Cased 800 4 Knights Cross grouping!

[Brian S]

Why does that maker mark and the time bother you? Is it heavy or light? My apologies in any deviation from the S&L thread. It is interesting to sit back and watch nothing accomplished after several hundred threads. I would suspect that if someone really wanted to know about those S&L 800 4 crosses, they would find out the information that they seek. If they don't want to know, they won't.

It's a PKZ mark to July 1943.

If really a set to this date, why couldn't S&L have a 4 marked cross to 1943?


Maybe it's time to lower the bar here and ask the question again?

So far, 2 for 2,300. Two S&L crosses attributed to awardees from the last 2,300 cross awarded.

Lower the bar...

3,067 awarded crosses backwards from May 1945 to July 1, 1944. Certainly many of those were S&L. How many we have in population attributed and known S&L crosses?

[VIPER]

It's a PKZ mark to July 1943.

If really a set to this date, why couldn't S&L have a 4 marked cross to 1943?

I figure some of that 2298 figure that Dietrich cant account for for you might hold 1 or 2

[Brian S]

<span style="color:#6AFB92; font-size:xx-large; font-family:fantasy; font-weight:bold;">
<MARQUEE behavior=alternate width="80%" bgColor=#ffffcc> 3,067 awarded crosses backwards from May 1945 to July 1, 1944 </MARQUEE>

[MH184]

It actually does not bother me. It is just that PZK numbers have all ways been precieved as being issued much later in 1944.......Regards Jimmy

Consider this though:

The early 'heavy' RK KVK, that's marked with a '1'.

Also, there are EK 2's, Ost medals, woundbadges and all insundry of other awards that have PZK numbers and for one reason or another prescribe to earlier manufacture rather than later.

Kr


Marcus

[Brian S]

Consider this though:

The early 'heavy' RK KVK, that's marked with a '1'.

Also, there are EK 2's, Ost medals, woundbadges and all insundry of other awards that have PZK numbers and for one reason or another prescribe to earlier manufacture rather than later.

Kr


Marcus

But didn't S&L only make RKs, so that wouldn't count.

Better say I'm kidding or 20 posts will follow. Yes Marcus, and so why wouldn't S&L have marked their RKs just as surely with a 4 "early".

[Bill W.]

It's a PKZ mark to July 1943.

If really a set to this date, why couldn't S&L have a 4 marked cross to 1943?


Maybe it's time to lower the bar here and ask the question again?

So far, 2 for 2,300. Two S&L crosses attributed to awardees from the last 2,300 cross awarded.

Lower the bar...

3,067 awarded crosses backwards from May 1945 to July 1, 1944. Certainly many of those were S&L. How many we have in population attributed and known S&L crosses?

It think lowering the bar would be a great idea if we wanted to accept post war awards into our collections as wartime pieces. That would be a great idea for those that own questionable crosses and really want them to be wartime. If we are interested in the truth, that may not be the best of ideas, as otherwise, questionable awards, like the dotted DKiGs, would be "voted in" by appeal, rather than fact, just like this instance.

Why is the idea of a "20" marked DkiG not so outrageous? Because there are no unmarked zimmerman DKiGs. Unmarked Deschlers, Godets, Junckers are early awards. The earliest Zimmermans are L/52s and heavy 20 marked awards, which probably came around the same time that "21" marked Godets, "2" marked junckers, and "1" marked deschlers came around. A light "20 marked zimmerman around this time would be questionable. A heavy marked "20" cross around this time would be expected. Where are the early PK marked RKs? There aren't any. It seems as though the marked DKiGs may have preceded marked RKs.

If you really want to know if a cross is wartime or not, why not just drag up those guys that figured out the rounder RK so quickly after you guys argued this out in a similar way for a few years (with no answers- just like here). They figured it out in a few months. The same guys that are arguing here for the 800 4 cross argued for the Rounder RK. Your arguments proved wrong then, yet you nearly convinced people that they were real by pressure and popular vote. Same deal here. Either they are good or not. Why don't the people that think the 800 4 crosses are good just spend some money and time and find out if they are good or not? It seems as though a little testing helped before and would not be that hard. They did it, and you probably could also, if you really wanted to know (probably you do not). I passively observed that fight, but after you found out the truth, you crucified a couple of guys that handed you the facts on a platter. Maybe the same guys don't want to give you the facts again and maybe the people who think these 800 4 crosses are wartime should prove it, or shut up. If you don't have the facts, maybe the facts are that they aren't wartime. Put up or shut up. I personally consider these to be garbage, just like Rounders, until shown otherwise. I have better ways to spend $8- 10 K on a post war cross compared to a real proven RK. Why not just buy a real proven wartime cross? The 800 4 is for high risk people, who believe, but cannot prove, that a cross is wartime. That should and does command a lower purhcase price. Let's see some evidence for these crosses. If there is none, then they are post war or bad crosses. If there is some evidence, let's see it. The arguing is just laughable, just like it was with your endless Rounder RK debates. Same play- Act 2.

