The Knights Cross of the Iron Cross

[DeMil]

Recived book nr. 122 today.

What a fantastic book.
The best

Regards

Derek

[Flemming]

God damn, I really hate my bank...they could not transfer the money to USA, for some strange reason

Now I am awaiting the result of another transfer before I can get my hands on that wonderful book...still wonder what the number of mine is going to be...maybe number 350

My wife is going like...stop telling about that book now, ok!...I'll be here when it arrives, and not a day before, ok!

Best regards
/Flemming (a little impatient at the moment )

[Bob Hritz]

Well, after a sleepless night of reading and studying Dietrichs book, I have to post my comments. I find the actual binding, paper and illustrations to be flawless and so well done that I am surprised the book did not cost more.

I read the text, and am rereading it , more slowly and in greater depth, using examples, from my collection, for comparison. The scientific approach, used by Dietrich, without agenda or emotion, is very refreshing. I cannot agree with all conclusions, or rather scientific extrapolations reached by Dietrich, regarding the B types, ie; 800 4 and the photo of the non magnetic type b on pages 130-132. Of course, I am not unbiased, because I bought the cross, with 2 others, from the vet who accepted them as gifts from the surrendering pilots, at Kinzingen, on May 8, 1945. HOWEVER, Dietrich's clear caveat about typs not PROVEN authentic, leaves me with the belief that further research is necessary before we know positively.

I think that Dietrich has made a monumental effort to be clear, scientific, and made fair assessments, with clear photographic documentation on all the known original (unquestionable) types and has layed the groundwork for further research on the puzzle of Steinhauer and Lueck crosses, which we all agree were in continued production post 1945.

Thank you, Dietrich, for being objective and for allowing the study to continue. Fair, objective, and scientific, without agenda, is a refreshing change from book written by dealers and collectors for the purpose of promoting the sales of held items. I look forward to future tomes and further research by Dietrich, in our quest for the TRUTH. Perhaps we will know, one day, a perfect and unforgiving time line for the Steinhauer and Lueck Knight's Crosses. It appears that Dietrich's work has made all other known original types documented and clearly illustrated, for identification of the telltale 'fingerprints' to determine authenticity.

If only all reference books were so well done, the murky waters of collecting would have cleared, long ago.

Bob Hritz

[Leroy]

I was getting ready to post, but my friend Bob beat me to it.

I also spent the night reading Dietrich's book. What a great effort and how lucky we are to have someone like Dietrich! Congratulations on the best reference work I have seen in many, many years.

Like Bob, I do not agree with all Dietrich's conclusions, but then Dietrich has always known how many of us felt based on our real vet experiences and he has been good-hearted about that.

Again, a superb effort and one which has left the door open for more learning in the future. Thanks, Dietrich!

[pep]

GOT MY ORDINARY COPY THIS MORNING.
JUST HAD TIME TO TAKE A FAST LOOK ON ... I'M SURPRISED ABOUT THE GREAT JOB DONE. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TO ANY RK COLLECTOR. CONGRATULATIONS MR.MAERZ.

[Luftm40]

I have to add my voice to the others...a monumental book, exhaustively researched and extremely thorough. Like others, I don't necessarily agree w/ some of the assertions...but so it goes. I was especially surprised that no one has commented on the PKZ number timeline put forward in the book. Feb 1944 would mean, for example, that all PKZ marked DKiGs (the vast majority of originals IMHO...20, 1, 134, 2) were made in roughly the last year of the war, to include the "heavy" 20s and others that are now considered very early.

[Dave Kane]

This book is the absolute 'must have' for anyone considering ownership of an ORIGINAL Knight's Cross and the higher orders!

Wonderful layouts and easy reading for the layperson or seasoned collector.

It literally takes the 'mystery' out of idenifying and recognizing an ORIGINAL piece.

This 'bible' should be under every Christmas tree and on everyone's want list!!

[John R.]

I have to add my voice to the others...a monumental book, exhaustively researched and extremely thorough. Like others, I don't necessarily agree w/ some of the assertions...but so it goes. I was especially surprised that no one has commented on the PKZ number timeline put forward in the book. Feb 1944 would mean, for example, that all PKZ marked DKiGs (the vast majority of originals IMHO...20, 1, 134, 2) were made in roughly the last year of the war, to include the "heavy" 20s and others that are now considered very early.

Andy,

I have to agree with you. The PKZ registration number must have been implemented soon after the war at the latest. It only makes sense that this would be so, followed at some point by the "L" numbers which while intended for private purchase, not official awarding, but was used for both. The exact timeline is unknown and every book I have seen uses a different date, but logically, the PKZ system would have been first and in place soon after Sep 1939 if for no other reason, to force these companies to pay for their registration to the system which was well known, from stamps and coins to awards, to get their piece of the pie in addition to award consistency.

Robin Lumsden uses the date Mar 1941 for both, C. Ailsby says 1941 for the PKZ then says 1943 for the "L" numbers. So the subject is very unclear in print. Now Dietrich with Feb 44 for the PKZ number or at least that is what I think he is saying from my copy of the book.

Example: Most DKIG's are stamped with a PKZ number and we know this award came into being on 28 September 1941, so we know, unless they were all unmarked at the start, that the PKZ must have been around before this date, ie, before Sep 1941.

