Cased 800 4 Knights Cross grouping!

[Sal Williams]

In the absence of contemporary photographic proof, there is not a single vet-acquired piece which could not be explained away as a postwar acquisition. This stands true for both American AND German vets, although I have a suspicion that there is a lot more of this circumstance with German vets, who generally lost many things through the surrender (and looting) process.

Every collector has to look to the entiretry of the circumstances and then make a judgment call.

In the case of the 800-4 RK, I made (as did Bob Hritz and many other "older" collectors, who dealt with vets constantly, long before there was a huge TR collecting mania) that call quite some time ago. 800-4 RK's are, in our collective judgment, original wartime production pieces by S&L. When someone says "show me just one awarded piece!", I have to laugh. It is so ludicrous.

The particular cross which began this thread, by itself, "proves" nothing. Robert has established, to his satisfaction, that the vet who had it supposedly obtained it (and the other, obviously original, items with it) while serving in an Army unit which happened to pass through Ludenschied before the war ended. He returned home in 1945. Does this mean he couldn't have picked it up later? No. But what are the odds?

What if a German vet surfaced tomorrow with an 800-4 RK he claimed was awarded to him in December, 1944? How on earth, except by the acceptance of verbal statements, would you ever "prove" that this was his awarded RK and not some replacement he acquired in 1951?

Think about it.

Leroy, I think the odds are quite good that it was picked up later considering the vet had interest in medals. I am not saying it happened but I think it is just as absurd to say that it is more likely original due to the circumstances of the find. I think your belief in these makes you view 800 4s in a completely biased way. Bob believes in these but refrains from offering anecdotal evidence as "proof". His much more reasonable approach leaves room for truth to come out. I have a hard time with most provenance anyhow, but combined with measurable qualities such as flaws and MANY vet provenances to the same place (ie Kleissheim) that makes a better place to start. I am not even saying a vet is trying to be deceptive. It was a long time ago!!! Just go to a family gathering and tell stories of the past. Things you were there for. Then see the amazing differences each family member recalls. That has no money involved even. These crosses could be good and there seems to be a little circumstancial evidence to that effect. But definitly not enough to go stomping around proclaiming these original. I get weary of the way you believers (excluding Bob) go about discerning the originality of these. The arguments you use in their favor are often open to interpretation in the opposite way you intend them, and you don't use the same criteria for arguments that DON'T support your theories. Also often you cite "evidence" in their favor that contradicts other "evidence" you also use in their favor. I think a more balanced method would get better results. If one goes about proving the originality of an item, and that is the only result sought the truth only has a 50-50 chance.

Best, Sal

[Leroy]

Sal,

Thank you for your comments, with which I (respectfully) disagree.

The discussions regarding 800-4 crosses have now been going on for quite some time on this Forum. At times, they have been quite complex and convoluted, not to mention argumentative. I cannot "re-cap" them here with any hope of success. I believe that it is exceedingly difficult for a person who has not actually and actively participated in them to put things in their real context and it is unfair to expect those who read our comments in THIS single thread to understand the background and spirit in which they were, and are now, being made.

I do not know when or how the vet who brought back Robert's cross obtained it. All I know, from the information provided by Robert, is that he arrived in Europe in 1944, left in 1945, and allegedly brought this cross and other items with him when he returned. From Robert's information, the vet's unit went through Ludenschied, home of S&L. From my OWN observation, the cross is a beautiful cased and unworn example of an 800-4 RK made by S&L. I do not KNOW when S&L made the cross or when or where the vet got it. To me, it is a coincidence worth noting that, in April, 1945, he passed through Ludenschied and that, now, his estate has auctioned a mint S&L cross of a type thought by many to be the last of S&L wartime production, and acknowledged, even by its detractors, to be so physically close to the 935-4 cross (which Dietrich has included in his book as a wartime cross, IN HIS OPINION) as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. This is the second time on this Forum that such a cross has come from a vet whose unit passed through Ludenschied, although we do not know if that vet got his there. In another acquisition of SEVERAL 800-4's (although we don't know if the vet was in Ludenschied) the vet made the comment that "he could have taken as many as he wanted". Because the only known large repository of decorations was Klessheim, the source could have been, logically, only Klessheim or the S&L factory in Ludenschied.

