Looking to get this Knights Cross

[Brian S]

This clearly looks like a regular and perfectly good preliminary document. This was given to the awardee.

The two ring binder holes don't tip you off to the original repository of these? I'll dig but I can't remember the source of my information.

[Brian S]

I could be guilty of quoting Scott out of context and I'm not the expert to imply anything wrong with the document, here's the quote I found quite easily, again I'm asking, not implying or making a statement;

<TABLE class=tborder id=post1346475 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal"> 04-03-2006, 08:53 PM <!-- / status icon and date --></TD><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal" align=right> #7 </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>ScottPritchett<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1346475", true); </SCRIPT>
Moderator

ScottPritchett is offline
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hampton, VA
Posts: 2,866

</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_1346475><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #181b16" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I cannot confirm 100% these are original documents. But, I believe they are from what I know of Hube's signature. Such documents are not frequently reproduced at all as far as I know. Documents like this are not especially popular amongst general collectors that I know. But, certain document collectors I know will collect them when available either for the historical information in the documenst themselves or for the signature, and the little knowldege I have of them has been gained largely through such very proficient and advanced collectors.

It is possible - because a telling sign is usually the two punched out holes - that these dosuments were part of the large theft of teh German records that took place a long time ago. The German police still actively track them down, but so many were stolen that they almost exclusively concentrate on the personal records of famous or highly decorated soldier. If so, it is doubtful you would be prosecuted at all, but I know hat here in the USA, the FBI will on occasion require that you give the documents up so they can be returned...a rare occurance but it has happend.

That is all off the subject of your post, but as a document collector myself, I am usually cautious because of this.

Bottom line : I do not think you have to worry about these in any way.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Leroy]

Brian,
You are making a VERY interesting observation! Please let me make this one last reply to Dietrich, then I will shut up and let your thoughts be addressed.
Leroy

Dietrich,

We can "re-hash" this until Hell freezes over, without making a difference.

How do we know S&L never produced a non-magnetic core during the war?
Perhaps they made some, but then decided (unlike Juncker) not to use them and left them in storage (so no "A" seen so far, by you, has one) only to have a very few "slip in" later in the war in error. Perhaps we see so many postwar S&L's with non-magnetic cores because it decided to use up, postwar, the very largely UNUSED wartime pieces still in the storeroom. "Never" is a very dangerous word and there are many scientists and art experts who wished they had not used it. The great majority of RK's produced are uncatalogued and still in private hands and there is still NO clear picture (and never will be so long as every "B" cross which surfaces is immediately and automatically condemned as a "postwar replacement"). Of course, it may be reasonable to say "no 'A' type observed SO FAR has a non-magnetic core" but it is a VERY long jump to go from that to saying "no non-magnetic core was produced during the war by S&L".

Perhaps I am still swayed too much by Bob Hritz's Kitzingen cross. True, it has a non-magnetic core and a "softened" dent row, but why would a vet use it to "salt" a grouping so many years ago in which the only other RK was a genuine Juncker with genuine Godet oakleaves? I am a "believer" and all this tells me (especially because we have NO idea how long it took for the "dent row" to soften or when a particular frame was actually put into use) is that S&L produced "B" type crosses during the war at least long enough for the "dent row" to soften from the appearance it has on 935-4's and 800-4's.
It is convenient to reject the "Kitzingen" cross, but not, IN MY OPINION, appropriate to do so given the circumstances surrounding its acquisition.

Brian - take it away!

[Brian S]

.....

[Dietrich Maerz]

The two ring binder holes don't tip you off to the original repository of these?

Absolutely not! If that would be so, the documents of my father and my grandfathers are also all stolen out of a repository.

This is the normal way (unfortunately) Germans are filing away their documents in a so-called "Leitz-Ordner." There's nothing to it.

[Dietrich Maerz]

It is convenient to reject the "Kitzingen" cross, but not, IN MY OPINION, appropriate to do so given the circumstances surrounding its acquisition.

I'm not rejecting the "Kitzingen" cross - I'm rejecting the veteran's story. I have not the slightest doubt in Bob Hritz's honesty, but HE was not there.

And this is or would not be the first rejected veretran-story and surely it also would not be the first 'salted' group.

All the proven facts are speaking completely against this.

[Leroy]

Brian,
I'm trying to be reasonable here.

If the cross in this grouping is the same one which started this thread, then I join in with everyone else in saying it is NOT RIGHT. I base my OPINION, however, on the beading flaws, not solely on the type of core. Further, if the source on the document is what you believe (and I have no reason at this point to dispute that, at all), then this grouping is put-together. So, making these assumptions, we are in agreement.

As stated earlier, there are indeed very many postwar non-magnetic core S&L RK's and I am as suspicious of those as everyone else. In Detlev's "Copy Archive", most of the S&L crosses he deems "postwar" have non-magnetic cores, so he must be aware of this, too.

Perhaps, as we all mentioned before, Detlev would care to clarify whether this cross is, indeed, the same one which started this thread. If it is not, and in fact has no beading flaws, that will change our information. Next step would be to clarify the history on the document. In the absence of such clarification, then I will stay very much on your side of the fence regarding this cross and this "grouping".

All this being said, it really has no impact on the possible existence of S&L wartime RK's with non-magnetic cores, although I would think they would be few and far between and the result of error, or shortage, or some other mishap we cannot know at this late date.

