S&l 800/4 Rk... Interesting!!!

[ChrisJ]

I remember the discussions about the "bin theory", then the "several layers in the same bin theory" to explain the seemingly unsolvable puzzle regarding flawed crosses and 935-4.

Then the A and B-Type came up and - after long discussions- was accepted and, far more important, every cross could now be explained and every cross confirmed the theory (which I personally consider fact)

Nobody has come forward with anything even close to dismiss it.

Now you have the shelf theory. A jump back in time.

For me it is absolutely clear that the 935-4 is the first model after the reworked die. Then came everything else. This is based on my personal judgment of the diminishing sharpness of the dent row - from 935-4 to the early 57 pieces.

It's consistent for me and it fits the post war history of S&L perfectly.

If someone wants to put the 935 as the first post war model and cramp all the others into the pre-45 era, so be it. It has been done before when all non-magnetic, neusilver B-Types were sold as 'early pre-LDO pieces" or late war "no more material" pieces. Everything goes!

Just remember when pressing all theses pieces into the pre-45 category, the time was very short! And no hard provenance for B-Type 800-4, 935-4 and 800.

This is the most logical explanation in assessment of the data that is available at the moment....and I cant argue with that.

But hold on Dietrich,...we have "hard provenance" surely that the 935/4 turned up in Schloss K. and are therefore pre 1945.

[ChrisJ]

I have to say Dietrich's scientific method bests BS theories without any evidence or research... If you have some information, share it. I also applaud Dave for his willingness to have frank and open discussions.
Marc

Yes...but surely lateral thinking in assessment of the evidence and outcome of the research is valid and meaningfull.

For me there is the hint that the definition of the dent row seems to mirror the definition of the cross as a whole...and therefore I still feel that the male die problem holds some merit for passing consideration. I have to add thought, that the horrible incused "800" stamps that we have seen on the "B" type are quite damning.....

I believe that when the S&L dies began to fail, they did so rapidly. I've notice over the years that 1945 awarded pieces (A type) often have the flaw on the 3 o'clock arm between 7th/8th bead down but evident only on one frame side.

I have one such example awarded in March 1945, and have had two others with convincing provenance ....and assuming that it was produced in mid/late 1944 my guess is that the 935/4 series was really at the tail end of production....late 1944/1945.

The failure of the "B" type followed the same rapid collapse it appears.

I note that in Bowen's book on page 193 he lists RK #5 and 23 as a 935, and cross 39 as 935/4 (these are crosses in the hands of recipients that he had viewed).

We will get there in the end .....lets keep plugging away !

[DavidM]

Hello

As regards the debate around around the incuse relief of the '800', on page 314 of Gordon Williamsons 'The Iron Cross of 1939' an S&L RK with an incuse '800' mark is shown. This cross is the award piece given to Hauptmann Rolf Stiegart in January 1945. The text also states:

....Steinhauer und Luck too was involved in the manufacture of Knights Crosses for retail sale prior to the prohibition of this practise. Such pieces were handed in to the Prasidialkanzlei after the prohibition order and added to the official stocks for use as the award pieces. This is confirmed by the award of examples such as the Knights Cross illustrated here which was awarded to Hauptmann Rolf Steigart in January 1945. This piece, despite being an official award piece, has a non-regulation zinc centre suggesting it is almost certainly one of those retail pieces whcih were handed over.

Whilst Williamson states it is not common to see the incuse '800' stamp he notes that original examples, (such as the one illustrated on p 314) are occasionally encountered:

Earlier pieces by this manufacturer feature only the silver content mark "800", stamped centrally on the upper arm just below the eye. Most commonly, the stamp used has exceptionally small numerals making the silver content stamp difficult to discern with the naked eye. Some examples, however, have a slightly larger numeral type and original Steinhauer und Luck pieces have been noted with the "800" stamp only, (i.e., not in conjunction with the maker code) in incuse relief

Williamson also illustrates an S&L RK with the '800' and '4' markings, both in incuse relief, page 308 and on page 310 an S&L RK with the very small, (micro ?) '800' mark is shown, whose ribbon loop is stamped '935'.

V E Bowen, in 'The Prussian and German Iron Cross' also notes examples carrying the '800' and the '4' marks on the reverse upper arm of the piece, ( he also notes one carrying the '935' and '4' marks along with the comments, ....The recipients / owners of these crosses are known, but for reasons of personal privacy have not been recorded. ).

As has already been mentioned, '935' '4' incuse marked pieces were taken from Klessheim at the end of the war, so were already in production and available for issue prior to May 1945. Williamson and Bowen both illustrate '800' '4' pieces, and in Williamsons case the receipent and date awarded are known.

Therefore there appears to be evidence that, for whatever reason, S&L were using incuse marks, both '800' and '935' on their crosses prior to May 1945. On that basis the RKs carrying an incuse '800' mark or both the incuse '800' and '4' can't simply be dismissed.