All this is interesting, and cumulatively MAY have significance. It is not final proof of anything. I will remind you that there is no inventory of what went to Klessheim or what was found there, nor has anyone stepped forward to verify the details of any find at Klessheim of the 935-4 version cross. Some of the U.S. units which passed through Ludenschied also spent time in very close proximity to Klessheim.

I AM biased in favor of the 800-4 and have admitted it many times. There are several reasons for that, first among them being that my 800-4 was a gift to me, in the late 1950's, from a vet who lived on my street. To my knowledge, he, too, returned home in 1945 and was not an "occupation" soldier. He said he took it from a German soldier. I don't KNOW that he was telling the truth and, back then, had no idea we would be talking about these things today. My cross is not, has not and will not be for sale (at least until I am dead or on the precipice), so I have NO financial interest in these discussions. Because of this source, it distresses me when the 800-4 is lumped into the category of a "Rounder" or any other fake made in the last decade to fool collectors. Of course, I have other reasons, as well, to support 800-4's, those being quality of construction (which has NEVER been duplicated on crosses known to have been made by S&L postwar), discussions with longtime, serious collectors, and the opinions of some dealers, including Steve Wolfe and Detlev Niemann. I have known Steve for a very long time. I do not know Detlev, except by reputation. Of course, none of this PROVES anything. You say you distrust most provenance...well, so do I, because in this hobby it pays to be cynical. However, when I see the demand made to produce some fact which will PROVE these real, I shake my head. I HOPE a document is found, although I think that is highly unlikely. I HOPE some scientific test will emerge, but I am not familiar with one which will tell me the actual day an object was created. I HOPE a German or American vet will surface with some sort of undeniable proof of when and where they obtained an 800-4, but I don't know how they could do this, as anything they say is ....just a story. Please tell me how YOU would go about proving these to be genuine. I would truly like to know.



I am truly sorry you find my comments to be contradictory. Anyone who posts here is "fair game" and this includes me! I would ask only that you take a few days and read (or re-read) every post made in ALL these discussions. Re-read, too, Dietrich's book (which I have personally urged , on every possible occasion, everyone to add to their library) in the context of these discussions. I believe you will find that contradiction (and bias)(and sarcasm) lie far more on the side of others than on my side.

Best wishes,
Leroy

[Bob Hritz]

Sal,

My belief, in the originality of the 800 4 crosses, lies only with over 40 years of actively seeking medals and badges from US veteran sources. I have no provable evidence other than the one 800 4 cross I got that the veteran sold to a competetor, that I had missed. Other than the common medals and badges, pins, armband and miscellany, the vet was more interested in firearms. Living in Chicago, it is illegal to purchase or possess any firearms so I could not make an offer on the group. When Bill Mohr bought the group, he called me because the vet told him I offered $1000 for the cross and $300 for the other militaria. Bill sold me the group of militaria and kept the firearms.

Now, I do not have any recollection of the vet's history, as there was little care to document unawarded items, back then. I wish I had the hindsight to have kept better records.

Prior to Dietrich's monumental and fine work on the Knight's Cross, there was no debate on the 800 4 crosses, of which I was ever aware. They were considered original by those who had studied and collected Knight's Crosses. It was only after Dietrich had made a scientific study of the various die markings and flaws, that a timeline could be considered. This is the crux of the enigma-the time line. There will be further study (and I know I still work with Dietrich to send him every type of wartime and post-war Steinhauer cross I can find) and ultimately track the clear and scientifically proven time line.

