Cross Opinions ??

[stirnpanzer]

Would be interested in some opionons on this cross.
These are the best pics sent to me... (will also be posting another)

Thanks Mark

[stirnpanzer]

2

2

[stirnpanzer]

3

3

[Leroy]

This cross is regarded as a well-made reproduction which has been seen with different maker numbers, but which also has been seen with a simple "800" stamp beneath the ring. The ring is indented slightly into the frame, which is not seen on award pieces, but is seen on period photos of so-called "dipping ring" crosses and is also to be observed on the "Sedlatzek cross" shown in Dietrich's book as a wartime-made, but not official, cross. The ones which I have personally handled and had a chance to look at very closely, which had just the "800" stamp, give every indication of being wartime-made; however, because this same cross appears with different (and totally misleading) maker numbers, it can safely be presumed to have passed through the hands of fakers. Maybe some were wartime-made, but certainly ones with false marks must be questioned. I have not had the opportunity to look at one of the ones with false markings closely to try to determine if the marks were placed before or after the frame was assembled. At this point, I would ASSUME they were put there before assembly, which says (if this is true) that the cross is either completely fake or assembled from wartime parts falsely marked to make you think it is a Juncker or some other known company.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Just another fake IMHO which tries to mimic the Juncker style cross-hatching at the outer tips. For sure not an official piece, as Gentry already pointed out!

[Leroy]

For sure not an official piece...

This is ABSOULTELY CORRECT! In fact, the odds of this particular cross even being assembled from wartime made parts are, realistically, extraordinarily small.

We must never forget, however, that between September, 1939 and October, 1941, ANYONE could make a Knights Cross, without restriction. Does that mean that a flood of companies did so? NO! There is no evidence to support such a claim. Did, however, other companies than the ones we know do so? YES! Some, as Dietrich pointed out in his book, used components made by the "big boys". Others, though, and the number is UNKNOWN, produced their own versions. The "Sedlatzek cross" in Dietrich's book is an example. From other clear photographic evidence, other crosses having a "dipping ring" were also made. (There may also be versions without the "dipping ring", but different from award pieces, but we can't tell from the photographs.)

NONE of these "other" crosses are OFFICIAL AWARD pieces from the government. They are simply pieces made for commercial sale or display.

Despite the impression routinely left by multiple articles, books, internet posts, etc., etc., there have been (with the exception of pieces assembled postwar using components struck on the original dies from recognized makers) very, very few well-made copies of a Knights Cross. The "Rounder" was one, but it was efficiently exposed (and was PROBABLY the concept of a now-deceased German authority on decorations and badges). The EARLY Souval crosses (easily identified) were well-made, but from a company which always acknowledged that (while it legitimately made real badges and decorations during the war) it never made Knights Crosses. What else do we have? The "New Rounder"? A joke. The so-called "Latvian Zimmermann" with beading so even and clean it was obviously cut by a laser? Give me a break.

The truth, in my opinion, is that if you see a well-made Knights Cross which is NOT from a "recognized official maker" and is NOT one of the well-known copies just mentioned above, you should look at it a bit closer. It is one thing to say that a cross is NOT an "official" piece. It is quite another to say that it is automatically a postwar- made fake. Is the beading well-defined? Are the dates and swastika nicely formed? Is the soldering clean and neat?

Why don't we start a thread where we show well-made RK copies (OTHER than the ones just mentioned) and explain why they are postwar fakes? If you have a chance, look at the RK's in Detlev Niemann's "copy archive". With the exception of the well-known pieces just mentioned, virtually everything else is pure junk, and looks it.

Frankly, I don't expect to see many here. Prove me wrong.