Julius Maurer Question

[hetherrh]

Hello,
Just learning crosses and got the Maerz EKII book and it has helped me A Lot, but now have an issue. In the sections for 75 & 138, he goes through explaining how he came to 75 being Maurer and 138 being Gottlieb. Ok WAS good with that until a good and well known collector friend offered me a pretty mint Envelope marked Julius Maurer with a 138 marked cross in it. Are we back to 75 and 138 being Maurer??
Thanks!!

[boch_62]

.

[kid74]

Can We see the reverse of the cross?

WR Kirill

[Dietrich Maerz]

.

It is clear that this comment is coming, however I would actually expect a little more substance ....????

If you digest the complete picture, it is clear that 75 is Julius Maurer. I did not come to that conclusion by throwing a dice or just writing something to write something as some do. For me the above mentioned combination is a clear result of what was printed in every book up to Mario's and mine: 138 was assumed (without any reasoning behind it other than "That is what everybody said and I just believe it without thinking") to be Julius Maurer and that is why this "138"-marked cross was put into that packet. To believe that this is an original combination would involve to dismiss all the evidence that was laid in my book out for everybody to see.
I am always open for a solid discussion but it should involve more than a smilie or a package combination.

[hetherrh]

Hello
this item is right now with the owner who is a known collector and I know would not change items just to make an argument. Been in his collection 20++ years.
Now let’s play what if. 75 was removed from the list. Let’s say that Maurer had these envelops that he wanted to get rid of, sell. What would stop him or someone to work out a deal with a manufacturer, 138, to get crosses to fill these left over envelopes and sell them to shops?? Could happen and I doubt people back then we’re obsessed with makers marks as we are.
I have a couple of EKIIs not LDO in LDO cases. I’m sure they belong in them. One even has a congratulatory writing and picture of the recipient cut to fit in the cross bed. Things happen and we will never know.

[boch_62]

It is clear that this comment is coming, however I would actually expect a little more substance ....????

If you digest the complete picture, it is clear that 75 is Julius Maurer. I did not come to that conclusion by throwing a dice or just writing something to write something as some do. For me the above mentioned combination is a clear result of what was printed in every book up to Mario's and mine: 138 was assumed (without any reasoning behind it other than "That is what everybody said and I just believe it without thinking") to be Julius Maurer and that is why this "138"-marked cross was put into that packet. To believe that this is an original combination would involve to dismiss all the evidence that was laid in my book out for everybody to see.
I am always open for a solid discussion but it should involve more than a smilie or a package combination.

Don't be angry, but I read this fragment of your book very carefully and the presented evidence did not convince me.
As did the "new" makers of EK2-1939 crosses determined on the basis of the "found" set of the envelope and the cross.
In my life I had dozens of such "strange" sets in my hands, and I saw more these at dealers selling them as 100% originals from veterans. Of course, this is only my opinion and I'm not going to argue with you who is right, we are too old for that (I'm 58 old). In response, I will say read my book on this topic

For me "75" is still an unknown producer, and "138" is still Julius Maurer, and I will stay with that.

Regards
Jarek

[Dietrich Maerz]

Yes, I am a little bit angry because a dismissal of solid arguments first with a simple smilie and now with the simple sentence "I am not convinced" is a little bit of an insult to my intellect. For me it comes across like I am just writing something down without any research or without checking and proofing several aspects of a theory. This is not how I work and that also brings me to your book and the advise (accompanied with another smilie) to ready your book. I certainly did that and did not learn anything at all regarding "75" or "138" that was not already written in multiple books earlier, most likely one author copied from the previous one without checking or any genuine research. For the benefit of our members, here is what you wrote in your book about "75":

"The contractor using the PKZ license No. 75 is an unknown manufacturer for us (unknown maker = U.M.) and therefore we are unable to provide any binding information about it. It should be noted that some collectors allegedly based on “found” in case of war veterans of EK2 cross sets with a signed paper bag, that the manufacturer of these crosses may be the company FRANKE & Co. from Ludenscheid (= L / 65). Unfortunately, in the general majority of such situations, we cannot be 100% sure that it is really a production set of a cross and a company bag.Therefore, at the moment we cannot exclude or confirm this information."

Not a lot there to learn other than that some think it might be Franke & Co. based on "75" found in such marked paper bags. You dismiss this and you say it again in the above posts: such combinations are not a solid basis for determination of a maker. However, when somebody posts such a combination and that combination is in contradiction to what I discovered, then it is worth your seemingly approval. Now, let's see what you wrote about "138" being Julius Maurer. (As a side note I like to say that books are important, posts at a forum are not. The forum will sooner or later be gone, the posts will slip down into oblivion. That is not the case with books and I personally think that every author has a deep obligation to tell the truth and if he does not know the truth he must say so. If he has a theory, he needs to explain the theory and the research behind it). Here is what you say in your book (I used a translation program to be able to read the Polish text):

"The company was founded in 1872 by Jacob Carl Maurer, and started his activity only as a subcontractor of other watch and petty manufacturers jewelry without selling your products yourself. With the entry into the active business of the company, two sons of the company’s founder, Julius and Carl Georg in 1896, the company opened its own sales department. And in 1898 a new factory building was put into use. With time, one of the sons, Julius, took the ownership of the company. Julius Maurer’s company produced decorations after the outbreak of World War II both for the military (PKZ license No. 138) and for the private market (LDO license = L / 23), however, still continuing to produce jewelry, which despite the efforts warfare was still good too.

