EK 1939 Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes

[Taurus454]

Thought you would enjoy seeing my Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes. Marked 800 and L21. Enjoy!

Tom

[joe campbell]

love to see some larger, better focused pics!

joe

[PKeating]

From the photos, this looks rather like one of those English copies from the 1990s with the loop that cannot actually be put through the ring on the cross. Of course, as Joe says, the photos are rather unclear so judgement should be reserved until better images are visible.

PK

[Dietrich]

"L/21" is the LDO-code for Förster & Barth and it should be meanwhile common knowledge that this company did not manufacture any Oakleaves. Some time ago Mr Niemann thought he had the very, very rare set of "L/21" and "900" marked Oakleaves and put them in his newest (big size) catalog for the outrageously ridiculous price of $ 20,000.- In his expert excitement he oversaw one slight little detail: the oaks were clearly Godet Type 1, usually marked L/50. But he also had a total of three types of L/12 marked oaks in the catalog and nobody seemed to care.

This set is for sure a (bad) copy.

DM

[PKeating]

I cared but not as much as I used to...

[Taurus454]

Could you please give me a source on this? This is the first I heard of this. I was going to try and get better pics of it but I guess I don't need to now.

Tom

"L/21" is the LDO-code for Förster & Barth and it should be meanwhile common knowledge that this company did not manufacture any Oakleaves. Some time ago Mr Niemann thought he had the very, very rare set of "L/21" and "900" marked Oakleaves and put them in his newest (big size) catalog for the outrageously ridiculous price of $ 20,000.- In his expert excitement he oversaw one slight little detail: the oaks were clearly Godet Type 1, usually marked L/50. But he also had a total of three types of L/12 marked oaks in the catalog and nobody seemed to care.

This set is for sure a (bad) copy.

DM

[Taurus454]

Could you please give me a source on this?

This is the first I heard that L/21 did not at least make a jeweler's copy. I was aware that one firm had the right to the Eichenlaub but was not aware that a jeweler's copy did not come out of L/21. I can only speculate, and I say speculate, that if L/21 got an order for an Eichenlaub I see no reason why they wouldn't make one.

I will say that I have witnessed much discussion regarding L/21, especially the discussions regarding EK's made by L/21. Some say yes, others say no. Yet, I have seen no L/21 records that affirm or deny to settle the question. Then again, I am not an expert in this regard and unless I stumbled across such documents would not have found it. The reference materiel I have do not cover the actual manufacture of L/21 on this topic.

I sincerely hope soemone with more expertise in this area could provide greater evidence regarding the matter. Let me say that my goal here is undisputable, beyond a reasonable doubt, proof regarding L/21's contribution to the Eichenlaub. If that means I have a fake, then so be it, and I will gladly accept it as such. Truth is what is important to me.

With that said, should I still provide better pics?

Tom

Could you please give me a source on this? This is the first I heard of this. I was going to try and get better pics of it but I guess I don't need to now.

Tom

[Laurence Strong]

Could you please give me a source on this? This is the first I heard of this. I was going to try and get better pics of it but I guess I don't need to now.

Tom

How about Dietrich's book then:

http://www.amazon.com/Knights-Cross-Iron/dp/0979796903

[Dietrich]

Tom,

there was only one official supplier for the oaks and the oaks with swords and that was Godet. So this rules out that L/21 was ever an official supplier. The myth of "jeweller's" copies is something which was invented to sell unofficial and fake pieces to the collector masses. In October 1941 is was forbidden to sell any Knights Cross or higher grades via private shops. So no shops could sell anything and based on the rules of money making they would not buy anything. The LDO numbers were introduced in March 1941. So the time frame is very short for a legal sale of all kinds of 'jeweller's' copies. As the Niemann example shows, Förster & Barth seemed to have acquired samples (or one sample) from Godet and tried to market it. To be sure, there were and are pre-prohibition oaks from S&L and Juncker, but they were short lived and no longer available after October 1941. The collector community is still trying to find out which is what since the market is flooded with such "jeweller's" copies. They are in no relation to the few official oak recipients which had the chance to buy a private piece between June 40 and October 41 (only 128 recipients. Todays market applies at least 50 jeqweller's copy to each one of them ...).