So what we need to see here are close in shots of the rims and beading to determine if the RKs in question here have the dent row and flaws, and if so how pronounced they are. Then some headway might be made in this debate.

Regards
David

[ChrisJ]

Hi David,

I know the Stiegart cross well, having had it in my collection some years ago.......dont know where it is now though. It would be an interesting cross to study in light of the knowledge that DM and others have brought to the debate.

Gordon has been of great service to this hobby, but I things move on, and knowledge is broadened. With due respect, just because Gordon stated something in a book published in 2002 doesnt make it "gospel" today. At that time Gordon thought that the "rounder" was for real, as many of us did (including me)...now the evidence tilts against it.

Bowen also makes statements that we would just not be able to support today....undetailed reverse of "swords" being the official award pieces for example. He also Also the states that S&L produced all dies for the 2nd class, 1st class and knights cross to ensure confirmity of appearance.....do we believe that today (?)

Dave Kane....who has studied the S&L marks in great detail probably has some comment on the use of the differing 800 incuse mark.
Regards
C

[Pieter Verbruggen]

.... rare,nice, and original pre-war, S&L munufactured Knights Cross...but so what.... just my two cents, dollars to some people...

Pieter " a convinced multiple S&L die collector"

[Pieter Verbruggen]

btw ....Kevin is sitting next to me but doesn't want to get involved in this one....
Pieter.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Pieter,

buy the cross! Comes with a COA.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

David,

I never have seen an incuse 800 in real live. But I have looked at 935-4, 800-4 and 935. They are all B-type with the dent row which is different in definition between the three. I have seen pictures of a 'regular stamp 800' (not incuse). It's also a B-Type with a dent row less pronaunced than the 935-4's.

The existence of non-magnetic, non-silver frame late in the war still needs to be confirmed with very hard evidence. It always makes me wonder why some alledgedly got theses crosses while in Klessheim all theses beautifull cellophane wraped Juncker were stored... and a ton of mint K&Q were around .... and all the 935-4's....

But again, people believe what they want to believe and will buy what's offered.

[DavidM]

Hi David,

I know the Stiegart cross well, having had it in my collection some years ago.......dont know where it is now though. It would be an interesting cross to study in light of the knowledge that DM and others have brought to the debate.

Gordon has been of great service to this hobby, but I things move on, and knowledge is broadened. With due respect, just because Gordon stated something in a book published in 2002 doesnt make it "gospel" today. At that time Gordon thought that the "rounder" was for real, as many of us did (including me)...now the evidence tilts against it.

Bowen also makes statements that we would just not be able to support today....undetailed reverse of "swords" being the official award pieces for example. He also states that S&L produced all dies for the 2nd class, 1st class and knights cross to ensure confirmity of appearance.....do we believe that today (?)

Dave Kane....who has studied the S&L marks in great detail probably has some comment on the use of the differing 800 incuse mark.
Regards
C

Hello

I agree totally that research, evidence etc changes over time. Everyone also makes errors of judgement and so on. Again, as regards Bowen, he makes some statements that are now clearly not supportable.

What I was trying to get to is that if, as there appears to be, a known S&L RK with an incuse '800' mark, awarded in January 1945 then this would be evidence of incuse markings being used by S&L during WW2. That part of the arguement could at least then be dealt with, leaving the dent row / die flaw debate to be determined by close inspection of an '800' '4' and another known WW2 original S&L cross.

Given you used to own the Stiegart cross, do you know the markings on it, i.e. does it have an incuse '800' mark, and is the provenance as stated by Gordon Williamson acurate ? If it is then it is a validated S&L RK with incuse markings manufactured and awarded during WW2. And that is all I was trying to get to, that just because an S&L carries incuse markings this is not necessarily an indication of post war production. Look at the '935' '4' crosses from Klessheim.

Regards
David

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Pieter,

buy the cross! Comes with a COA.

Dietrich

...you seem so sure that I need COA before I buy something????

Pieter.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Not at all Pieter! You are thinking way too deep.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Not at all Pieter! You are thinking way too deep.

Deep? probably because a new U-boot collector is sitting next to me.

....no problem you know that...
Pieter.

[DavidM]

David,

I never have seen an incuse 800 in real live. But I have looked at 935-4, 800-4 and 935. They are all B-type with the dent row which is different in definition between the three. I have seen pictures of a 'regular stamp 800' (not incuse). It's also a B-Type with a dent row less pronaunced than the 935-4's.

The existence of non-magnetic, non-silver frame late in the war still needs to be confirmed with very hard evidence. It always makes me wonder why some alledgedly got theses crosses while in Klessheim all theses beautifull cellophane wraped Juncker were stored... and a ton of mint K&Q were around .... and all the 935-4's....

But again, people believe what they want to believe and will buy what's offered.

