S&l ??

[Sal Williams]

Going back to your post about these lunch mats being bespeckled with badges by factory employees, is it reasonable to expect factory employees all knew the basis for the awards and the exact versions of these awards, especially in post April 1945? I would think not. So now you have an employee trying to put together a "complete" board for an occupation officer looking to throw cigarettes at Nazi awards. Why wouldn't the employee cut off the swords of a gold SK to "finish" a board? The employee hadn't a clue as he'd seen bronze and silver ohne swerten why not assume the gold SK was no different? It's a herring or a mistake by someone who really just didn't know and "created" the third example without swords to complete the board.

Now the people making the medals don't know what they are for or what classes exist?

[Robin Lumsden]

Found that other photo from the IWM that Robin mentioned earlier. It's in one of Johnson's dagger books. The O&S have the elongated swords. The ribbons on the RK's appear to have been cut for display.

Leroy.

Many thanks for posting that photo.

Also...........I think your theory regarding the origin of the IWM decorations in the old Pia books could be spot on.

[Brian S]

Now the people making the medals don't know what they are for or what classes exist?

All medals and at all levels in the company, I'd guess, "no".

[WARLORD]

A number of questions are raised by the boards. First they were found made 1945 - 1946. This gives a fine line. We have to accept that the boards are correct, or call the Vet a misspervaour of the truth. In arcological digs the presence of coins are the main soarceof dating. Second and possibly more important, the awards are place on the boards in correct groupings. This indecates a knoledge of what they were for. This defeats the argument that they were unknown to the makers. As to a Gold Spanish cross without swords. There was provition for this, but none were awarded. The manufactures would have guilded a few, this is not an unussual possition.

As to things like the General Assault badge in bronze, these turn up. I have one that was given to a man directly from the POW who had been awarded it. So what was it for?

[Thomas Durante]

Warlord,

Do you have pics of the boards picked up in 45-46? I am just wondering if they look similar or the cardboard they are made from is the same as what Barry is selling. Also, how do we know these were picked up in 1945 - 1946, can we say FOR SURE that these were picked up directly from the vets themsleves?

For instance, my grandfather brought back a ball hinge flak badge. He fought in Afrika & Italy, but got sick and came back before the end of the war. So, its safe to say that what he brought back was an original badge.

On the other hand, my wife's grandfather fought in Europe and came home in 1946. Before he died a few years ago, he passed down to me a german helmet that he "brought back from the war". It turned out this helmet was a spanish repro, probably made in the late 50's or early 60's. So, even stuff gotten directly from veterans is not always correct. Memories fade and even stuff picked up in the 70s and 80s from vets could have been picked up by them in the 50's or 60's and the simply forgot where they got it, or mixed it in with the stuff they actually did bring back from the war.

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

If we now start to believe every veteran's story and the pieces which come with it - under the threat that if not done so one calls the veterans 'liars' - well, then we are back to the good old days of "everything goes".

Nothing against veterans (this is like the collectors version of holocaust denial...) but I personally reserve for me to check everything against other known facts and circumstances.

For me it is not enough to say "First they were found made 1945 - 1946." Not even close!

[WARLORD]

OK, if we are now saying the Vet bring back from a period can not stand evidence, then we are at a point of total disbelieve. Detrik, as a historian, proof of obtaining has to be the main substance of proof. So if you have problem with the boards then you must show that these are false. I have the purchase records of David Littlejohn and Col Dodkins. The proof there is that these pieces were bought at the time and show things that others think were not of the time. The board with this evidence shows it was. So please give evidence that these irelated, but suportive pieces are wrong.

[Dietrich Maerz]

First of all I don't say that veteran's bring back is no evidence. It sure is but it is not gospel. You should see what some of the veterans in the USA brought back - regarding to some dealers ...

I also don't think that one has to prove that something is false! This would be that - no matter what - everything is by definition 'good'. I think the opposite is true: pieces must be proven good! By comparison to other examples which have been proven good w/o any doubt.

A receipt from Littlejohn and Dodkins or such is no proof for me. I have seen fake Knights Crosses with better documentation than that ....

[WARLORD]

My dear Detrick, I understand your point, but the David Littlejohn collection, the reference was the purchase not the sale. Also with the Dodkin purchase. These pieces are iconik. They have been there since 1946. Please please do not try to deride these collections. These pieces have been there since that time.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I would never talk bad about a collection I have not even seen! I meant it as an example. The rule for me is: "The piece is bad till proven good" not "The piece is good till proven bad."

That's what I meant.

[WARLORD]

Again I understand your point. But, and I say but. These boards stand as examples of that which was there in 1945. The evidence is examplified by examples purchased by Dodkin and Littlejohn at the same perriod. Please, be not a denier. This is hard evidence that should and must be researched. It tilts many "well held" ideas, we must take this on board. The most important is the retired Pilots badge. This gives firm evidence to the flat form. This until resently was considered the award type. The Swords, well you are the expert, but the long form has been seen on many photos togeter with period examples. WHY?

[Robin Lumsden]

The rule for me is: "The piece is bad till proven good."

With all due respect (and I really mean that), that is like saying everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

Wasn't it Goebbels who said........."Better that ten innocent men be hung than one guilty man go free"?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Again, I never said that the swords are not real or could not be real. Nowhere did I ever say that Godet was the only one making oaks and swords. To avoid confusion (which surely has been created with earlier publications and just recently with then Niemann 3), I restricted my book to the indisputable examples from Godet.

It is a fact that S&L made oaks during the war (and most likely also swords). The same applies to Juncker L/12 marked oaks and/or oaks with swords. However, there is a huge amount of confusion! Juncker L/12 types are abundant and even in the latest literature the authors doesn't seem to know which variation to favor - so he shows several different die types ....

Could there be an awarded set? Sure! And when such a bullet proof set comes up the BS about all the other pre-May 1945 variation, types, private purchases, jeweler copies, board samples, .... will end. Including the multiple Juncker types!

My book always was about what is proven - not about what is "out there" and what people can buy as "real" and "rare" and "vet bring back" ....... or ( realy very descriptive) "silver, other marks" ...

[Robin Lumsden]

It's also worth bearing in mind that when the Dodkins collection was auctioned off in the 1970s, it had a few fakes in it. You just have to look at the auction catalogue.

[Dietrich Maerz]

With all due respect (and I really mean that), that is like saying everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

No it is not. It is more like "Vorsicht ist die Mutter der Porzelankiste." (Caution is the mother of the porcelain box). We are talking here about medals which cost money - not about human beings which of course should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The down and dirty ugly fact is this: A lot of what was and is called 'veteran's buy' is and was bad. A lot was also good. And before I spend my money I check more then just the word of somebody - because most of the time there are ways to double check or proof against other known facts. That's all.

I would like to see your reaction if somebody offers you Göring's platinum Grand Cross for $ 2000.- with the words "Comes directly form a veteran who took it from Goering personally" Do you buy? I guess you must - can't call the vet a liar!

Dietrich