[Dave Kane]

It think lowering the bar would be a great idea if we wanted to accept post war awards into our collections as wartime pieces. That would be a great idea for those that own questionable crosses and really want them to be wartime. If we are interested in the truth, that may not be the best of ideas, as otherwise, questionable awards, like the dotted DKiGs, would be "voted in" by appeal, rather than fact, just like this instance.

Why is the idea of a "20" marked DkiG not so outrageous? Because there are no unmarked zimmerman DKiGs. Unmarked Deschlers, Godets, Junckers are early awards. The earliest Zimmermans are L/52s and heavy 20 marked awards, which probably came around the same time that "21" marked Godets, "2" marked junckers, and "1" marked deschlers came around. A light "20 marked zimmerman around this time would be questionable. A heavy marked "20" cross around this time would be expected. Where are the early PK marked RKs? There aren't any. It seems as though the marked DKiGs may have preceded marked RKs.

If you really want to know if a cross is wartime or not, why not just drag up those guys that figured out the rounder RK so quickly after you guys argued this out in a similar way for a few years (with no answers- just like here). They figured it out in a few months. The same guys that are arguing here for the 800 4 cross argued for the Rounder RK. Your arguments proved wrong then, yet you nearly convinced people that they were real by pressure and popular vote. Same deal here. Either they are good or not. Why don't the people that think the 800 4 crosses are good just spend some money and time and find out if they are good or not? It seems as though a little testing helped before and would not be that hard. They did it, and you probably could also, if you really wanted to know (probably you do not). I passively observed that fight, but after you found out the truth, you crucified a couple of guys that handed you the facts on a platter. Maybe the same guys don't want to give you the facts again and maybe the people who think these 800 4 crosses are wartime should prove it, or shut up. If you don't have the facts, maybe the facts are that they aren't wartime. Put up or shut up. I personally consider these to be garbage, just like Rounders, until shown otherwise. I have better ways to spend $8- 10 K on a post war cross compared to a real proven RK. Why not just buy a real proven wartime cross? The 800 4 is for high risk people, who believe, but cannot prove, that a cross is wartime. That should and does command a lower purhcase price.

JeeeezUs Bill, don't hold back!!

I agree 100% and would ask folks like Jimmy to post facts and not be so frenetic!

The PZK really is the PKZ while preception might better be perception...said in fun but with the caviot of let's get some facts in line, stop posting for the sake of it and for heaven's sake stop EDITING, EDITS and therafter EDITING.

Facts, clear views and no STORIES may go a long way to clear this issue up!

[Sal Williams]

Sal, I'm so lucky to be able to exchange posts with someone as obviously gifted as you. So YOU know which B types were not minted by S&L on their die? Please share. Many of us just don't have that info and we'd love to hear from you. Because if you read my post it said they were minted by S&L, I unlike "most eveyone" don't have the empirical data to place a timeline on them. So do tell...

You have a real nerve. You are the one saying "nice original cross" to unproven crosses. You say that crapola all the time. You can not seem to concentrate long enough to get your story straight and for the desperate desire for your cross to be real you are willing to confuse and confound the issue for everyone. Then you come up with conspiracy theories of a type owners etc. Get a grip!! You continually go off the handle and deep end. You then turn around and accuse everyone of doing and saying things that in fact YOU do and say. It really gets tiring. There is no learning when you are around. Grow up.

[Leroy]

If you really want to know if a cross is wartime or not, why not just drag up those guys that figured out the rounder RK so quickly after you guys argued this out in a similar way for a few years (with no answers- just like here). They figured it out in a few months. The same guys that are arguing here for the 800 4 cross argued for the Rounder RK. Your arguments proved wrong then, yet you nearly convinced people that they were real by pressure and popular vote. Same deal here. Either they are good or not. Why don't the people that think the 800 4 crosses are good just spend some money and time and find out if they are good or not? It seems as though a little testing helped before and would not be that hard. They did it, and you probably could also, if you really wanted to know (probably you do not). I passively observed that fight, but after you found out the truth, you crucified a couple of guys that handed you the facts on a platter. Maybe the same guys don't want to give you the facts again and maybe the people who think these 800 4 crosses are wartime should prove it, or shut up. If you don't have the facts, maybe the facts are that they aren't wartime. Put up or shut up. I personally consider these to be garbage, just like Rounders, until shown otherwise. I have better ways to spend $8- 10 K on a post war cross compared to a real proven RK. Why not just buy a real proven wartime cross? The 800 4 is for high risk people, who believe, but cannot prove, that a cross is wartime. That should and does command a lower purhcase price. Let's see some evidence for these crosses. If there is none, then they are post war or bad crosses. If there is some evidence, let's see it. The arguing is just laughable, just like it was with your endless Rounder RK debates. Same play- Act 2.