I also would like to repeat that just about every source states that PKZ awards and "L" awards were issued as official awards even though that was not the intent. Does anyone disagree with this at this point, meaning, does anyone believe that no "L" awards were given out during the war as official awards, or do some believe that only certain awards were in fact PKZ number enforced--perhaps due to the level of the award?

I personally think from evidence I have seen with KM badges that both PKZ and most often "L" awards were given out as official awards. In fact the "L" stamp or just the manufacturer's name was most common, the PKZ was a distant third for Kriegsmarine war badges.

John

[Luftm40]

Andy,

I have to agree with you. The PKZ registration number must have been implemented soon after the war at the latest. It only makes sense that this would be so, followed at some point by the "L" numbers which while intended for private purchase, not official awarding, but was used for both. The exact timeline is unknown and every book I have seen uses a different date, but logically, the PKZ system would have been first and in place soon after Sep 1939 if for no other reason, to force these companies to pay for their registration to the system which was well known, from stamps and coins to awards, to get their piece of the pie in addition to award consistency.

Robin Lumsden uses the date Mar 1941 for both, C. Ailsby says 1941 for the PKZ then says 1943 for the "L" numbers. So the subject is very unclear in print. Now Dietrich with Feb 44 for the PKZ number or at least that is what I think he is saying from my copy of the book.

Example: Most DKIG's are stamped with a PKZ number and we know this award came into being on 28 September 1941, so we know, unless they were all unmarked at the start, that the PKZ must have been around before this date, ie, before Sep 1941.

I also would like to repeat that just about every source states that PKZ awards and "L" awards were issued as official awards even though that was not the intent. Does anyone disagree with this at this point, meaning, does anyone believe that no "L" awards were given out during the war as official awards, or do some believe that only certain awards were in fact PKZ number enforced--perhaps due to the level of the award?

I personally think from evidence I have seen with KM badges that both PKZ and most often "L" awards were given out as official awards.

John

There are unmarked DKiGs that are considered early and logically would have been made before the numbering system....but they are scarce in my experience compared to the PKZ marked varieties. Again, I just can't believe ALL of the PKZ marked DKiGs were produced between Feb 44 and the end of the war....not taking away from the book though, it is great

[Jeff V]

I agree that the earliest DKiG's were of the unmarked type-10 rivet, 6-rivet, etc.
Look at the incredible boatloads of PKZ marked EK1 and EK 2, surely many were made before 1944. IMO this 1944 date is way off the mark. best wishes,
jeff

[Luftm40]

...a bit off topic, but OK...I think badges are exceptions, perhaps out of tradition and perhaps because the larger surface area allowed the maker to use their full name or logo (advertising) vice PKZ numbers. W/ the RK....yes L marked awards were certainly awarded for the reasons laid out in the book. I DON'T think this was generally done w/ other medals and badges though (although I'm sure there were exceptions). I personally think the PKZ numbering system was in place long before Feb 44, but was inconsistently used for some reason or perhaps a firm's number was turned on and off based on the government's needs, the PKZ numbers representing the manufacture of awards under specific contract that may have only been for a certain number of pieces. The L number would have always applied, signifying that the firm was authorized to sell as many pieces privately as they wanted....I don't know, but think Feb 44 is too late. Just my 2 cents. Again though, it is an absolutely superb book Dietrich!

[Luftm40]

Don't forget the unmarked Deschler 4 rivets!!

I agree that the earliest DKiG's were of the unmarked type-10 rivet, 6-rivet, etc.
Look at the incredible boatloads of PKZ marked EK1 and EK 2, surely many were made before 1944. IMO this 1944 date is way off the mark. best wishes,
jeff

[John R.]

What about all the EKs?

John

[Dietrich Maerz]

Thank you all for the great remarks, I really appreciate it.

Regarding the PKZ number one might see that I said "for the RK". I can surely speculate as good as anybody else and I therefore decided to base everything I wrote on documents or solid provenance.

Sure, there will alwys be some people who will say the number(s) were introduced in Sept. 39 (or even in 1936 what somebody said once) but that just doesn't go together with the PKZ files and the Uniformenmarkt and the Schwert und Spaten. And, more importantly, it does not go together with the physical evidence. I also know that some people just laught into the face of physical evidence and documents in German language and I can't help it either.

A PKZ numbering system before the LDO system (March 41) and a LDO numbering system before March 41 just goes against the documents (which I have all included for everybody to see. I can't do more....). Maybe the LDO itself was confused...


Could it be that the PKZ number was introduced before Febr./March 44? Sure! All I was saying is that the evidence I have at this point in time points to this time frame (considering all the other factors)

Regarding the DK I can say only this. There are quite a few unmarked DKs so there was no number when they were introduced.

It is also clear that the number past 44 is a lot greater than the number pre 44. Just look at the award numbers of the RK! The 50% point is in Jan 44! Does somebody know the realtaion between unmarked, L-marked and PKZ marked EK1 and EK2?? Or is it just a "feeling"?

However, I agree that the PKZ number was most likely used earlier with the DK's. Why and when I don't know. And "know" I define by "having a document" or "solid provenance", not gut feel or speculation.

The sparking of such a discussion is exactly what that book should do. At least the written and contemporary evidence is now on the table for all to see.

And yes, L-marked pieces were (as RK and higher) awarded but because of the time and reson outlined in the book.

Dietrich

[nellyp51]

Got my copy today

A fantastic book and good to see a 800 L12 KC as awsome as my own and now something to help me with finding my oaks

Dietrich much appreciated and cheers for all your help