Hello Dietrich

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. If the RK illustrated in Gordons book can be proven to be the actual award piece to Stiegart, then we have an example of of an S&L cross, made and issued during the war with an incused '800' mark. Chris Jenkins, having once owned this actual cross, might be able to help here as regards the provenance and markings on it - see my note to Chris lower down the thread.

I too did wonder about a none magnetic, zinc centred RK being issued that late in the war. If, and I acknowledge it is a big if at the moment, the Stiegart RK from Gordons book does have a genuine provenance, then we have a none magnetic, incused stamped S&L RK issued late on during WW2. That would certainly upset some current widely held beliefs.

Now I don't know one way or the other on this, hence my observations based on what I have read and my subsequent reply and question to Chris, as below. I mentioned the '935' '4' as these have incused marks and are stated as having been found in Klessheim when it was overrun at the wars end. If this story about the '935' is wrong please set me straight.

Obviously if the provenance to the Stiegart cross is unsupported, then it may be that the incuse marked '800' RKs are also a post war piece. Bear in mind I have raised this question not specifically to substantiate the '800' '4' arguement, but to demonstrate that there is a possibility that S&L did use an incuse '800' mark on it's own during the war. If they did do this, then it is not to big a step to suggest there may be some with both an incuse '800' and '4'. The dent row / die flaw is then a seperate arguement which may provide the evidence that the '800' '4' is post war or pre war, or worse, even both

An interesting debate either way.

Thanks.

Regards
David

[Dietrich Maerz]

David,

I can follow your thought process. It always boils down to two separate lines of thought:

- one is based on provenance (Stiegart and Klessheim founds)
- one is based on physical evidence (B-Type, dent row)

Up to the first B-Type model, the 935-4 with only Klessheim provenance, the provenance supports the physical evidence and the other way around. That is to say: flawed A-Types and late war (end 44) recipients.

Also, other recipients got crosses that are concruent with the time line, such as the K&Q.

Remember, during the whole war S&L supplied basically one type, the 800 marked cross (if you don't count the micro 800 as a separate model). No LDO mark, no PKZ mark!

Then we reach the murky days of the war end and all over sudden we have 935-4, 800-4, 935, incuse 800, regular 800 - and all B-types! A flood of variations! And none with a solid recipient! And with clearly visible deterioration of the dent row between the models.

In addition, we know that S&L did continue to produce after the war with the same B-Type die.

At this point of the story I personally fall back on the physical evidence.

[DavidM]

David,

I can follow your thought process. It always boils down to two separate lines of thought:

- one is based on provenance (Stiegart and Klessheim founds)
- one is based on physical evidence (B-Type, dent row)

Up to the first B-Type model, the 935-4 with only Klessheim provenance, the provenance supports the physical evidence and the other way around. That is to say: flawed A-Types and late war (end 44) recipients.

Also, other recipients got crosses that are concruent with the time line, such as the K&Q.

Remember, during the whole war S&L supplied basically one type, the 800 marked cross (if you don't count the micro 800 as a separate model). No LDO mark, no PKZ mark!

Then we reach the murky days of the war end and all over sudden we have 935-4, 800-4, 935, incuse 800, regular 800 - and all B-types! A flood of variations! And none with a solid recipient! And with clearly visible deterioration of the dent row between the models.

In addition, we know that S&L did continue to produce after the war with the same B-Type die.

At this point of the story I personally fall back on the physical evidence.

Hello Dietrich

Thanks for that. The fog is (finally) begining to lift. So from your excellent die flaw article and this thread, would I be right in concluding:

1) S&L RKs with an unflawed A type frame with either a magnetic or a none magnetic core, stamped 800, or with no stamp at all are ok.
2) S&L RKs with a flawed A type frame, magnetic centre and either the stamped '800' mark or no mark at all are also ok, and possible later war models.
3) Anything with a B type frame, incused marks and the dent row, whether magnetic or not, are post war productions by S&L for collectors etc.
4) Anything with a B type frame, stamped marks and the dent row, whether magnetic or not, are post war productions by S&L for collectors etc.
5) Anything marked '800', '935' etc with the '4' are post war produced pieces.

Hopefully I am getting there with my understanding of the debates, fact and myth surrounding S&L RKs. I still pose the question though, what if Chris, Gordon or the current owner of the Stiegart RK can demonstrate a real provenance for it ? Pressumably, to answer my own question, as long as it had an A type frame, (unflawed as it would be have been an earlier production piece if originally made for the private purchase market as Gordon suggests ?), it would be consistent with known earlier A unflawed none magnetic A type S&L pieces, the only anomaly then being the incused '800' mark. But if it is a genuine award pieces, given in January 1945, that would be prima facia evidence that S&L did indeed use an incuse mark.

Pure speculation on that without knowing the provenance on Stiegarts cross. Chris, if you are reading this and the other responses below, can you help ?

Thanks.

Regards
David