Detlev 65 RK

[Peter Wiking]

Life is about learning.

Peter

[Dietrich Maerz]

New information is continually coming to light. What was published in good faith 20 years ago is laughable now.

BUT there is a problem with new informations! Sometimes (actually even more than sometimes) such informations are treated as 'theories' and are not accepted because of earlier pubblications or cemented believes. Or, most likely, new information is contrary to what was or is 'original'. And then the "sarkasm" starts as a last resource.

Not the slightest doubt about the 'good faith' and I wouldn't call it laughable either. "Outdated" and maybe worth a revision.

[Robin Lumsden]

"Outdated" and maybe worth a revision.

I agree.

But, the problem is that mainstream publishers will not go to the expense of revising a book just for the sake of a relatively small number of updates.

[Brian S]

I seem to remember that the instruction from PKZ to use the numbers originally stated the mark was to be "on the loop"....perhaps that was merely formalizing what K&Q were already doing for some time.

What could be 'wrong' with this possibility?

[VIPER]

PZK Numbers

Is it not possibible that there was a period longer than the confectured mid 1944 through the end of the war when crosses had PZK numbers and would this not allow for a longer manufacturing window for the S@L 935/4 and 800/4..............Jimmy

[Steinar]

This question is so off the topic but, how many RKs survived the war? An exact number must be impossible, but something close to exact perhaps...

[milsurp]

Chris,

Does your RK attributed to Joachim Barth have the 4 dot flaw as denoted by this picture here? I would appreciate it if you would check as the discovery would be significant.

Just for the record....I have a K&Q RK with attributation to Joachim Barth, with a mass of paperwork that I am very comfortable with. Barth as awarded the RK in December 1942. The loop is marked 800/65.
I have heard of others dating back to December 1942 with firm attributation (as firm as these things go).
I think there is more to this subject than just black and white.....and many grey areas lie between.
I seem to remember that the instruction from PKZ to use the numbers originally stated the mark was to be "on the loop"....perhaps that was merely formalizing what K&Q were already doing for some time.
Have fun with this one fellas !

[ChrisJ]

[quote=Craig Henninger;2300943]Chris,

Does your RK attributed to Joachim Barth have the 4 dot flaw as denoted by this picture


It does, of course !

[milsurp]

Thanks Chris that's very interesting. Are you 100% sure of the provenance? I am going to start a new thread so I don't hijack this one about early 800/65 crosses using this information as the basis, I hope you don't mind. The link is here.

[quote=Chris Jenkins;2300954]

Chris,

Does your RK attributed to Joachim Barth have the 4 dot flaw as denoted by this picture


It does, of course !

[Dietrich Maerz]

It does, of course !

That is strange since the one bought by Hartmann end of 44 in Vienna doesn't have the flaws.

I certainly cannot prove it but I personnaly do not believe in any PKZ numbers on Knights Crosses prior to the beginning of 1944. The more so in the case of K&Q when there are crosses w/o the flaw and w/o the "65" in 1942.

And - without the intention to stirr anything up or whatever - why is it nearly ALWAYS K&Q with theses out of whack provenance, posthumously awarded crosses and extremely early PKZ numbers?

Why are there no "2" and "4" and "20" from 1942? All the other manufacturers fit perfect, have a sequential 'numbering' system which points to the beginning of 1944 - but not K&Q?

However, there is NO doubt that there were K&Q in 1942 and there are a lot of good and genuine K&Q awarded before May 1945.

Dietrich

[StefanK.]

I am quite sure that the cross worn by Barth is a Juncker.


Stefan

[milsurp]

Detlev,

May I ask what your opinion on the matter is please?

I personnaly do not believe in any PKZ numbers on Knights Crosses prior to the beginning of 1944.

[ChrisJ]

Thanks Chris that's very interesting. Are you 100% sure of the provenance? I am going to start a new thread so I don't hijack this one about early 800/65 crosses using this information as the basis, I hope you don't mind. The link is here.

Hi Craig,

Provenance is rarely 100%, and in this case I cant give that assurance (with hand on heart). I was the second person outside of the recipient/family to have this piece, so I had some comfort that it certainly belonged to him.

I note your comment Stefan, but having minutely studied the original pictures I feel that his award peice was a K&Q.

Incidently, the piece is no longer in my possession.

Regards
Chris

[markus]

Just one question: How can one be really sure today, that buying a medal/document group, the medals really belong to the documents and have not been switched around during the past decades? The only chance to be nearly 100 pct. sure would be to buy from the family directly-first hand, right?