Bill,
I suggest you go back and review all the old posts on the Rounder (those that haven't been edited) and see just who was defending it. You might be surprised who was and who wasn't. The fact is that many of the prime detractors today of the 800-4 were the prime defenders of the Rounder. There is still lingering anger and embarassment from that experience and that is reflected here now. I was not a member here then, so you won't find me at all. I saw the Rounder when it first appeared (30 YEARS after I got my 800-4). I never liked it, never bought it and never defended it.
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

The only detractor of the 800-4 who once defended the Rounder who I can see in this thread is me. And I am surely not embarrassed about it since I always stated that I believe but don't know and - furthermore - I tried everything to find out the truth. Together with Tom Hansen, Allan Pilch it finally happened and I could and can work away with a clean conscience. I even got my money back from Steve Wolf!

Not like others who made up stories and gave out COAs which they had to cover up later...

There is a big difference between "insisting on something unproven" or believing but also trying to find out". No matter what happens, I will walk away from this one without embarrassment also - since I am not pretending to know or making up stories. I'm just reporting.

And as a side not:

- there are no edited "Rounder" threads - please point me to the ones you think are edited.
- posting the same unproven cross every second day does not make it real, it only uses up space ...

I figure some of that 2298 figure that Dietrich cant account for for you might hold 1 or 2

I am not accountable for any RKs to anybody. The next time such nonsense will be posted (I certainly can see the deeper meaning behind it) a longer time out is in order. And I don' care about the outcry.

[Leroy]

- posting the same unproven cross every second day does not make it real, it only uses up space ...

The only duplicative posting of the "unproven" 800-4's I see is posting to show the 6-9 flaw differences AGAIN, since everyone seems to want something tangible by which to compare the 800-4 and 935-4 and there has been no technical explanation for this "phenomenon", so far, which successfully explains its continuous exclusivity to the 800-4 (except for the possibility that the production sequence for the two crosses is either reversed or intermingled). So, those same photos will continue to be shown, I suppose, until someone figures this out definitively and beyond question.

Saying that a "timeline" is correct, without considering vet provenance from those who believe the timeline cut-off is too early, for the reason that THE PROVENANCE IS MADE IMPOSSIBLE BY THE TIME-LINE(!), is insane. Perhaps we are all Capt. Yossarian in "Catch-22".

Maybe Detlev's book will explain everything, including why West Point's three Knight's Crosses are all neusilber, non-ferrous core Type B's. Who knows?

Don't want to use up any more of your "space", so this is my last post.

Happy hunting!
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe Detlev's book will explain everything, including why West Point's three Knight's Crosses are all neusilber, non-ferrous core Type B's. Who knows?

I personally had the pleasure to handle the Knights Crosses at West Point and - lucky me - there were two members of this forum with me and can witness that those crosses are for sure post war. We didn't even make pictures, they were that bad! And yes, they were S&L B-types. However , I do not know whether they still had some more unmagnetic, Neusilber B-Types hidden away - maybe with perfect provenance also!

Dietrich

PS: ... and I did not mean you with the picture posting.....
PPS: maybe it is good to stop here till new things come out. Maybe Niemann even gives the names and solid provenance of the lucky June 44 recipients in his new price guide!
PPPS: it is not my space ...

[Harry]

For what it is worth, here is what the knee flaw looks like on my cross........

and here is the maker markings.......

[Leroy]

Immediately breaking my own vow, but I couldn't resist having the chance to use my 1000th post to congratulate Harry on this nice cross!

As I guessed in post 328 , this turned out to be a 935-4 with a small flaw on one side and a larger flaw on the other. For the 935-4, the larger flaw invariably appears on at least one side of the cross on all crosses so far observed. On the 800-4, at least so far on all crosses observed, this is not the case.

Beautiful cross, Harry!

Retired again,
Leroy

[VIPER]

If you meant me, the picture posts were to clairify for some new or members unfamiliar with the details of the 6/9 knee flaw who had emailed wanting additional info. I felt it in the interest of bringing new members up too speed concerning the importance of this flaw.