused of? You know, to believe is not to know. And I always said "I believe the Rounder to be genuine" as you have confirmed also.

I'm convinced that if you study my article w/o having in mind who wrote it (just think that a good friend came up with it) you will see what is there!

@ Dave: I thought at that point in time that you did receive the report. That's all. So you didn't and couldn't post therefore. Clear enough!

Dietrich

[Guest Dave Kane]

Dietrich, you are absolutely correct! I did have the report but I felt that I shouldn't be the one to present it as it should have been Tom. He is the one who researched it and I only 'talked' about it! Credit was due him and not me...but if you recall he couldn't post at the time but there was hope of it in the near future.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Dave Kane

[Nick]

Gentlemen

I have tidied this thread up, call it censorship of you will, but it is my prerogative and I was unhappy with what was occurring here!

I have said time and time again that old hostilities and feuds are not welcome here ! I am fully aware that in some members eyes this may make somewhat of a false environment, but if you cannot publicly speak civilly to one another here despite differences or previous experiences, then simply ignore the member concerned and do not post ANYTHING !

I will say the same for Personal Messages some of which were forwarded and made public as a consequence of this thread.

I would prefer that PMs are used to resolve differences out of public eye, and I am realistic about modern vocabulary and its usage in private conversations. However that does not mean they are to be used for chucking abuse back and forth between members, who have a dislike for one another. I do not monitor PM's as I feel that members privacy is paramount. But I have the ability to do so and will if a concern is raised. If a Personal Message is brought to my attention by another member of GMIC with regards members who abuse the PM system, if warranted they will face a warning and suspension. In extremis they will face being banned. All parties concerned (you know who you are) please take this as a final warning.

Now as for the topic of this thread, Tom Hansen is no longer welcome at GMIC. Despite this he still is a figure in the collecting world and I am not blinkered or petty minded enough to stop a link to information that he has published. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it is still thought provoking work and worthy of constructive comment. Now lets see if we can all act like gentlemen, show some decorum and get back to a reasoned debate.

If you can't this topic will sadly be closed and action taken against the individuals concerned.

[PKeating]

Points taken. I only wanted to make sure that both sides of the "Rounder" story were available to readers because "Rounder" crosses are clearly modern confections aimed at defrauding collectors and it is a serious matter. Issues like this are always contentious because money is involved.

PK

Edited February 20, 2006 by PKeating

[Dietrich]

Chairman,

Thank you for letting the substantial part of the discussion stand as it is. I also apologize for giving the impression, I only show up when it's controversial and borderline. I appreciate, however, to have a discussion about this subject..

Prosper,

you say, and I quote:

"Approved wartime RK manufacturers: C E Juncker; Godet*; Zimmermann; Klein & Quenzer; Steinhauer & L?ck; Otto Schickle; Deschler & Sohn"

and you add:

"That's all, folks. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change anything."

I beg to disagree with you. Not that I would dispute the current line-up you are giving, but I dispute your last sentence, which IMHO is a block out for further investigation. As you might know, there are several more traces of possible manufacturers.

- the unknown cross with dead solid provenance in the DN catalogue

- traces of Foerster & Barth crosses

- Waechtler und Lange claim to have made RK's

The approach to this puzzle can be twofold. One is - and that is the main stream idea - to dismiss this all as dealers pushing fakes or to dimiss it because of investment protection (keep the numbers low, my friends!) and 'fight' those ideas as 'ridiculous' and even call the people bringing up thoses ideas as 'scum'. However, that's the easy way out.

The other approach is to try at least to find out whether there is some truth to it. Not by declaring a Foerster & Barth flat out a 'correct' cross, rather by doing research to find out about it. Maybe something comes up, maybe not. During that process one shares the findings with other interested collectors, thereby exposing oneself to critique, ridicule but also to other good leads and ideas. The pictures Brian are showing here are a good example of what needs to be investigated.

This can only in the end have two possible outcomes:

One can prove that there is a newly discovered RK maker and at least half of the people will not believe it (investment thinking, envy, political reasons, ...) and the other half 'believes'. Based on solid evidence, I might add.

Or another set of solid evidence shows that is was a goose chase. Now one really is in for a treatment! Fake pusher, scum, idiot, "we knew it all along", "everybody with normal eyes can see that" - and all this from people, who could not or would not share or contribute anything during the process. The so called bystanders!

I remind you of earlier books and publications on the subject (and the RK just serves as an example). Here and there one or the other maker is not mentioned, Klietmann has no clue at all, Nimmergut (just some years ago) really gives a strange picture, Lumsden was wrong, Bowen missed things. All idiots! Or people who tried to give something back to the hobby, something to build on and to expand on? I rather think the latter is the case!

The world is flat! The sun revolves around the earth! ... and burn him at the stake!

I'm sure you know of a lot of examples were common collectors 'wisdom' had to be revised.

What is so bad about research? What is so bad about the outcome? What is so bad if one takes the energy and guts to prove oneself wrong (or right, sometimes)? Most of the energy is spend to dispute or ridicule the outcome. I wish more people would spend that energy doing research and giving something substantial to the hobby!

I personally do not shy back to tackle such questions and I will continue to do so. And I know that I'm serving the hobby by doing so. I just wish that some people would really understand what the deeper meaning behind all this is - and it is NOT fake peddling or the desire to be ridiculed.

Dietrich