S&l ??

[Don D.]

Maybe S&L bought the dies from the other companies so they could be the sole producer of post war GI souvenier items.m Why do these S&L boards have items from other makers on them instead of just one maker? Somebody clearly saw an opportunity and acted on it.

[Dave-B]

Has anyone here got a copy of the War Booty book and could possibly post a pic of the British serviceman with the TR awards pinned to his tunic? It's been a long time since I've seen that photo.

[Sal Williams]

[quote=Leroy;2903306][quote=Sal Williams;2903071] You have a whole post dedicated to; these boards represent originals and now folks must prove anything on them is not. Your burden of proof post not mine.

Sal (and others),
"Preponderence of the evidence" means (to use an American football analogy employed in law school to teach this stuff) that these boards have made it at least one inch past the 50 yard line on the "field of evidence" as to their originality. Bob Hritz's comments, alone, and even more so when coupled with the appearance of 2 rare (i.e. not many around) GWL badges, would carry them this far. So far, the only item really in dispute as to time period is that sole SK and, except for the presence of those eagles, no one has been able to say what's wrong with it. (Don't use the pin unless you are prepared to prove that the PKZ number absolutely could not be there.) Granted, it would be very nice to see more photos (and, as you may recall, I have been practically begging for these from the start). Why shouldn't the burden of proof "shift" (as it would in any courtroom in America)? After all, this Forum is very often a courtroom for disputed items. Could it be that you don't want the burden to shift because you can't challenge the evidence so far before us except by your own OPINION that such a badge could not possibly exist?

Do you honestly expect a badge, IF it was made by mistake and (very probably) in limited quantity because it WAS a mistake, to show up in period photographs or reference books (or, for that matter, collections)? There are LOTS of poor copies using this style eagle, but they all have some features about them (OTHER than the eagles) which give them away. What "gives away" this badge? Further, do you honestly believe that some one "planted" this ONE badge on these boards just to fool us a half century later?

Fact: The institution of a cross for veterans of the war in Spain was discussed in the trade and publicly well before the badge was actually awarded (just as, on a grander scale, the Grand Cross was discussed and copies actually made and put on display before it was awarded, to the irritation of the government). I don't own the copies of "Uniformenmarkt" or "Swert und Spaten" where this occured, but I have seen them, as have others. Maybe Dietrich has some. (I have not asked him.)

Fact: The transition of the Luftwaffe eagle from "down-tail" version to
"swept-tail" version occurred during this period. When LW forces went to Spain, their eagle was the "down-tail" version. When they came back, uniforms were being slowly changed over to the new version. The "old" version continued to be worn for MANY months by many LW personnel after the Luftwaffe's involvement in Spain was concluded, until the "new" version was fully available. Any serious Luftwaffe collector will confirm this.

Fact: In the tradition for German awards created in the three classes of bronze, silver and gold, it was quite natural to assume that if one level had swords for combatants and the other level did not have swords (for non-combatants), then each badge within a level would be consistent with the others. As things actually worked out, the gold class of the SK was not authorized to be without swords (although the bronze and silver were). This is also "common knowledge" in the collecting field.

Fact: The accepted original box for the Spanish Cross for Next-of-Kin very clearly displays a cross with "down-tailed" eagles. The badge inside, however, has the "swept tail" versions. My memory is telling me that this particular badge in its first issued version was made solely by one firm in Berlin. The normal SK was made by many, many firms throughout the Reich. There were very many awardees. Manufacture was certainly a commercial enterprise motivated by profit. Again, this box type is readily confirmable.

Fact: It is the OPINION of two well-recognized dealers (Wolfe-Hardin and Detlev Niemann), based on their experience, that badges with "down-tail" eagles WERE manufactured. Niemann has backed the particular SK on these boards (and all the other badges) with his "Certificate of Expertise". If this was a "trial", these people would be the "expert witnesses". I would also call Bob Hritz as an expert witness (even though he has not commented on this specific badge). Why? Not because I regard them as "God", but because they are prominent in this field and have earned the respect of those who dwell here.

You have asked for anything which would make a reasonable person believe that these boards were assembled using leftover (and not newly manufactured) stock. If you do not already see this here, I can't help you.