Not only that, the company has fulfilled all orders placed for jewelry even before the outbreak of the war. An interesting fact about the wartime production of Julius Maurer is confirmed the fact that some of his EK2 crosses sold on the private market were packaged in paper envelopes signed with the imprint “Louis Gottlieb & Sohne”, could be evidence of the mutual cooperation of the Maurer company, with the complementary manufacturing company paper goods (including decoration bags), or it was just that the effect of a one-off purchase by Maurer, in short supply at the moment the production of a “component”, from an external company. So it is possible that Maurer purchased from the closest, known to him, manufacturer of envelopes for decorations, the missing batch, regardless to the fact that they were signed with the seller’s imprint. Not at that time this was a problem, especially in the private market. After the end of the war, Maurer’s company continued to operate and, interestingly, in the initial stage. During the post-war production period, the scope of production was even expanded to include male jewelry. Since 1979, the company has been managed by Knut Luhmann, the great-grandson of the company’s founder."

So, where is the hard-core argument that "75" is still unknown and that Julius Maurer is "138" that makes you write "Read my book on the topic"? Where is the solid proof? Other than one maker found in a package of another - an argument you dismissed earlier - I cannot see anything that should make you "stay with it" and that would convince any reader that you presented a solid argument. Not that this would be a problem, since you just repeated what several authors before you already did since decades.

Not everybody here has my book and therefore I will outline very briefly what I had to say about the topic and how I came up with the theory that "75" is Julius Maurer:

- the Präsidialkanzlei list is sorted alphabetically after the first non-alphabetical block. This is clear and it is astonishing that nobody has seen this before (including me). That list is ignored by many, which is very astonishing.
- "75" sits between Carl Maurer (74) and Ernst L. Müller (76), which makes it very clear that the company's name should start with an "M". One should therefore look into the original documents, searching for a maker with "M" that is proven to have made the EK2 and is not shown yet. One need to have such documents, of course.
- Julius Maurer is listed as a supplier of the EK2 to the Präsidialkanzlei on an internal list of that Kanzlei, dated 11 May 1940. It is clear that crosses from that time are unmarked, since the PKZ numbers were introduced late 42/early43.
- a researcher in Germany found the "die book" of Julius Maurer and there the die for the EK2 is shown and the date can be constructed as being Spring 1940
- in 2017 a collection of KVK 2. Class with Swords were found marked "75" in bags stamped "Julius Maurer".
- there are also bags with "Julius Maurer" and EK2 stamped with "75". I show one in the book.
- bags have been found with "138" marked EKs in packages with the name "Louis Gottlieb"
- Julius Maurer EK2 have a design of their own. Later EK2s, especially those marked with a higher PKZ number used the dies made by S&L (a total of 27 companies did so) and one would expect a late maker, such as "138", to use such an S&L-supplied die. L. Gottlieb does, J. Maurer does not.
- a manufacturer with an own design, listed as a supplier in1940 and fitting the missing spot "75" with his name "Maurer" cannot be a late supplier with the number "138". Just not possible!

I have no explanation about the combination that started this thread other than the one I already stated. Such combinations have been created in other cases also, all based on wrong information in books.The argument that it was in a collection since 20++ years (so since maybe 1995) is really not a solid argument.
I think Julius Maurer is "75", based on solid evidence form several unrelated sources and viewpoints. If one thinks it is not the case, these facts need to be dismissed with other provable facts. That is how it works.

[boch_62]

Dietrich respects you and respects your views as well as the views of each of the collectors I know. Everyone has the right to them.
I knew, that if I answer your statement, I would expose myself to your tirade ... and I have.
You have written many books on many awards. Your book on crosses EK1-1939 was and is still very important to me.
I do not know books on other decorations because I was not interested in them, besides I think that anyone cannot know everything about so many decorations.
For many years my main interest has been EK2-1939 crosses. For me, researching them is as important as the fact how many of these crosses I have had in my hands for many, many years, and I have had the opportunity to compare them with yourself.
That is why I wrote that I am "old-fashioned" and for me experience is much more important than "commercialism and news".
I'm not going to convince you of anything, but you won't convince me of your views based on your book.
Forgive me, but this is my last comment on this topic.
Instead of disputes, I prefer to decipher the producers of crosses and classify crosses EK2-1939

Regards
Jarek

[Dietrich Maerz]

Ok, I respect that, too.

