Cased 800 4 Knights Cross grouping!

[Dietrich Maerz]

I am going to have too speak with Jason Burrmiester again or more exactly email him because the last time I asked him he said only Lazy 2 were what he got out of the Schloss Klessheim Vets.....

I urge you to contact him ...

[Brian S]

My sincere congratulation! You have reached the next level of confusing people! Good job!

Now, by the way, got another S&L with provenance: 14th April 1945, S&L A-Type, very flawed.

Yes of course, sorry. The '57 S&L is postwar.

But THAT is very interesting. If truely given in April '45, then in the PKZ's hands earlier... Very flawed means die failing pre war end.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Yes of course, sorry. The '57 S&L is postwar. But THAT is very interesting. If truely given in April '45, then in the PKZ's hands earlier... Very flawed means die failing pre war end.

Now I have to ask you: How would you know that a flawed A-Type is pre May 1945? This is what you just wrote 10 minutes ago:

So given that NO ONE HERE KNOWS what S&Ls are postwar or wartime

Why do you know all over sudden? Or was that sentence just another 'flame posting" ?????

[Brian S]

Now I have to ask you: How would you know that a flawed A-Type is pre May 1945? This is what you just wrote 10 minutes ago

Because you told me you had one with provenance and I know you don't take provenance lightly, therefore, all A Types, flawed or not, must be wartime.

Why do you know all over sudden? Or was that sentence just another 'flame posting" ?????

I'm not flame posting. Because I ask the same question over and over is not flame posting. I am looking for proof and posting what I do know to be fact.

It is so far a fact that since I've asked this question over and over we have now two S&L crosses provenanced to October 1, 1944. Out of 2,300 awarded crosses of all(?) manufacturer types, 2. As we have seen repeatedly, S&L and Juncker make up the majority of crosses we can identify in photos, so I guess at least half those 2,300 crosses, my opinion, that those are S&L. At LEAST a 1,000 crosses in my mind S&L, and we have 2, that's two, Zwei, crosses, Kreuzen, identified.

But 2 is not a population to make conclusions from, is it?

Realizing people pop in on the last post and try to understand all... I was asking for S&L provenanced RKs going back to Oct 1 '44. Not Juncker, not Godet... Only S&L. Anything other than S&L is just really neat but not relevant to the B Type controversy.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian, you are right!

I have no cross type with more than 25 recipients and only about 18 L/12.

18 out of maybe 3800! That is surely not a number to draw any conclusions from.

Untill we do not know all 7300 plus crosses - everything goes! And that the way they like it!

Dietrich

Edit:

Since you change your posts faster than some people their line of though I have to change, too.

Okay, down to only S&L A and (hopefully) B-Types between October 44 and may 45. As long as we don't have around 1000 well defined and provenanced crosses everything on the S&L B-type market goes. They will like that, too.

[Brian S]

You have a way of making gross generalizations out of my comments to ridicule me Dietrich. There is no reason to ask questions about L/12's now is there... There is no reason to ask questions about S&L except as far as Type B's are concerned.

So as far as Type B's are concerned, I DO ask questions. I ask questions to put a reality check on the conclusions.

The die failed, it was repaired.

I believe you are correct if you tell me a Type A heavily flawed cross is provenanced to April 1945. For me, no questions to be asked about Type A's.

So please, stop the nonsense. I am asking questions about the conclusions made on Type B's with no evidence.

I ask the questions because new people join here every day. Every day a person may read one of these lengthy threads and provide us with some very valuable information.

I also do not mention your book, positive or negative in any way in this entire thread. I am not sure why you feel you are being centered on by my posts. I call on everyone and anyone especially, especially our dealer sponsors who could bring some light to this controversy. By light I mean real evidence. Evidence like the type I got with the Paepcke pieces. Let's see some evidence from those last 2,300 crosses, please. And please, Dietrich, stop acting like I'm calling you names or saying anything at all about you personally, if you take it personally, then it's about you but not just about you. It's about the evidence, that's all I want to see, nothing personal there Dietrich, I just want to see some evidence.

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, step aside and stop beating a dead horse!!!

We saw the same thing during the Rounder discussions....a lot of 'ganging up' BUT no 'stepping up' what so ever, other than a few core members.

It's the same MO here browbeat, interpret, misinterpret, edit, fairy tales, vet aquisitions, etc. etc.

I have attempted to stay out of this but am now drawn back because of the similarity to the (Rounder) issues. Accused of 'ruining collections' a few stood by real knowledge and in the end the truth prevailed.

The Cross is SOLD...so be it! Now, good bad or otherwise let's see another 'group' step up and 'discover the truth'!! Let's not rely on the same old pictures over and over. Let's not switch before/after at a whim. Research, that's the key and 'stepping up' to gather the data will produce the information.

Dietrich...take a break, relax and observe as evidence is introduced by way of testing, sharing like Crosses and putting effort forth much greater than sitting at a keyboard and tapping keys!!!

[Dietrich Maerz]

I am asking questions about the conclusions made on Type B's with no evidence.