Leroy

I give up. If this makes these real for you start collecting droop tail eagles. I will wait until there is more evidence. A set of boards do not do it alone. Your experts don't give anything to back this up, and of all you mentioned I only trust Bob to not distort the truth. On any boards that Bob actually owned was there a droop tail SK?

Your logic is faulty. Are you saying that these boards are now the benchmark for originality?

We might as well use someones old collection for that as well.

You also avoided answering most of the questions I asked

[Dietrich Maerz]

But I don't think it's likely. There was plenty of unwanted stock to go around at the time. It was lying around waiting to be picked up by the bucket-load.

So they only continued to [produce the Knights Cross? Which they did up till the mid 80's. I also wonder where all the other badges came from Mr. Schiffer was selling to the USA in the 50 and 60's?

Does this picture form the mid 41 S&L catalog add to the confusion?

[Sal Williams]

About PKZ numbers, Dietrich has outlined the period information, but you want to date PKZ #s to 1939 now? I suppose this works in your favor on another issue but I find it absurd and suspect an agenda

[Robin Lumsden]

[quote=Sal Williams;2903378][quote=Leroy;2903306]

Are you saying that these boards are now the benchmark for originality?

No way.

But they do pose a number of reasonable questions (already listed earlier) which no-one has yet been able to answer.

Maybe no-one can.

[Robin Lumsden]

.......Which they did up till the mid 80's. I also wonder where all the other badges came from Mr. Schiffer was selling to the USA in the 50 and 60's?

Dietrich.

We're talking here about 1945-46.....................not the 1950s-1980s.

[Robin Lumsden]

Does this picture frrm the mid 41 S&L catalog add to the confusion?

Not at all.

[Dietrich Maerz]

About PKZ numbers, Dietrich has outlined the period information, but you want to date PKZ #s to 1939 now?

The dates I outlined are only based on the Knights Cross evidence. There is insurmountable evidence that the PKZ number was in use earlier, but not earlier as March 1941 for sure.

[Robin Lumsden]

About PKZ numbers, Dietrich has outlined the period information, but you want to date PKZ #s to 1939 now? I suppose this works in your favor on another issue but I find it absurd and suspect an agenda

Sal.

If that comment was directed at me, the PKZ stuff has already been covered in threads above.

As regards the other issue and agenda...............what do you mean?

I have no interest at all in these boards, other than as a detached observer.

In fact, I was initially quite skeptical about them.

Not so much now.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich.

We're talking here about 1945-46.....................not the 1950s-1980s.

YOU are talking about 45/46. Who's to say that is true? Where is the evidence that this and some other boards were not made in 1951?

[Leroy]

About PKZ numbers, Dietrich has outlined the period information, but you want to date PKZ #s to 1939 now? I suppose this works in your favor on another issue but I find it absurd and suspect an agenda

I suppose you are referring to the 800-4 RK. I can't imagine why the possibility of a PKZ numbering system being earlier rather than later has any effect on this RK, which I have always said was late war.

By the way, Sal (although this is not the place to go off on a tangent on this cross, and I won't do so) have you EVER even seen or handled an 800-4 cross, or is this just another OPINION you have based on nothing?

You may take your highly personally insulting "agenda" comment and stick it....someplace dark.

[Robin Lumsden]

YOU are talking about 45/46. Who's to say that is true? Where is the evidence that this and some other boards were not made in 1951?

Dietrich.

There is no evidence, and there probably never will be.

What I'm saying is that I have no reason to doubt the story that a British Serviceman picked these boards up in 1945-46.

Can I prove it................no I can't.

But I can't prove either that the earth and everything on it wasn't created last week by an evil genius.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentlemen, steady as she goes ....

[Dietrich Maerz]

What I'm saying is that I have no reason to doubt the story that a British Serviceman picked these boards up in 1945-46.

I also have no doubt that there was one or tow or even three British servicemen coming back with such a board. BUT that dies not men that all are good and from the time 45/46.
As well as it is not true that if you have 10 items and 9 are certainly good thet the 10th one also must be good.

Can I prove it................no I can't.

Well, then we are back to "believe it or not" and that is not good.

But I can't prove either that the earth and everything on it was created last week by an evil genius.

I can prove to the opposite. I was around last week. At least I thought so ...