Furthermore, I believe them to be original because of the scarcity of this particular model (800 4) and the lack of examples, even in many advanced collections. They simply are hard to find. Every other type of Steinhauer cross, that has been determined to be post-war is very easy to find. I find it improbable that Steinhauer made a run of post-war crosses, carefully marking them with the correct LDO number and finely finishing and frosting them, providing original late war cases and official ribbons, only to sell to souvenir hungry occupation troops. Those which I believe were made for the sales to the occupierrs were certainly sub standard in fit and finish, ie; the plain 935 marked pieces. This is not scientific evidence, but the type of anecdotaql evidence that leads one toward a conclusion, but does not make proof.

The good news is that we are all on the same side. The final judgement is yet to come (I have heard that from my Priest, also) and those of us who care will be doing our best to bring forth the evidence, anecdotal, circumstancial, and scientific, until a provable conclusion is found.

Oh, I would trade a nice combat worn micro 800 Steinhauer Knight's Cross for a mint 800 4 any day. I personally find them to be stunning and one of the most beautiful crosses of the period.

Bob hritz

[VIPER]

I too stand with Leroy and Bob on this issue. The contradictions, even of material that in published form stressing the importance of the very flaws Sal has mentioned, is all of a sudden minimised when it no longer supports the conclusions. Evidence ounce touted as essential to the establishment of a timeline is now ignored when it can now be used to support an alternative series of events with at least an equal probability of having occured. I am speaking now of the 6/9 knee flaw as well as the dent row on the 3 oclock arm. That flaw is a progressive flaw that gets larger as the die is used. On the 800/4s I have observed and the ONLY 935/4 which Dave Kane was able to find, the only thing that can be shown is that the 935/4 and 800/4 were made at the same time in the life of the die. Unless there was a second die. I think we have got about as much information out of the frames as we can. It would appear to be time to look at the other major component parts particularily the cores and paint on the cores to see what we can learn. Maybe if we study the known wartime cores and the known post war cores with the same tenacity we can figure what goes in between and where that all important May 8 1945 cut off point should be placed..............Regards Jimmy

[Brian S]

Dietrich, you have documentary evidence directly from the PKZ that shows imports of crosses from S&L and the marks on the crosses? You are saying the PKZ did not receive certain crosses so I'm wondering how you know that with such conviction. Based on the PKZ documents, what was the last cross S&L sent to the PKZ, how marked?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,
I don't have such documents. The only things that the whole B-Type time line is based on are:

- the dent row (which is weaker on all the 800-4 than on the 935-4's I could observe)
- several finds in Klessheim of 935-4 but no 800-4 (and other even later B-Types and also no K&Q, but Lazy 2s.)

I know that this is not enough for you and a lot of other B-Type owners (and I don't mean it bad). You can grill me, you can insult me, you can call me names, you can send me inflammatory e-mails once a week - it will not change those facts.

I think Bob and Leroy summed it up very nicely.

Dietrich

[Leroy]

I hope the search for information never stops. Certainly, Klessheim cannot be considered as the definitive or final word on which RK's were or were not made/awarded during the war and I know Dietrich does not consider it as such. Just, by example, look at the numerous original photos of K&Q RK's (thankfully, a cross with features fairly readily identifiable in photos) actually being worn(many by later-war recipients)...yet none have been traceable to Klessheim.
Leroy

P.S. I would like also to strongly support Bob's comment that 800-4 crosses are very difficult to find. Although discussed with frequency, I believe that I have only seen SIX individual crosses (including the one shown by Robert in this thread) actually ever shown on this Forum. Of the six, two were uncased and exhibited some age and wear and the rest were mint, cased examples. As Bob also mentioned, the cases were 100% real, as were the ribbons.

[Leroy]

Do any other members have 800-4 crosses they would be willing to post?

[RobertE]

Folks, this has been instructive for me - both on the amount of debate and the opinions (and facts) presented.

Dietrich says he knows 800-4 crosses were awarded, and that the mystery is solved.

I know this cross came back with a non-post war collecting US vet in 1945, and has been in the family's possession ever since. He was not a gun or militaria collector, other than what he picked up in the war.

