Spangen contained in deluxe Ritterkreuz presentation cases

[StefanK.]

Concerning the Godet Set:

Are all awards (KC, EK1, EK2) marked (21) ?


Stefan

[Chris Boonzaier]

- on what do you base your tendency?
- why do you think this document is wrong?
- when do YOU think the LDO number was introduced and what evidence do you have to contradict the article below without a shadow of a doubt?

I think I said i tended to "Believe" the accepted dates? As such, it is not in my interests to contradict the article. The article is rather precise, but "Early 1941" is close enough to help me scratch my head and wonder how they come onto pieces supposedly made in the first months of the war.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe the key word her is "supposedly".

[Chris Boonzaier]

"or that the supposed origin and pedigree of L/ marked items handed out in 1939 is hokey?"

I refer to the supposed origin of clasps tht are mentioned with the claim they were given out in 1939.

Either the proof that the LDo was created in 40 and the stamped pieces given out in 41 is bogus.... or something stinks with the claim that these L/stamped pieces were given out in 1939.

I dont see any possible PROOF that L/ clasps were given out in 1939. Ergo I question the supposed pedigree and origin of said pieces.

[Bob Hritz]

I used to own both the cased Grand Cross (L/12) and the cased 1st issue set with L/12 Knight's Cross and both Spangen marked L/12, both which are illustrated in Dietrich's book. I have no reason to believe they were later sets, but cannot explain the 2nd type spangen or the L/12 marks for award in 1939.

I do believe the LDO was in existance at that time, but have no period PROOF to back my opinion.

Bob Hritz

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Bob,

if that is so this LDO is a very sneaky and deceitful company! These sneaky bastards were in existence in September of 1939 and managed to keep their existence under cover till they announced their foundation in July 1940.

You know, if that was so, why would they do that? In 1939 (as you might have read in my book) there was not even a clear chain of command to handle orders and medals. So now there was even an LDO?

And why - in Adolfs name - did the first recipients receive non-magnetic, non-silver Ritterkreuze from Juncker when next to them in a nice beautiful red case were the ones made of silver and iron and with nice stamps....???

Gentlemen, I don't think so!

Don't start another myth... it is tough enough to deal with the persistent ones already!

Dietrich

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I used to own both the cased Grand Cross (L/12) and the cased 1st issue set with L/12 Knight's Cross and both Spangen marked L/12, both which are illustrated in Dietrich's book. I have no reason to believe they were later sets, but cannot explain the 2nd type spangen or the L/12 marks for award in 1939.

I do believe the LDO was in existance at that time, but have no period PROOF to back my opinion.

Bob Hritz

Hi Bob ...I competely agree with you. I have no proof either but I'm convinced the L/ was in existance in 1939. (sorry Dietrich).
pieter

[Dietrich Maerz]

Pieter,

no need to say "Sorry Dietrich"!

The 3rd Reich original paperwork that announces the foundation of the LDO and the subsequent numbering system is not my invention nor is it my opinion. I said it several times and I say it again: I don' care - I'm just reporting the paperwork and translate it for those who cannot read German.

Maybe deep inside I believe it was founded by Kaiser Wilhelm or even Charlemagne, who knows.

I report in this case what is normally called 'hard documented facts'.

And as long as those stand as they are, it is a "Sorry Pieter".

Dietrich

[Pieter Verbruggen]

...well I do not agree

I'm not questioning the institution date of the LDO.

Just when we see a medal with an L/ number we immediately say "LDO number"...
This is not an LDO mark but a "lieferant" number.

Why couldn't this "L" number not just be a "lieferant" number existing pré-LDO regulations?
The "L" mark is not a "Leistungsgemeinschaft" number but a "Lieferant" number wich was registrated officialy with the institution of the LDO, but this does not mean some firms already had such a number (a lisence to sell privately!)

If you give this a thought ....lots of questions would be solved.
Pieter. (just to be linched )

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is not an LDO mark but a "lieferant" number.

And this is where you are wrong. Flat out wrong! The numbering system, consisting of the L/ and a number, was instituted by the LDO. As witnessed by several documents among them this pre 45 advertisement from R. Souval. I'm under the assumption that Mr. Souval was told:" This is your LDO Genehmigung" and that is why he named it such, i.e. "LDO license L58".

Why couldn't this "L" number not just be a "lieferant" number existing pré-LDO regulations?

Because that is just not tru - that's why. Just look at the case of A.E. Koechert in Vienna as described on page 55. How can it be that this company got the number L/25 right after the permission from the PKZ when the numbers (regarding to your reasoning) was already in use before that? If that would have been the case why would they need another permission. Regarding to your theory they had this number already before September 1939. Or was the PKZ just confused?

.... but this does not mean some firms already had such a number (a lisence to sell privately!)

... and strangely enough they were only using this number when it fits some other wild theories.... They were NOT using this number when it fits the documented reality. But hey, maybe the unmarked, unmagnetic Juncker are postwar after all! Surely they would have used their Lieferantennummer for the first and most important crosses of their history? Or not? If not, why not?

If you give this a thought ....lots of questions would be solved.

Maybe for you .... but the rest of the LDO picture (including all original documents so far) must go into the waste bin as an outrageous forgery! I rather think that this is a wild theory.
But I know it will be believed by quite a few and maybe the dot under the 800 Juncker is not a real dot but a microfilm dot. Who knows? "L" is "L" and dot is dot!

Dietrich