Regarding the order to produce: who should have ordered other than the PKZ? The private sector for the 128 recipients who could buy a piece?

I certainly don't know what Förster & Barth did and did not on a daily basis and if you are looking for "undisputable, beyond a reasonable doubt, proof" you will not find it. You will always find someone who tells you that your oaks are good, could be could and so on. When you will try to sell them for the price of 'accepted jeweller's copies" (which is around $ 4000 regarding Mr. Niemann ) you will get your wake up call.

Unfortunately there is a lot of myth and lore in the 'stories' of the Knights Cross and the higher grades. However, the subject is straight forward and well documented.

Dietrich

[Taurus454]

Thanks! I have Williamson's and the usual stuff (Angola, blah, blah). This is the first I have seen of this book, is it of any value beyond the usual? Does it get to the issue of manufacturers and can you give me an idea of content and what it contributes to this discussion?

Again, thank you!

Tom

How about Dietrich's book then:

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0979796903

[Taurus454]

Dietrich,

Thanks! I appreciate this. As I said, I was aware of the single manufacture for the Eichenlaub and we are in agreement on that point. What I am about to say is not argumentative, as some would take it, but it is simply stated for the purpose of dialogue and understanding. I trully want to learn.

I have personally met, spoken with, and corresponded with many Ritterkreuztrager. I have visited many in their homes and seen their awards and documents. I have seen many recipients that have two copies. When I asked why they had two, the answer was always, this is the one I received and left with my family, while this is the one I actually wore. There were many reasons for the second one: fear of losing it, breaking it, fear of having it stolen if killed or captured, wanted their beloved to have the original, and so on. I even saw one that was made in the field for the recipient because one wasn't available for issue at the front. Where is this heading, well, I ASSUMED there was multiple sources I guess because of my own personal experience.

You see, I have multiple sets of my awards. There is the original which I keep with my award document and orders and will pass along to my family and there are the copies I have worn. In fact, I don't get my copies from the Army. I buy them from a commercial dealer who has them custom made and they actually look better than the ones the Army buys, issues, and sells. My wings are even pure silver and the Army issued ones are pewter or some such metal. Let me also state that five of my medals were never formally issued to me and yet I received written orders for four of them. Yes, I know it is poor leadership on the part of the Army to give me four awards and not offer me the honor of a formal presentation and I will leave it at that. The fifth award that I am entitled to came to my knowledge when someone pointed out to me an Army Regulation states that every member of the Army that served during ODS was entitled to it. I don't have orders for that but my peronnel record clearly shows I meet the requirement for it.

Another point I will add is that the ribbon set I wore was "unathorized" as it had a black felt background which made the set look simply beautiful, especially if I was photographed. I learned about them when I noticed the official photographs of the Generals in my chain of command had a black background around their ribbons. That is when I learned about the felt background for ribbon bars and that they bought theirs from a certain dealer.

So, you see, there are the "official" awards, the regulations governing the wearing and manufacture of the awards, and then there are those awards that are actually worn.

I was hoping to see that someone had somehow got the wartime manufacturing records for L21 and could say, "look, here are the records, it covers everything they produced and sold and there are no L21 800 Eichenlaubs on the list". I would say that would go a long way in closing the debate.

However, if it weren't for the actual Luftwaffe kill records I wouldn't have discovered a long forgotten trip ace that I stumbled across when I bought a unit plaque and shrapnel taken from his plane that was given to him at a location where he was temporarily stationed but as there was no "written" or documented proof his unit was there, many historians say the unit was rumored to have been there but was actually never there. Yet, I have the plaque, engraved with his name, date, and location at time of presentation, and signed by all the pilots of his squadron on the back.

Again, I am not saying I believe that what I have is genuine, but then again, I am not convinced that it is a fake just yet. Any additional information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. As I have always said, I will not be offended by any comments as I am solely interested in the truth.

As always, my sincerest thanks for your time and consideration of this matter!