The cross was made in Germany in or before 1945, by a company licenced and known to produce them.

It is original. It is as original as any mint numbered panzer assault badge, or pilots badge that was also unissued - when these surface as taken from the factory, no one debates if they were put into circulation. Made by the Third Reich for the Third Reich, during their period of power.

Last comment: Bob, Sal and others make the point repeatedly that they place stock in veteran's statements, and that is is an acceptable form of providence. So do I. I've got hundreds of direct veteran aquisitions since the 1970's, and hundreds more from surviving family members. Before such relics were discussed in terms of forensics and lawyer speak, a signed letter from the vet WAS providence - and accepted by most old-school collectors as a value-added document.

I appreciate the passion and experience of Leroy, Sal, Bob, Dietrich, Viper, and the others. Thanks for a great discussion - please feel free to continue! s/f Robert

[cjs dad]

two more cents worth

all

i was underbidder on the 800-4 cross, and like robert, i am convinced that the vet picked this up in germany, sometime before returning to the states, and that it was original war-time production made for use in the third reich. i was fortunate to get the majority of the other lots in the sale, there is not one that i would question as being picked up after the war. in 35 years of collecting, i have talked with only a handful of vets who got stuff when they returned, some of it from family members and other friends who served, some bartered or won on the way home. i think robert has a winner, only wish i had more money to spend at the auction

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich says he knows 800-4 crosses were awarded, and that the mystery is solved.

MEGABIG misunderstanding (like to use the language of a famous dealer..)

I quoted Mr. Niermann, who several times said that those crosses were awarded in June 1944 and - when begged and asked - finds it silly to prove it to the masses, I guess. He also is willingly giving out COA's which are positive for this cross. So, HE knows and you can get written proof from him.

I certainly don't know. As I said several times it is my UNPROVEN OPINION that this type was the first post-war made cross by S&L. I outlined my reasoning more than 10 times in this forum and also in my book. I will not do it again here.

So, please don't quote me wrong! I don't know and like to err on the side of (monetary) caution.

Some people seemingly do know, though.

Dietrich

[RobertE]

There are a lot of things Mr. Niemann considers "silly" and "delusive for the collector community" but that still doesn't change facts in itself.

Now this is all very easy then: since Mr. Niemann knows of real and actual awardees (plural!) in June of 1944 of 800-4s the case is closed. Done. End of subject.

Glad we could clear that mistery up! It wasn't that tough!

Dietrich

Sorry Dietrich, I just took this statement at face value. I didn't realize you were summarizing for someone else - the rest of my statement stands. s/f Robert

[JAYP]

Hi,My friend was the high bidder on this cross,after doing some research and talking to several knowledgable people he decided to pass on the cross and the German Cross lot.The cross is very nice but at the price my friend would have paid it was too much to have tied up in a cross that would be tough to sell down the road.The items were NOT consigned by the vets son but came from a person who does house cleanouts that is a friend of the auctioneer.I personnally spoke to the auctioneer and there was no mention of any veterans son,he sent me additional photos of some of the items and a lot of the other pieces are very late war production.Jay Parisi

[Dietrich Maerz]

There goes another Vet story ....

Dietrich

[RobertE]

Hi,My friend was the high bidder on this cross,after doing some research and talking to several knowledgable people he decided to pass on the cross and the German Cross lot...The items were NOT consigned by the vets son but came from a person who does house cleanouts that is a friend of the auctioneer. I personnally spoke to the auctioneer and there was no mention of any veterans son,he sent me additional photos of some of the items and a lot of the other pieces are very late war production.Jay Parisi

Wrong answer, Jay. The son consigned the items. Since you are presumably acting on your friends behalf (who failed to make payment), I recommend asking the auctioneer directly if the son consigned the items, not wait for him to mention it. The veteran's son commissioned the sale and provided the items, not some anonomous house cleaner.

The other items pictured at the beginning of the thread are 3/4's of the total medals - which ones do you consider "very late production"?

s/f Robert