Since I am the only one discussing with you I kindly ask you to point me in the direction where a 'conclusion' was made about B-Types without evidence in this thread?

And I'm sorry about the L/12. As I said earlier- I responded before you changed you posting just to read about S&L. So don't blame your generalization on me.

[Brian S]

Dietrich, step aside and stop beating a dead horse!!!

We saw the same thing during the Rounder discussions....a lot of 'ganging up' BUT no 'stepping up' what so ever, other than a few core members.

It's the same MO here browbeat, interpret, misinterpret, edit, fairy tales, vet aquisitions, etc. etc.

I have attempted to stay out of this but am now drawn back because of the similarity to the (Rounder) issues. Accused of 'ruining collections' a few stood by real knowledge and in the end the truth prevailed.

The Cross is SOLD...so be it! Now, good bad or otherwise let's see another 'group' step up and 'discover the truth'!! Let's not rely on the same old pictures over and over. Let's not switch before/after at a whim. Research, that's the key and 'stepping up' to gather the data will produce the information.

Dietrich...take a break, relax and observe as evidence is introduced by way of testing, sharing like Crosses and putting effort forth much greater than sitting at a keyboard and tapping keys!!!

And here comes old Dave getting nasty and personal. You go Dave.

[Brian S]

Since I am the only one discussing with you I kindly ask you to point me in the direction where a 'conclusion' was made about B-Types without evidence in this thread?

And I'm sorry about the L/12. As I said earlier- I responded before you changed you posting just to read about S&L. So don't blame your generalization on me.

I hear you Dietrich. By conclusions I'm referring to past posts about B Types and wartime. And I'm not beating this any further. These S&L threads have value but Dave apparently missed it. The highly flawed A Type to April '45 is significant. If that's all that comes from this thread, it's somthing.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Then lets all take a break and let this thread rest. The cross is sold!

[Dave Kane]

Then lets all take a break and let this thread rest. The cross is sold!

Not just yet.....! Let's try to squeeze just a bit more out of it and ask the new OWNER of this 800/4 why the purchase was made

Although, for a proven, period, cased set it's a bargain the new owner may know something that would be a benefit to all of us (nut cases) who chase these things!!

[Leroy]

Now you tell me where I should have twisted the truth more in your favor! And, by doing so, deceive possible buyers. You tell me now!

I don't want the truth twisted in my favor and I am very sorry you said this in
what is obviously a fit of temper. I have not attacked you here in this tone.

I just want you to treat 935-4's the way you treat 800-4's and Bob's Kitzengen
cross. Under your own criteria, the 935-4 is NOT wartime. The alleged "vet pickups" at Klessheim of this cross (especially since we know now that some of these people MAY have been in Ludenschied, too) pale in comparison to the circumstances of acquisition of Bob's non-ferrous core Type "B" with "less distinct" dent row. Yet those vet pickups are all that support the 935-4. If Bob's cross is real, the timeline argument is over, at least so far as several other "B" types is concerned (to include both the 935-4 and 800-4).

Despite the "disclaiming" language you inserted, you placed the 935-4 into the
wartime category and kept it out of the "gray area" in the charts which appear on page 113 and page 'II' of Appendix 1, and included it (omitting all other "B" types) in the chart in Appendix 2. "A picture is worth a thousand words."

You started this research and you are entltled to have expressed the opinions you did in your book. But please don't now attack the opinions of others by applying standards to those opinions which you did not apply to your own.



Best,
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

You know when I'm done with this I will be begging for a good old Spanish Inquisition seating...

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.

I took the liberty to express an opinion about the 935-4 which I formed on what I gathered during my studies. My bad!

I would see what anybody would gain or loose when I express the opinion that both (= ALL) B-Types are bad. Among a lot of other things, this would require a repair very early after the war - and I think that is clearly ruled out.

And I admit that I am very close to really throwing a temper here. Because this whole thread is completely illogical and only serves to "talk good" something that cannot be talked good (or bad) right now.

I'm out of here.

[Edgar Estrada]

the unfortunate thing in the collecting world (as witnessed mostly on sites like Ebay) is full of collectors without a lick of sense. And I have no doubt that a new collector would not hesitate to use his economic stimulus check from the government to purchase that $1500 GCiG with diamonds from Epier as the highlight of their collection believing it to be the bargain of a lifetime. We have seen this time and again with the new members to this forum that show us their centerpieces acquired years ago without them having done any research prior to their "bargain" purchase. This is certainly not to imply that we have the obligation to save newbies or the naive from themselves, but I think it a service that is only morally right that we disclose everything we know when we offer a piece so they can never say "I wasn't told this by the seller".
Richard V

Thank you very much Richard

I am a newbie, yes I am trying to learn but still I think I need people like you that "disclose everything" they know when offer a piece.

I am not talking about no one here or any medel, just saying that I as a newbie really would apreciate if someone tells me everything about a piece I may buy. Thank to all of you that check the stand and help us to see what is good and what is not.

Regards

Edgar