Cased 800 4 Knights Cross grouping!

[Richard]

Richard, my point is surely not to be nasty to you or single you out but to point out that having asked the question for three days, we have ONE S&L attributed in 1945. If I take the date back three months numbers of RKs increases dramatically but the number of attributed S&L does NOT increase, so it seems....

Rather than get all worked up about knee flaws and dent rows, let's do some asking of our sponsor dealers and remind them of their fiduciary responsiblity to this site!

Take it back to October 1, 1944, 2,300 crosses and we have ONE ATTRIBUTED S&L, and conclusions! Good grief...

Brian, I know full well you had no intention of being nasty and it did not come across this way. Sorry if you interpreted my post to insinuate this. I know little to nothing about KCs and cannot contribute anything substantial to the discussion of flaws, die characteristics and the like. I can, hopefully, interject some unbiased observations on why certain ways of thinking may or may not be conclusive in providing evidence of originality or reproduction.

I find the entire discussion of interest and can but hope that somewhere the truth will be found such as was done with the rounder. I really hope this cross is found to be pre May 1945 manufacture. I am not stickler enough and would consider it an original piece if proven produced prior to May 1945, whether or not it was officially rendered to the proper authorities. These crosses are really very nice, unfortunately too, so were many of the rounders.

Personally, I am not a big gambler when it comes to $10k items as I stay away from things that have an incredible downside if proven fake but not too much upside if proven genuine. Many others are.

I hope all can continue to discuss and provide salient information regarding this MM cross without letting emotion get in the way.
Richard V

[Leroy]

There are no criteria for the 935-4 and 800-4 that would fit the criteria for all the other crosses. And nowhere do I say so.

What an extraordinary thing. After two years of this, I am rendered speechless.
I am sure this condition will be appreciated by many..........................

Good night, everyone.

Leroy

[DavidM]

Hello

I have followed this, and several of the previous threads on the subject of the 800/4s with interest. Many thousands of words have been written, and many passionate arguements put forth.

Now, only my opinon, but at the end of the day there still only remains two conclusions about the 800/4 - and that is (1) They were made by S&L (2) That there is, and currently can be no conclusion as to originality or otherwise!! The only fact that can be drawn from this and the other threads debating the 800/4s is that there are two camps, those who believe that these are wartime produced pieces, and those who believe that they were made post war. There is no real evidence to support either contention, and I would suggest that if this were in a court of law, (using the lesser burden of the balance of probability), that judgement would have to be reserved until, or unless some real evidence came forth. So as Dave Kane has asked, produce, if at all possible (which at this juncture I doubt) some proper, genuine evidence to show one way or the other the originality or not of these RKs.

Would this be a fair summation of how matters currently stand?

Kind regards
David

[Bob Hritz]

David,

I think this sums it up better:

US veterans who brought back Juncker, 3/4 ring, Zimmerman Knight's Crosses are truthful.

US veterans who brought back 800 4 Knight's Crosses are liars.

You would have to believe that scenario to follow your logic.

Bob Hritz

[DavidM]

David,

I think this sums it up better:

US veterans who brought back Juncker, 3/4 ring, Zimmerman Knight's Crosses are truthful.

US veterans who brought back 800 4 Knight's Crosses are liars.

You would have to believe that scenario to follow your logic.

Bob Hritz

Hello

Bob, I'm somewhat confused with what you have said. I'm not calling anyone a liar, nor would my logic suggest this. All I said was, in the context of the debate on this forum about the 800/4s, is that there is no real evidence or provenance as to whether they were produced before April 1945 or after. Apologies if my wording has given a wrong impression.

In the context of how I am interpreting your comments, would I be correct in saying that there is other evidence and provenance, aside from vet accounts, to support and demonstrate that the 3/4 ring, Zimmermann and Junckers were in fact awarded during the war period - as there is for the S&L 'A' type - wereas the 800/4 has no provenances or evidence other than the vets accounts? Of course, by logical extension, this would also place the 935/4 into the same basket as the 800/4.

Incidentally, to me this in no way makes any vet a deliberate liar, simply that in the light of other factors, e.g. the dent row, 6-9 O'clock flaw and so forth, the weight of evidence and, or provenance is not quite there yet to make a judgement one way or another.

Kind regards
David

[Brian S]

I'll sum it up for you David, they were ALL made by S&L, they are ALL original. There is confusion as to date of minting not made more clear by the owners of A Types who have realized a sudden windfall in value thanks to the confusion posted in all these threads. A Type owners have only one motive at this point, keep the controversy a controversy, keep them as potentially postwar strikes. But, they are ALL S&L crosses. The A Typers will continue to tell you they are postwar, that's a fact.

[Darrell]

I'll sum it up for you David, they were ALL made by S&L, they are ALL original. There is confusion as to date of minting not made more clear by the owners of A Types who have realized a sudden windfall in value thanks to the confusion posted in all these threads. A Type owners have only one motive at this point, keep the controversy a controversy, keep them as potentially postwar strikes. But, they are ALL S&L crosses. The A Typers will continue to tell you they are postwar, that's a fact.

Brian, I swear you used that same paragraph when the Rounder was being defended ....

[Dietrich Maerz]

A Type owners have only one motive at this point, keep the controversy a controversy, keep them as potentially postwar strikes. But, they are ALL S&L crosses. The A Typers will continue to tell you they are postwar, that's a fact.

