EK All Eras Your Iron Cross Bookshelf......

[Chris Boonzaier]

I am hoping someone with a bit of WW2 interest will jump in, but even for a "non higher grade" collector, and an Imperial one at that, there are a few things that jump out.

I notice the Zimmermann RK on page 457 identified to Deumer.

I thought L/15 was accepted as Schickle nowdays, and has been for some time, it is missing from the LDO list which is a bit of an error to be making this late in the game.

I would not spend my worst enemies hard earned money on the set of swords and diamonds pictured on 547.

I dont have any diamonds kicking around, but refer to my trusty "the iron cross of 1939" by Gordon Williamson... I dont like the Diamonds on Geisslers page 548, or the stamps on the piece on page 510.

But maybe some WW2 guys can chime in?

For am imprial guy the book is really good, although the EK award doc is NOT for a white ribboned cross.

Best

Chris

[Harrier]

Thanks, Chris! That's exactly what I was hoping for....some specifics.

L/15 was most assuredly Schickle. Some are convinced it made its own RK (as shown in its catalog, not mentioned by Geissler). Others are not so sure. There is a Schickle RK, with a set of supposedly Deumer made Oakleaves, on a "Deumer" card in the Shropshire Light Infantry Museum in the UK (as previously shown by Gordon Williamson). Also a Schickle RK with an unmarked set of Godet Oakleaves (something never previously seen, but now confirmed to be authentic) was recently offered for sale as being something brought back from Ludenscheid at the end of the war by an RAF sergeant. To confound matters, the RK in the "Stadtarchiv Lüdenscheid", attributed there in Deumer's home town as being a Deumer product, is a Zimmermann. There are photos, also from the Stadtarchiv, showing Deumer workers finishing RK's, but they are unfortunately unuseable to determine what type.

The Brillanten on page 547 (I assume you mean the set in the upper left of the page) is something I also find exceedingly strange.

I would assume there are other controversial things in this book, but this is a good start!

[Streptile]

I think Geißler's book is extrememly mediocre... just "ok". There are a ton of errors, fakes, and flaws in almost every section. A "ninth-bead" 1870 EK1? Come on. He seems to have assigned makers to 1939 EK2s for no special reason, and he calls frames a match when they share one single characteristic (L/54 and Deschler frames are not the same, ha ha!) Fake 1813 EK1s, fake oakleaves, etc. Unknown Maker Schinkel by Juncker? Hardly. The list goes on.

I like it for a few nice items shown in photos, and because I am an Iron Cross book completist. But in a few years I don't think anyone will rate this book at all, unfortunately for Geißler.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I think Geißler's book is extrememly mediocre... just "ok". There are a ton of errors, fakes, and flaws in almost every section. A "ninth-bead" 1870 EK1? Come on. He seems to have assigned makers to 1939 EK2s for no special reason, and he calls frames a match when they share one single characteristic (L/54 and Deschler frames are not the same, ha ha!) Fake 1813 EK1s, fake oakleaves, etc. Unknown Maker Schinkel by Juncker? Hardly. The list goes on.

I like it for a few nice items shown in photos, and because I am an Iron Cross book completist. But in a few years I don't think anyone will rate this book at all, unfortunately for Geißler.

Pow!

Thats putting the boot in ;-)

I "Mispoke myself" .. I have no 1813, 1870 cred, so i will bow to your expertise on that. I do however like the WW1 section, for me there were a few gems in there, especially in my area of collecting.

I would be interested to know if Geissler is online. How can someone make so many errors in an era where you can use collectors from all over the world as a sounding board??

Maybe he spread himself too thin and tried to cover too much. Between his first book and this there are 13 years passed and plenty of opportunity to check things before putting them in a book.

Previtera seems to have made the correct move, using the net to get the kinks out of book 1 and not have them in Book 2.

Focus seems to be the main issue. The books that try to cover it all seem to trip up somewhere. So far Gordon Williamsons 1939 EK book seems to have come through with the fewest errors.

[Streptile]

Hi Chris,

I didn't mean to really put the boot in so far... but all of the errors I mentioned are in the book, and a lot more. From what I know about Geißler, he is entirely offline, so I don't know that he would have access to a lot of the information that's come out in recent years. To me, in the final analysis, Geißler's new book is like The Iron Time (1st ed.) in German -- a nice hardcover book with some photos of some very nice items and some breathtaking errors. It's not a scientific book, but it's a good picture book. Personally, I would not be without it.

Maybe we should get a real catalogue of errors in Geißler here.

I think as far as Iron Cross books go, Maerz & Stimson's The Iron Cross 1. Class of 1939 book is by far the one with the fewest errors. There are one or two small ones, which for a book of that scope is really very impressive in my opinion. To me the one problem, which was the result of an abundance of caution rather than oversight, is the omission of interesting variants. This could be rectified in future editions if the authors so choose.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Streptile

[Chris Boonzaier]

Hi Chris,

I didn't mean to really put the boot in so far... but all of the errors I mentioned are in the book, and a lot more. From what I know about Geißler, he is entirely offline, so I don't know that he would have access to a lot of the information that's come out in recent years. To me, in the final analysis, Geißler's new book is like The Iron Time (1st ed.) in German -- a nice hardcover book with some photos of some very nice items and some breathtaking errors. It's not a scientific book, but it's a good picture book. Personally, I would not be without it.

Maybe we should get a real catalogue of errors in Geißler here.

I think as far as Iron Cross books go, Maerz & Stimson's The Iron Cross 1. Class of 1939 book is by far the one with the fewest errors. There are one or two small ones, which for a book of that scope is really very impressive in my opinion. To me the one problem, which was the result of an abundance of caution rather than oversight, is the omission of interesting variants. This could be rectified in future editions if the authors so choose.

Hi,

I agree with your view on Geissler, It just arrived a few days ago, at first view it was amazing, but the cracks soon become apparent... but as I said before, He really has a great WW1 section.

I have not seen the Maerz & Stimson book as i have little or nothing on WW2. I have the Williamson book as it came out when I was still collecting WW2, and it covers the bits I need to know. I have a soft spot for it because it straddels the "Pre net" and "Internet" time, if you go back on WAF to the 2001 or 2002 threads you will see the forums were just a bunch of guys chatting about medals... and inspite of not having the advantage we have today of being able to bounce ideas of lots of people, there are very, very few errors in the book. The only one I can think of is the Rounder, but to be realistic, EVERYONE was accepting them then. You cannot fault the book for not knowing what was not known at the time.

Best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

To me the one problem, which was the result of an abundance of caution rather than oversight, is the omission of interesting variants. This could be rectified in future editions if the authors so choose.

Hi,

That's always a very fine red line indeed... I am also one to walk the conservative side when it comes to WW2 variants.

There is maybe a way to include variants in a section with the caveat that the author is not 100% sure of them

best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

Anyone on their seat edges waiting for the new Imperial EK book in German??