Tom

Tom,

there was only one official supplier for the oaks and the oaks with swords and that was Godet. So this rules out that L/21 was ever an official supplier. The myth of "jeweller's" copies is something which was invented to sell unofficial and fake pieces to the collector masses. In October 1941 is was forbidden to sell any Knights Cross or higher grades via private shops. So no shops could sell anything and based on the rules of money making they would not buy anything. The LDO numbers were introduced in March 1941. So the time frame is very short for a legal sale of all kinds of 'jeweller's' copies. As the Niemann example shows, Förster & Barth seemed to have acquired samples (or one sample) from Godet and tried to market it. To be sure, there were and are pre-prohibition oaks from S&L and Juncker, but they were short lived and no longer available after October 1941. The collector community is still trying to find out which is what since the market is flooded with such "jeweller's" copies. They are in no relation to the few official oak recipients which had the chance to buy a private piece between June 40 and October 41 (only 128 recipients. Todays market applies at least 50 jeqweller's copy to each one of them ...).

Regarding the order to produce: who should have ordered other than the PKZ? The private sector for the 128 recipients who could buy a piece?

I certainly don't know what Förster & Barth did and did not on a daily basis and if you are looking for "undisputable, beyond a reasonable doubt, proof" you will not find it. You will always find someone who tells you that your oaks are good, could be could and so on. When you will try to sell them for the price of 'accepted jeweller's copies" (which is around $ 4000 regarding Mr. Niemann ) you will get your wake up call.

Unfortunately there is a lot of myth and lore in the 'stories' of the Knights Cross and the higher grades. However, the subject is straight forward and well documented.

Dietrich

[Dietrich]

Tom,

apart form the 'lawless' times between September 1939 and October 1941 where the private sales of the Knights Cross and the higher grades was allowed, there was from October 1941 on only one source and that was the PKZ. I have partial original records which indicate that - as an example since you brought up the possession of two RK by most of the awardees you met - by end of October 1944 only 599 recipients bought replacement crosses from the PKZ. I would think the number for the Oakleaves is lower - it makes no sense to buy just the oakleaves and not the cross.

It is unfortunate in our hobby that a lot goes back to "stories" which are absolutely not reconcilable with reality or original documents. And it must also be clear that the Knights Cross and the higher grades (as well as the German Cross) must be treated differently since they were equipped with different sets of rules. A deduction from your medals or even other German medals, such as the EK1 which is even part of the family, is false and misleading. The argument "It was like that here - so it must be like that there" is one of the worst contributions to our hobby. We have to look at every medal, badge and award on its own!

Again, in your case the time to produce and sell the "L/21"-marked oakleaves is 7 month.I have not seen a set of L/21 oakleaves other than the Type 1 marked such. I would thin that during my research I would have found a trail. However, I have found tons of spurious marked RKs, oaks, swords, ...

Even running the danger of being called names and getting even lower on the "not too fond" level: my book only deals with the official manufacturers of the RK (7), the oaks (1), the swords (1), the diamonds (1), the golden diamonds (1) and the Grand Cross (1). This in extreme depth with all the variation one might find. There are chapters about the LDO, the PKZ, the regulations and such. It is fairly deep.

Have a great weekend!

Dietrich

[Taurus454]

Hi res pics off a scanner. Sorry they are not better.

Tom

[Taurus454]

another pic.

[Taurus454]

pic.

[Taurus454]

pic.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Taurus454

[Taurus454]

pic.

[PKeating]

Impossible to tell from the pics but have you tried mounting these on a cross?

PK

[Taurus454]

No, unfortunately not. Besides, I don 't have one to try it on.

Tom

[Harrier]

There are original Zimmermann and S&L RK's which have been marked to "L/21", prior to assembly of the frame. Perhaps these were made for Foerster & Barth by these other companies between the institution date of the LDO in March, 1941 and the "ban" on private sales in October, 1941.

I can't tell from your scans, but these look more like the S&L type Oakleaves, which were indeed made by S&L before the ban. Some are marked "L/16". Perhaps your set was made by S&L for Foerster & Barth.