Klein and Quenzer Question

[milsurp]

Hello,<O
<O
I have received my copy of “The Knights Cross of the Iron Cross” by Dietrich and being an avid K&Q RK owner I have been eagerly awaiting any information about the progressive die flaw Dietrich alluded to in a previous thread. Whilst I am looking forward to reading this book in it’s entirety, I skipped forward a few pages. Now, unless I misread this chapter (quite possible!) I understand the progressive "4 dot die flaw theory" (page 202) as the following:
<O
model 1 = 800 only marked K&Q crosses with out 4 dot flaw awarded end '42 onwards
model 2 = 800/65 marked K&Q crosses with 4 dot flaw awarded Oct/Nov '44 onwards<O</O

Now the theory states that due to 2 clear points in history (2 acknowledged crosses with provenance) where these 2 crosses first appeared we can now draw a timeline for the die as it would seem reasonable to assume the die deteriorated over this period with the addition of these 4 dots/die imperfections in what is perceived to be later issued style cross.<O</O
<O
Now with that in mind, the deteriorating die theory is dependent on a proven timeline of when the 800/65 crosses (+ 4 dot flaw) first started to appear, i.e. proof one cross came after the other. Given we have an experienced forum member that has an 800/65 marked cross with the 4 dot die flaw it, with provenance dated back to Nov ’42, it would appear we now don’t have a time line, it would seem both crosses were issued Nov '42. If this is correct, doesn't this blow the "Klein and Quenzer Question" (page 205) theory out of the water, surely then it would signify 2 dies were in production during the course of the war and the fact Harry has a ’57 K&Q cross with wartime frames is largely irrelevant, 4 dot flaw or not.<O</O
<O
Am I rambling madman (rhetorical question!) or has anyone else had this thought? If I have missed something then please just come out and tell me.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Craig,

thnaks for bringing this up. This type of discussion is what I was hoping for.

First of all, the Hartmann cross was bought end of 44 and could (theroretically) be produced in 1939 or 1942. I doubt that very much so.

Given we have an experienced forum member that has an 800/65 marked cross with the 4 dot die flaw it, with provenance dated back to Nov ’42, it would appear we now don’t have a time line, it would seem both crosses were issued Nov '42.

That, of course, implies that the provenance of Chris' cross is absolutely unshakable and that the '65' marked cross is absolutely and w/o any doubt the actual awarded piece. If that is so (which I doubt) then we have a case where K&Q provided in 1942 unmarked crosses w/o the flaw and also marked crosses with the flaw. And we also have the case that only K&Q marked the crosses with a PKZ number but all the other manufacturers, like Juncker, Zimmermann, S&L, either marked with nothing other than the silver content or with the LDO mark.

If that is believable to you, fine. The theory of two dies is not tenable IMHO.

But I would like to state again - as I have done in the book - that I only represent facts as I discovered them and from there I gave it some thoughts based on the documented evidence.

The total picture for me is just that: I have no solid evidence that there was a PKZ in 1942 for the Knights Cross.

[Luftm40]

I am anxiously awaiting my copy of the new book as well. I have two attributed KQ RKs. One awarded 28-10-44 and the other awarded very late in the war..20-4-45. Both crosses have what I would call good provenance, especially so w/ the second. It came directly from the recipient, and I have no doubt that it is the one he was handed that day in 1945. Although it is a very late award, I know an actual RK was presented based on a well known series of photographs taken after the ceremony and also his portrait, taken the same day and clearly showing the cross in question. I had never noticed the die flaws, but pulled both of these crosses out this AM to check. The 28-10-44 awarded piece has the flaws, but the 45 awarded cross flaws are slightly more prominent. This could be because of die flaw progression or the fact that the second cross is in almost mint condition, and #1 is worn. The crosses are outwardly identical, save for condition, and are both marked in the typical KQ manner w/ the number on the ring. For what it is worth, I have always felt that KQ crosses were later war pieces and that perhaps KQ was brought in to boost production during the "spike" of awards as the war progressed. My 2 cents...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now that now fits perfectly!

[Luftm40]

28-10-44

[Luftm40]

20-4-45

[Chet Sowersby]

You guys are killing me here. As a K&Q owner I've been antisipating the arrival of my book for obvious reasons. Now I get to read about it here on the forum before even recieving the book. It sucks.....

Chet

[Don D.]

Same here. Damn the postal service.

[ChrisJ]

Hello,<O
<O
<O
model 1 = 800 only marked K&Q crosses with out 4 dot flaw awarded end '42 onwards
model 2 = 800/65 marked K&Q crosses with 4 dot flaw awarded Oct/Nov '44 onwards<O</O

Hi Craig,

I have answered your original question on the other thread.

Please consider that the loop was marked and not the frame, so there has to be some certainty the there hasnt been a "mix and match" between loops and crosses. I personally have known at least one oaks/RK set that was split with the RK appearing with a simple 800 loop. Similarly, whilst one can have provenance that a certain award belonged to a recipient, its often harder to determine if a particular piece was the award piece, or a duplicate.

Please also bear in mind that L/12 marked Junckers appear in the later war period (do they not ?) so stockpiling did occur

Statistical data is what is required....so I hope that you get good reaction to this thread.

Dietrich, I have to ask if Hartman would keep the loop of his RK...surely he would have no use for it ! ...(as I havent received the book yet I cant comment on the piece, though)

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich, I have to ask if Hartman would keep the loop of his RK...surely he would have no use for it ! ...(as I havent received the book yet I cant comment on the piece, though)

Chris,

he never wore the piece - he always wore his S&L micro 800. His K&Q is absolutely mint.

Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

Chris,

he never wore the piece - he always wore his S&L micro 800. His K&Q is absolutely mint.

Dietrich

Sounds very interesting indeed.

Any thoughts as to what this flaw actually is ?...as you can guess I have a theory !

[Harry]

Interesting thread. Here are 2 examples, I wonder where these would fit in the 'time-line'?

No1

[Harry]

No2.

[Steinar]

did Hartmanns S&L survive the war?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Yes, all medals survived!