EK2 with question for review

[Admiral]

Hello,

found this one today.

Is the manufacturer known?

An interesting feature in the middle on the back, that I've never seen before!

Thanks & best greetings

[boch_62]

Better photos - straight, please.

Regards
Jarek

[Yubari]

looks like nice 75

[Dietrich Maerz]

I agree, looks like a nice early Julius Maurer.

[Admiral]

Thank you very much !!!!

[Eryk]

looks like nice 75

+1
It looks like 75 - cross the unknown producer

[Hank C.]

+1
It looks like 75 - cross the unknown producer

Apparently the producer is now known...I posted same statement couple months back, and Dietrich set me straight. I forget which producer tho....

[Eryk]

Apparently the producer is now known...I posted same statement couple months back, and Dietrich set me straight. I forget which producer tho....

Hi Hank.
I am familiar with the thesis put forward by Dietrich. As of today, however, I remain with the old "classification" that is:
75 - manufacturer unknown
138 - Julius Maurer

Best wishes
Maciej

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Hank.
I am familiar with the thesis put forward by Dietrich. As of today, however, I remain with the old "classification" that is:
75 - manufacturer unknown
138 - Julius Maurer
Best wishes
Maciej

Since this is a discussion forum and we like discussions I would kindly ask you why you stay with the old classification. I know that what I wrote and discovered is a thesis and might never be 100% proven. But in scientific and academical circles it is the basic rule to explain why one challenges a theory. I have been challenged enough and I can handle it. To just state, that one does not like a thesis or even reject it for unknown reasons is not productive. I assume you have my book (how could you otherwise argue against the thesis??) and I kindly ask you where you think I am wrong and why you think I am wrong? But please, if you help here, don't forget to explain also why Julius Maurer is 138, not only why it is not 75.
I really would like to state one thing: whenever I research something and write about it, I do so with the full knowledge that there will be challenges from "old" traditions and very ingrained believes. This was the case with the Knights Cross book for sure and with other books/articles also. What I want to say is that I do not go lightly about putting something into writing that will be open to critique from knowledgable and engaged collectors from all over the world and - more importantly - the written word, no matter from which author, will live longer than the author and is subject to the judgement of later generations also.

Thank you very much in advance!

[Eryk]

Hi


At the outset, I would like to congratulate the book. You must have devoted a lot of time, work and effort to her.



Now my opinion in the discussion.

First of all, I am not claiming that the theory (your research) is false. It is definitely very interesting. I agree with what you wrote - that it is revolutionary in a way.

In my life I have experienced several such revolutions in the subject of iron crosses. From time to time, there were attempts to assign unknown crosses to a specific manufacturer. 99% of them turned out to be wrong. All these cases have taught me to be skeptical about any news.

This is how I approach your theory. I will emphasize it again - I am not saying that it is false. Unfortunately - for me - it does not convince me. Assigning numbers to circles is very interesting. However, looking for a producer after the first letter of the last name does not convince me anymore.

And the example of finding a KVK (signed 75) in a Julius Maurer purse does not appeal to me at all.

All in all, the discussion of Julius Maurer as 75 takes place only on the topic EK2. The following sets are known (medal + packaging): KVM / MUTTERKREUZ / KVK / Schutzwall - medals are not signed / the packages are named Julius Maurer. And there is no problem with assigning a medal: Julius Maurer - no. 138

Nobody writes that: the medal is Louis Gottlieb & Sohne in the Julius Maurer package.



Therefore, as of today I remain with the "old version"

75 - unknown manufacturer

138 - producer -Julius Maurer.



And if I comment on posts in this way, please don't take it as my malice. At the moment, I just think so.



Similarly, I am not convinced by "new" cross manufacturers (for example: WILHELM HAMMESFAHR. His theme returns every few years - when "miraculous" sets of new crosses come out to buy).



However, I completely disagree (this is only my opinion) with EK2 signed 113 (frame type 1 - page 391). For me it is a known copy of the cross (with typical signage for this copy).



Best wishes

Maciej

[Dietrich Maerz]

Thank you for you answer and the comments about the book.

Regarding your comment that there have been attempts from time to time to assign names to numbers of the Präsidialkanzlei I must say that I have not encountered any such attempts in my more than 35 years of research and collecting. All I knew up to the time when I seriously started to investigate these numbers in 2007, mainly with the intent to find out the date of introduction, was that some numbers had no name assigned. So I am not aware of any 99% failure rate since I have no idea what the attempts were.

I am sorry, but I can't quite follow your argument that "Nobody writes that: the medal is Louis Gottlieb & Sohne in the Julius Maurer package." I think it is in relation to the KVK with a Julius Maurer package and that this alone would not be an argument for "75" equals "Julius Maurer" and I am 100% in agreement with you. But that is by far not the argument i was making. To repeat the thought process here again (as also laid out with your friend Jarek in another discussion), it certainly did not start with a package and a name. It started with the investigation into the early manufacturers (of which Julius Maurer is one - documented by the PKZ) and the alphabetical sequence in the early numbers of the Präsidialkanzlei list. One can argue whether it appeals that Julius Maurer is 75 or not, one cannot argue that the list is not alphabetical and that the name before the number 75 is Carl Maurer and that number 76 is Ernst Müller. This makes perfectly clear that the missing name is starting with an "M". One can also not discuss away, as I show with the die book and with the early documents from the Präsidialkanzlei, that Julius Maurer was an early supplier to the Präsidialkanzlei. Both those facts make clear that an early supplier, added to the Präsidialkanzlei list within the first alphabetical block, should not show up at the very end of the list. The more so when one knows that there are unmarked "75" Julius Maurer crosses, i.e. those made before end of 1942/early 1943, but there are none unmarked from maker '122" onwards. That indicates that these makers were added past late 1942/early 1943 and always stamped their product with the assigned number. Theses makers, past 122, are part of the second alphabetical block and therefore added later that the first ones. Additionally, we find all the early maker in the first alphabetical block. Now, Louis Gottlieb is a very late supplier and "138" marked crosses have been found in such named packages. That might be not a very solid assumption, just based on the packages. However, it is clear that the number "138" had a name behind it and, combined with the use of an S&L die, makes that manufacturer a very solid match.