Again, my personal view of non-magnetic cores is based SOLELY on two factors:
1.) the known use of such cores on early crosses by other manufacturers (which leads, in my mind, to the possibility, however remote, that S&L may have also manufactured such cores) and, much more importantly to me,
2.) Bob Hritz's "Kitzingen" group. The details of this group have already been detailed in a separate thread and I provided a link to that thread earlier in THIS thread, should anyone care to go back and review it.
I am one of those who believe in Bob's group and find its provenance, and the circumstances of its acquisition, EVERY BIT as convincing as that of ANY of the RK's which go unchallenged and which are accepted as "wartime" by Dietrich and many others. If Bob's group is real, then currently espoused theories and opinions simply need to be revised accordingly. Why is that so difficult for some to do? Because it would eliminate the "safety" of a "bright line" test?

Real RK research is still in its infancy and is complicated by the fact that, with every passing day, the original participants are leaving us. I have stated before that the vast bulk of awarded RK's have never been examined, catalogued or documented. Is this statement seriously challenged by anyone?It is well and good to make certain observations about those VERY FEW of the allegedly awarded pieces which have been openly, and more importantly, fairly, reviewed, but to jump to "absolutes" truly is a "bridge too far" and is, in MY OPINION, dangerous, as is the immediate condemnation of any piece, or person, who questions the validity of the conclusions and opinions presented. Dietrich, in his fine book, has said that his are "unproven opinions". I believe that statement is perfectly true and should be kept in mind AT ALL TIMES.

Best,
Leroy

[Brian S]

....

[Van]

Another Kc Being Offered...

Hello again, I sure opend up a can of worms huh...

Well, here is another KC I was offered... I only have a few books that show KC'S, and I have seen a few like this in the books, but not quite 100%... Thanks for any more help, this thread has been quite informative and interesting to say the least... Thanks again for all the help.
Van

[Van]

,,

[Van]

,,,

[Van]

.,,.

[Van]

..,..

[Leroy]

But, hey, maybe we'll learn nothing more. The final book has been written. Yeah, that's it.

I'm hoping someone will, some day, write a book on the RK entitled "The Rest Of The Story......" I'll be first in line to buy a copy! Until then, I think I'll just keep an open mind on very many things.

Dietrich - I understand that you know (as we all do) that Bob Hritz is a totally honest person, and do not question that. Other than the fact that the "Kitzingen Cross" does not fit in with your personal interpretation of what a wartime S&L cross should be like, on what grounds do you reject the veteran's story? Do you know something about this officer veteran that Bob doesn't know? Do you know how he happened to obtain the Juncker cross with Godet Oakleaves (both accepted as 100%) and the other minor items acquired, at the same time as he "allegedly" obtained the S&L cross? You are right that Bob "wasn't there". But the veteran certainly WAS. Please see, once again, Post #17 of the following thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ight=kitzingen

It is, of course, up to you whether or not you choose to believe this "story". Apparently (and you have made this clear), you don't. If the story, however, IS true, then your conclusions are incorrect and nothing will change that.

With no disrespect to you whatsoever, I will personally accept Bob's evaluation of whether or not the veteran was telling the truth. As a former police officer and detective, Bob spent a large part of his life dealing with people who "lied for a living." I think he is the more competent of all of us to recognize a lie when he hears it. Even more so when you also take into consideration his experience in buying from veterans, which is greater than most of us put together.

Regards,
Leroy

P.S. Whoops, Van! Didn't see your post which came while I was typing. Please "re-take" your thread! Souval?

[Dietrich Maerz]

... Of all the awarded RK's, duplicate RK's, our esteemed authors have probably studied a mere tiny sampling. Putting it into the significance of a 24 hour day I doubt none of the esteemed authors have studied more than 15 minutes of the day. (Yes Dietrich I've done the math... Have you studied 166 crosses? That's (15/(24*60))*16,000 crosses (16,000: that's my guess of total RK's including original awarded plus dups).

Brian,

I don't know whether you have my book or not. If you do I kindly ask you to read the relevant chapters again. If you would do so the above posting will be no longer valid.

As you can (or could) gather form the chapter about the distribution and the Präsidialkanzlei the chances that there were 16.000 crosses are slimm. Meaning - of course - 16.000 genuine crosses. And this is - as the reader can testify - based on original paperwork from the PKZ.

Furthermore, as I tried to show, and what you as a reader will also have realized, is that there were only a very limited amount of suppliers. So the whole grey area which you are now trying to expand to every single cross (implying that there is the need to study 16.000 crosses since there could have been a maximum of 16.000 different suplieres) really only exists with the B-Type of S&L. All the others are undisputed.

The argument that people have laughed about the flawed A-Types once and don't do so today doesn't count. From that you cannot deduct that everything you or other people don't like is automatically also wrong since other things were wrong at one time.

So there is a grey area with the B-Types and nothing else do I state. It is my opinion (as I stated several times) and I am 'brave' enough to put that in a publication. However, I do show what I see and I do tell what the reason for my believe is.
The 'critics' always come back - like you now - with the same reasoning: "There must be more", "I just don't believe it".

Thats fine. So sit down and prove it. Do something productive

I'm just stating my opinion to which I'm entitled. I show examples and give the reasons for my opinion. I'm sure you read the relevant sections .... or?

But, hey, maybe we'll learn nothing more. The final book has been written. Yeah, that's it.

I have no idea why you say that since nobody so far found anything even close to that statement in my book. Maybe you read a different book???

But that is hard to believe since I wouldn't think that you would judge a book you haven't even read!