I am speechless!

[Brian S]

Fine...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

rant on! Thats what you do best!

I am speechless about your assertion that the bad, bad A-Type mafia is behind all this. I was under the impression it is a good thing when one can say for sure whether a cross is pre May 45 or not (which is now possible with the A-Type identification). But that this controversy is now a conspiracy by A-type owners to receive a huge windfall? You have truly reached new heights!

Of course books can be proven wrong! The best case is your B-Type in Gordon's book, praised as a standard 800 wartime cross. Both of you didn't know at that time and it certainly does not take away from the overall importance and quality of his book! But that caption is clearly wrong!

The only thing with you and my book is this: you have not read it, you have not seen it, you even refused it as a loan from me, you openly stated here that you don't want to have it, ... ... but you dont shy back to comment on what I - in your mind - stated, wrote, concluded or whatever else did in that very book.

I find this utter nonsense and even Pythonesque!

[Darrell]

.......Intellectual discussion is impossible when you allow cheap shots and take questions personally. What I see is people defending personal windfalls and discrediting others whenever possible as an immature means to an end. ...

You say "Intellectual discussion" after typing that paragraph above??? What do you expect? There are statements that offer thought provoking discussion .. and others that border on lunacy. You just wrote the coverpage for the latter

[Brian S]

Take it back to October 1, 1944, 2,300 crosses and we have ONE ATTRIBUTED S&L, and conclusions! Good grief...

I've pointed this out and only get absurd comments from you Dietrich. No I do NOT think we need to know every one of the 2,300 crosses and what type they were. But there is a little thing called statistical significance and 2 out of 2,300 is not a population to draw conclusions from.

I've pointed this out and urged the dealers to whom members here keep in riches to give something back. That's all I've asked for.

I don't see why you, Dietrich, allow Dave Kane and Darrell to attack me personally about the Rounder issue unless you feel threatened by the question, which I think is absurd. But if you believe 2 out of 2,300 is statistically significant, we have no discussion...

[Brian S]

Brian,

rant on! Thats what you do best!

I am speechless about your assertion that the bad, bad A-Type mafia is behind all this. I was under the impression it is a good thing when one can say for sure whether a cross is pre May 45 or not (which is now possible with the A-Type identification). But that this controversy is now a conspiracy by A-type owners to receive a huge windfall? You have truly reached new heights!

Conspiracy? I never said nor implied that. But the attacks are getting personal by Dave and Darrell. Isn't that how threads are shut down? They know this... That's the motive to start a fight, ask the questions, raise the issue, then attack, make it personal. It's not a conspriacy it's poor behavior.



Of course books can be proven wrong! The best case is your B-Type in Gordon's book, praised as a standard 800 wartime cross. Both of you didn't know at that time and it certainly does not take away from the overall importance and quality of his book! But that caption is clearly wrong!

You continue to try to make this about me and my cross? Are you so jaded by people here with selfish interests that you can't accept a question as intellectual? If I own one I am not entitled to ask questions? I am disqualified? Only A Type owners can make meaningfull posts and personally attack? That's nice...


The only thing with you and my book is this: you have not read it, you have not seen it, you even refused it as a loan from me, you openly stated here that you don't want to have it, ... ... but you dont shy back to comment on what I - in your mind - stated, wrote, concluded or whatever else did in that very book.

Again, why do you keep bringing up your book? I am not criticizing your book mentioning your book referring to your book... That is nonsense. Where in any of these posts of mine have I referred to your book Dietrich?

I find this utter nonsense and even Pythonesque!

Yes, I understand that asking questions not answered by your book is nonsense to you. That you have made quite clear. Any questions are attacks on you... yeah...

Again, you do your thing best to try to turn my comments into what they are not.

I said simply the A Type owners have realized a windfall. This is a fact. And I see Dave Kane and Darrell taking personal shots at me for asking questions. That is a fact.

2 crosses out of 2,300...

[Brian S]

Of course books can be proven wrong! The best case is your B-Type in Gordon's book, praised as a standard 800 wartime cross. Both of you didn't know at that time and it certainly does not take away from the overall importance and quality of his book! But that caption is clearly wrong!

You do NOT know if it's postwar... You can have your opinion Dietrich, 2 out of 2,300 entitles you to that.

[Dietrich Maerz]

OK, I made a HUGE mistake to jump into this thread again just because I thought (wrongly I guess) that in the spirit of a good discussion this should not left uncommented:

I'll sum it up for you David, they were ALL made by S&L, they are ALL original. There is confusion as to date of minting not made more clear by the owners of A Types who have realized a sudden windfall in value thanks to the confusion posted in all these threads. A Type owners have only one motive at this point, keep the controversy a controversy, keep them as potentially postwar strikes. But, they are ALL S&L crosses. The A Typers will continue to tell you they are postwar, that's a fact.

I should not have done this.

Here is my position:

I do not know whether the 935-4 and the 800-4 are pre- or post May 1945. But based on what I fund (from people and by personal investigating) I believe (unproven) that the 935-4 is the last pre-45 model and the everything else is post war. That might be completely wrong.

And that really is it for me unless somebody comes up with something really substantial and also something that fits all the other positive and negative evidence.