That brings me to another point that has been overlooked or ignored by all other researchers in regards to time lines. As it is known by original documents, the company S&L was the supplier for the EK2 dies from early 1942 onwards. This can be verified with the S&L-type frames of 26 other companies. Julius Maurer had a design of his own (as also testified with his die book) and therefore did never, like most other later manufacturers, source his dies from S&L. If Julius Maurer would have such a late number as "138" that surely would be the case - unless one accepts that he would be the sole exception.

I had hoped to have a discussion about what is wrong with the above reasoning that makes one stay with what has been copied over the last decades from one list to the next without any deeper research. I know that I am a stickler with original sources and documents and also like to look at the big picture, not only at one maker at a time. I stand behind my conclusion! This is the only number I think I have found, there are still nine left untouched. There was no evidence for any name and no attempt to assign any names.

Regarding Hammesfahr: He was a supplier as testified by packages. He was in existence as testified by the company in the phone book. It is a S&L design, so the die was bought from S&L. Nothing speaks against it. There are other names, as listed in the book, that have no PKZ number but are testified via stamped packages. It would be folly to dismiss these as fakes. And again, I have not seen new sets surface every year.

[Eryk]

Hello
Thank you for your answer and your time.
Your theory has a really strong foundation. Reading it, analyzing it - I wonder if there is sometimes no revolution in it.
And then a set (see photo)
or topic
(link: https://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/for...aurer-question )
appears, which destroys my change in thinking.
Such a set: a cross signed 138 with a bag signed Julius Maurer - this is not a rare thing. Every few weeks such a set appears on sale.
Then my thinking goes back to the "old tracks" - to the old (maybe wrong!) Classification.
Do we have any explanation for such a set?
I think you have taken the first step. But there are still "obstacles" to accepting changes.

Best wishes
Maciej

[Dietrich Maerz]

As I wrote earlier in this and other threads, a numbered cross in a package alone is by far not a solid foundation. Neither to assign a number to a maker, nor to nullify a strong theory with several other strong points. If the collector community would always take a combination "number - name on package" as gospel, we would be completely confused. I rather think that, due to the fact that since decades and up to the latest books Julius Maurer was always printed as "138" people were combining the two to make a set. Additionally, it could also have been that at the end of the war Julius Maurer was getting crosses from Gottlieb and combined the two and shipped to the PKZ. Both were located next to each other in the same town.

The other points I mentioned will not go away because of one (or more) package/cross combinations. There is no way that an early supplier such as Julius Maurer got one of the very last PKZ numbers and by pure chance the missing name for the earliest missing supplier fits like a glove with Julius Maurer. It needs more than the combination you showed to make that go away. If that would work, I could come up with several combinations of Julius Maurer named packages with "75" in it (which there are!). But that alone does not work, at least not for me. Just because it is mentioned in books, it does not need to stay like it was. And to be sure, I had "75" as an "Unknown Maker" and "138" as Julius Maurer in several of my earlier books and I am not ashamed of it. Only when I really dove into the topic of the EK2 and their makers the issue came to light. It would never dawn on me not to share the research with others just to cover my earlier omissions due to "cut and paste." (or lack of research into that specific topic). Nobody should!

[boch_62]

"... Only when I really dove into the topic of the EK2 and their makers the issue came to light. It would never dawn on me not to share the research with others just to cover my earlier omissions due to" cut and paste. "(or lack of research into that specific topic). Nobody should! ..."

Why do You think, that the researchers who was developed the PZK and LDO numbers, so about 10 years after the war, they knew less than You now know and you have discovered.
In my opinion, they knew a lot more and felt a lot more about the essence of these numbers. It is for this reason (but not only) that I believe that ERYK is right, and I have expressed a similar opinion earlier. For me still :
75 = unknown manufacturer
and
138 = producer -Julius Maurer.
Anyone who can read and analyze will draw their own conclusions after reading yours book.

Regards
Jarek

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is the same old tune that has hurt the hobby for a very long time: It was always like that and that is why it has to stay like it! Numerous examples for that! “All L15” are fake!” “All flawed S&L are fake!” “PKZ numbers were introduced in mid-1944” “All K&Q Knights Crosses are post-war!” Not to forget the list of assignments you quoted in the other thread!
The argument that researchers after the war developed the PKz or LDO list is completely wrong, the lists were developed during the war and the names were assigned during the war, that much is known. So only with documents from that time can one decipher. That is what I did, nothing else.
Instead of just repeating that for you 75 is unknown and 138 is Julius Maurer, either say why that is so based on research and original documents. Or just let it be and let the time decide. The old truth of the “ah so knowledgeable” guys from the early days does not prevent me from checking. On this forum (and others) more has been discovered and corrected in the last 15 years than the old guys in 60 years before. That is a fact! They were wrong too many times.
But don’t get me wrong! I don’t care whether you accept what I wrote or not! I only tried to have a solid discussion beyond “I don’t believe it” with some solid arguments and ”analysis”, as you wrote. It is not happening and that is ok. You stuck to what you wrote in your book, I stuck to my evidence laid out for all to read and think about it. This is not the first time for me.

Wait for the book about the Spange! There is more the ‘old guys” never realized and some people might not “believe”!