And out of respect for you I kindly ask you again: please tell me based on your research of many, many years and comparisons between the crosses how you came to the conclusion that "75" is still " unknown"and Julius Maurer has the PKZ number "138"? This is not a dispute, this is a valuable question in a discussion forum and the only relevant topic of this thread. It is the initial question that was posted by member "hetherrh". You asked me to read you book which I did and I did not find the answer. I don't want to convince you, I only want to know the reasoning behind dismissing that "75" is Julius Maurer. Pure curiosity of a researcher. You can't honestly expect that I would not like to know?
Dietrich

[boch_62]

Ok, I respect that, too.

And out of respect for you I kindly ask you again: please tell me based on your research of many, many years and comparisons between the crosses how you came to the conclusion that "75" is still " unknown"and Julius Maurer has the PKZ number "138"? This is not a dispute, this is a valuable question in a discussion forum and the only relevant topic of this thread. It is the initial question that was posted by member "hetherrh". You asked me to read you book which I did and I did not find the answer. I don't want to convince you, I only want to know the reasoning behind dismissing that "75" is Julius Maurer. Pure curiosity of a researcher. You can't honestly expect that I would not like to know?
Dietrich

Unfortunately, with your very ironic statement towards me, you made me retort, even though I had no intention of doing so. Sorry in advance.
However, I hope that our discussion will not end for me like the discussion with the GCA Forum Moderators, when suddenly my account on the forum "crashed", and for my complaints I was advised to set up a new account from "scratch", which with several thousand the posts was absurd.

Moving on to the main topic.
Personally, I have never studied the numbers of the PKZ or LDO classification. I preferred to good deal with the EK2-1939 crosses themselves.
When I became interested in German decorations several decades ago, the PKZ and LDO classifications they were already "classified".
In my opinion, they were compiled by people who lived much closer to World War II than we do now, so they had much more grounds to define them correctly.
Over the course of several dozen years, I have met several times with requests (sometimes from quite well-known collectors) to change the PKZ or LDO classification.
These were, among others, proposals to assign "free" PKZ numbers:
No. 17 = Schwerin & Sohn - Berlin
Nr. 38 = A.G.M.u.K. - Gablonz
Nr. 54 = Gebruder Wegerhoff - Ludenscheid
No. 75 = Franke & Co. - Ludenscheid
No. 94 = Ossenberg-Engels - Iserlohn
No. 96 = Robert Klein - Wien
No. 97 = AE Kochert - Wien
No. 115 = Richard Sieper & Sohne - Ludenscheid
No. 121 = Imme & Sohn - Berlin
No. 133 = Otto Schickle - Pforzheim
... but none of these conclusions I was believed to be reliable and adequately proven. Of course for me.
I'm sorry, but your deduction and evidence also did not convince me, but I am not the "center of the world", you just have to convince others.

Coming back to these several dozen years of research on the EK2-1939 crosses (which you asked about ...), the effect is that, if I see today 100 unsigned EK2-1939 crosses, I am able to recognize over 90% of them.
I hope this discussion will not be continued anymore.
I remain respectful.

Jarek

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now we are into a nice discussion and I don't see why it should not be continued. The list you gave for possible contenders for "free" PKZ numbers must be checked against the decorations made by the companies. First of all, only a limited number of orders and medals of the Third Reich were handled by the Präsidialkanzlei. These were the Orders of the Iron Cross, German Cross, War Merit Cross, the Wound Badge, the East Medal, and some other civilian Orders like the Eagle Order and so on. War Badges of the Heer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe were not handled by the PKZ and that is why these medals have no PKZ numbers. Furthermore, there are lists of suppliers to the PKZ that can be found in the several national archives and any possible companies for theses "free" numbers have to be listed as suppliers. I have not checked all of them since I am not knowledgeable enough for all PKZ-handled badges. It might very well be that that some might be possible, some for sure are not, like Schwerin and Imme. I also was not on the search to fill "free" numbers. I came to the conclusion when I found out about the alphabetical sorting and from there I dug deeper and found Julius Maurer. I did not find any others in the realm of EK2s, but I tried.

133 is for sure not Schickle since that company, as you can read in every book, was thrown out of the LDO by Dr. Doehle and for sure did not get a PKZ number later in the war.

I realize that you don't want to lay out where I was non-convincing in my arguments and findings and that is fine. I also don't want to convince anybody, by the way. I write - just like I do now - what I found, researched, think, propose and everybody can comment. Believing is for church. This is by far not the first discussion about new findings and it always takes some time to digest, dispute, maybe even turn around. That is what makes the thing fun. However, I was brave enough to put it into my book for all to read.

I appreciate that you can identify the crosses that well, it is something that is not easy. But that actually has nothing to do with the topic. You identify the "75" as unknown, I do it as "Julius Maurer", that is the topic. Not the quality of identification in which, I am sure, you are extremely good!

Also, don't fear my friend, you are very safe here. Nobody here will throw you off, erase your posts, or anything like that. We are not like the Mr. DeBock, who gave me the same treatment. One day, out of the blue, my account had crashed and nothing worked anymore. Has happened to quite a few of people that have now found a safe heaven here. You must have said something he or a moderator did not like. One does not do that a GCA. So don't worry, I just enjoy a good and well founded discussion.