Jump to content
News Ticker
  • I am now accepting the following payment methods: Card Payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal
  • Latest News

    Recommended Posts

    Posted (edited)

    Hello,

     

    I'm new to the forum and I would like to ask for your opinion about this EK1 with its urkunde. The piece has been picked up from a family in Mannheim from a collector friend of mine so it should be original, but I'm not very knowledgeable about certificates.

     

    Thanks!

    M

     

     

     

    IMG-20230818-WA0000(1).jpg

    DSC_0430(1609939143).jpg

    DSC_0433(1609939162).jpg

    DSC_0431(1609939149).jpg

    DSC_0432(1609939156).jpg

    Edited by panateo
    Posted

    Hi M.

    the cross looks absolutely fine to my eyes. Nice piece. 
    I’m no expert on urkunde but from the examples I’ve owned I see no problems with that one. 
    perhaps if you post it in the signatures forum someone will be able to identify the awarding officer. 
     

    nice set. 

    Posted
    On 31/08/2023 at 22:49, Glenn R said:

    Hi M.

    the cross looks absolutely fine to my eyes. Nice piece. 
    I’m no expert on urkunde but from the examples I’ve owned I see no problems with that one. 
    perhaps if you post it in the signatures forum someone will be able to identify the awarding officer. 
     

    nice set. 

    Thanks Glenn, really appreciated, also for the suggestion about the signatures forum!

    Posted

    Very nice Set.

    Only thing is whether the EK! and the Document have not been matched at later stage

    The person on the Document is a very low rank and the Ek1 is a rare clam shell variant This variant was usually made by private order at later stage They were not awarded pieces However they are original

     

    Nice Set anyway

    • 8 months later...
    • 7 months later...
    Posted

    The document, to a corporal in Panzerjäger-Abteilung 561, dated for the first day of Operation BARBAROSSA.

     

    [Below, translated into English.  The source web-site is in German].

     

    Anti-tank Battalion (mot) 561

    Panzerjäger Division 561

    Panzerjäger Division (Sfl) 561

     

    Established on August 26, 1939 in Berlin-Dahlem as an army troop with the 8th Army. On April 1, 1940 in

    Renamed Panzerjäger Battalion 561. On May 10, 1940 assinged to the XIII. Army Corps. At this time the battalion consisted of three companies, each with 12 x 3.7-cm anti-tank guns.

     

    Transferred to the 1st Army in March 1941 and with the 9th Army as a reserve on June 22, 1941. On July 10, 1941, the battalion was reassinged to the LVII. Panzer Corps and on July 15, 1941 to the 9th Army. Then on July 20, 1941 at the XX. Army Corps and on July 29, 1941 with the V Army Corps. Then on September 29, 1941 to the 9th Army and on January 3, 1942 to the VI. Army Corps.

     

    On January 5, 1942, the 2nd Company joined the 216th Infantry Division. Subordinated to the 9th Army in 1942. In October 1942 the XXVIII Army Corps. At that time the battalion consisted of three companies, each with 4 x 3.7-cm anti-tank guns and 6 x 5-cm anti-tank guns. On October 13, 1942 it was renamed Panzerjäger-abteilung (Sfl) 561. In September 1943, it was refitted with the Marder tank destroyer. At the end of the war the department was with the XVIII. Army Corps in Silesia.

     

    Source:

     

    https://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/PanzerabwAbt/PzAbwAbt561-R.htm

     

     

    Posted (edited)

    As mentioned a few months ago, the citation is a fake. The person in command of 9.Armee at the date on the citation was Adolf Strauß who held the rank of Generaloberst at the time so they certainly wouldn't have put his rank as just 'General' - which they wouldn't put for any of the General ranks. Secondly, the authorising authority is 9.Armee so the stamp wouldn't be for OKH - and that faked stamp is seen numerous times on the market.

    Thirdly, this is the signature of Strauß:

     

     

     

    Edited by hucks216
    • 5 weeks later...
    Posted

    I am not sure on the veracity of the documentation, but the cross looks good to me. Do you have any more photographs of the core that show it illuminated? Would be good to see the date and the crown in more focus

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.