Cased 800 4 Knights Cross grouping!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Bowen, in his early work, listed cross markings for awards supposedly held by German vets as their original awards, and included both 935-4 and 800-4.

In addition he also lists:

935, 835 - 4, 800 - 1, 800 - 5, 800 - 05 (on loop), HMA L/12, 900.

As good and as valuable the "Bowen" is, the only thing one can deduct from his tables is that he encountered such types with German veterans.

Dietrich

[VIPER]

The flaws again

At the risk of restarting an old argument, I believe there has never been a satisfactory explanation for the appearance and growth of the 6/9 knee flaw. From this on an 800/4:

[VIPER]

To this on 935/4:

[VIPER]

And on this post war:......An obvious progression.......Best Jimmy

[Leroy]

In addition he also lists:

935, 835 - 4, 800 - 1, 800 - 5, 800 - 05 (on loop), HMA L/12, 900.


As good and as valuable the "Bowen" is, the only thing one can deduct from his tables is that he encountered such types with German veterans.

Dietrich

Exactly, Dietrich! Which once again shows that the RK's in the possession of German vets and said to be their award pieces include known postwar copies, demonstrating the loss of the original. Although this certainly leaves open the possibility that the "B" types listed were also postwar acquisitions, it further pushes us to the idea that a U.S. vet acquired cross may actually be safer.
Best,
Leroy

[Leroy]

Jimmy,
You are right that this has never been satisfactorily explained. The "dent row" on an 800-4 is less distinct than the 935-4 but so is its 6-9 flaw, and this is observed repeatedly, with no evidence of filing or other alteration.
Leroy

[Leroy]

The 6-9 area on the cross which started this thread. An exact match to other 800-4's. A flaw which only covers 1 bead.

[VIPER]

Jimmy,
You are right that this has never been satisfactorily explained. The "dent row" on an 800-4 is less distinct than the 935-4 but so is its 6-9 flaw, and this is observed repeatedly, with no evidence of filing or other alteration.
Leroy

Yes Leroy one can arque which is more distinct as far as the "dent row". In some cases people have picked the 800/4 as more distinct, so perception may play a role there but there is no question of perception involved in interpreting the 6/9 knee flaw. It either covers more surface area of the underlying bead/beads thereby progressing or it does not.........Jimmy

[Sal Williams]

"I made no attack. I also have no agenda, how could I? I don't own one. I posted a link in Roberts thread stating that the buyer was probably aware of the debate. But in case he wasn't considering the estand is trusted and no reference was made to the 800/4's contraversial status I thought it only fair. Robert should have done that himself."

Sal, you need to back off there, cowboy. I'm a big boy and don't need you advising me on how I should or shouldn't sell anything - you're not the "fairness and good trade policy police". This cross wouldn't be sold to anyone without me bringing this discussion - which is moving into a catfight - to their attention, if for whatever reason they weren't aware of it. That's between me and the potential buyers, of which there are a number, and done in PM.

Leroy made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion of what my be an interesting way to see who acted in favor or the 800/4 KCs, and was roundly attacked for it. It was a light hearted comment addressing a what-if, not an effort to tilt the scales in favor of his viewpoint. s/f Robert

I don't need to back off one bit. I wasn't advising you. I posted a link that was relevant and you should have no problem with it. That is how things work here. Every potential buyer has the right to all the information and it is fine if you provide that to them privately but every member seeing that sale has the right to know the information as well, not just see it sold and think that makes it a 100% accepted genuine piece. Where exactly do you have a problem with me mentioning that and posting a link in your thread if this is the same info you are privately disclosing?

[VIPER]

The 6-9 area on the cross which started this thread. An exact match to other 800-4's. A flaw which only covers 1 bead.

Looking at that it is hard to believe that the 800/4 did not precede or at least be a simultaneous production run with the 935/4..........J

[RobertE]

Sal, because it's not useful in this case. The buyer, by virtue of the fact he is a member here, reads the relevant posts just like we all do - would you not read up on a forum you belong to prior to making a 9k purchase?

The forum rules encourage members to put items up for discussion that need to be further examined. That's the only reference to postings from other curious parties. This item was already under discussion - it did not need to be initiated.

In short, I think it adds nothing. The fact you do is fine. Nothing in the forum discussion changed my mind about the medal in the least, nor did it sway the buyer or back-up buyers. If anyone buying a medal like mine is not aware of the collecting community opinions - in both camps - they should be collecting something other than Knights Crosses.

s/f Robert

[Bill W.]

Looking at that it is hard to believe that the 800/4 did not precede or at least be a simultaneous production run with the 935/4..........J

What is that statment based on? I thought that the dent row was less distinct on a 800 4 cross and the knee flaw was a wash. How does that make a 800 4 earlier than a 935 4?

[Leroy]

Robert,
Congratulations on the sale! That has to be the one of the nicest 800-4's ever seen.
Leroy

[Richard]

Well, someone got a very fine Knight's Cross for a good price. I posted a type A Steinhauer Micro 800, for sale, in the hopes of buying Robert's 800 4 Steinhauer, but the 800 4 sold and the Type A Micro 800 did not.

I believe that speaks volumes for the 800 4 Knight's Cross.

Bob Hritz

Bob, if I am correct you listed yours for $1000 more and it was worn and uncased. It wouldn't be the first time someone with no knowledge but lots of cash bought something thinking they were getting a bargain in comparison to a similar item listed in worse shape and without a case. Lots of people have more money than brains and ebay is the living proof of that. I've seen people spend thousands on utter crap (and I'm not saying the cross in question is utter crap as it is a nice looking cross and does stand a good chance of being genuine) that was sheer fantasy or obviously reproduced. So I don't think the fact that it sold is any indication of originality, but rather an indication that someone was willing to buy an item at a listed price on a site that many in the internet community think is one of the safest from which to buy.
Richard V

[Leroy]

What is that statment based on? I thought that the dent row was less distinct on a 800 4 cross and the knee flaw was a wash. How does that make a 800 4 earlier than a 935 4?

Bill,
Not having had the chance to examine a 935-4 under a microscope (except through Dietrich's work), it may very well be that all the the 935-4's which he has examined, compared to all the 800-4's he has examined, do have a marginally more distinct dent row. I have no reason to doubt that whatsoever. What does offer some concern is that only a very few crosses have been examined, as Dietrich will confirm. Because the 6-9 flaw on the 800-4's observed is NOT as developed as on the 935-4's observed (or as developed as on ALL known postwar crosses observed), there must be considered the possibilities that either the 800-4 preceded the 935-4 (and the dent row is slightly softer for some not yet understood reason) or the two types were produced in alternating sequences (which means some 935-4's, not yet fully examined, may also demonstrate an "under-developed" 6-9 flaw), or that some 800-4's, not yet observed, have both the smaller 6-9 flaw and a dent row as distinct, or even more distinct, as that found on the 935-4 or, even, that an 800-4 may someday be found with the fully dveloped flaw (none has yet), which will firmly put us back to alternating production. The problem we have is that these crosses are simply difficult to find and not enough have yet been observed to make definitive statements.
Leroy