Knight´s Cross "4"

[Leroy]

Dave, on the cross you just posted, what type of 6-9 flaw appears on the other side?

[Brian S]

Brian,

you are not up to date...I did not hold back on anything - you just don't know it!

I did not publish the 3999 RK holder since I don't have those data - but I published a very nice statistics which has grown considerably since publication.

You know, it is kind of predicting who won an election by collecting representive data and exit polls. Laws of statistics.

I have some fluency on statistics. And do you have a sample that substitutes for the population as a whole? And at different times as manufacturers output grew and waned, I doubt it.

Leroy, yes!

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have some fluency on statistics. And do you have a sample that substitutes for the population as a whole? And at different times as manufacturers output grew and waned, I doubt it.

Could you try to reformulate your statement so that a stupid foreigner can understand what you want to express?
Do you know about what graph I'm talking about?

[Leroy]

Please show the graph so everyone can follow the discussion.

[Leroy]

Dave,
Have you had a chance to look at the cross you posted to see what the flaw looks like on the other side?
Thanks,
Leroy

[Brian S]

Could you try to reformulate your statement so that a stupid foreigner can understand what you want to express?
Do you know about what graph I'm talking about?

A statiscally meaningful sample should be more than 10 or 20 out of 5,000... It's really that simple. I don't know what graph you are referring to, sorry...

I don't know of the final 4,000 how many were S&L's. Or KQ or Juncker... But you'd need to know that to get a sample mix that mirrored the final 4,000 mix. I'd hope for at least 5% of 4,000. My Paepcke cross and oaks were Juncker/Godet, so not much help to you not to mention he wasn't in the final 4,000.

Honestly, I'd like to stop reading and responding to posts and simply see some photos of each of the crosses. These threads cross each other, end, have acres of discussion, and the simple panopoly of photos is non-existent.

Jimmy, we need to talk...

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm at nearly 200 which is only about 3% and growing. For me the evolving picture fits perfectly all the other evidence.

The graph is in my book.

[Brian S]

You have 300 S&L's identified by awardee? Of course you aren't counting the ones that lie outside your pre-identified conclusion, so exactly what do you have? Nobody much cares about the Junckers... K&Q has never been studied like the S&L, so those are not important, Schickel, who cares, so really it's all about the S&L's...

[Leroy]

May I ask by what means the crosses are linked to the original recipient?

[Dietrich Maerz]

You have 300 S&L's identified by awardee? Of course you aren't counting the ones that lie outside your pre-identified conclusion, so exactly what do you have? Nobody much cares about the Junckers... K&Q has never been studied like the S&L, so those are not important, Schickel, who cares, so really it's all about the S&L's...

Brian,

don't be stupid! First of all "nearly 200" are not 300. Fine difference! And where did I say S&L??? What's your problem?

And of course everything you say about pre-identified conclusion is true. I'm a crook, a picture forger, a S&l down-talker and whatever...

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

May I ask by what means the crosses are linked to the original recipient?

What do you really expect me to answer to this question?

I'm even sorry that I mentioned it!

[Brian S]

Come on Dietrich, you are far from a crook, as I, we were called when we believed in what was not... I know better than that. But you seem hard to reach lately... Being at the top of the New York Times Bestseller List has made you hard to talk to. I tell you I'm seeing flaws that you show and you tell me "unlikely". I am beginning to feel like I did a couple of years ago here, why bother? I'm just looking to see the evidence and show what little I can to add to the mix. You tell me you aren't interested in postwar S&L's. Well why not? If they are truely postwar then the dent row and other flaw areas are critical on those as a benchmark.

I just want to see the evidence, good clear evidence and all I see is an ever growing spread of verbal acreage. I'm sorry if my words are misinterpreted by you so I'll quit the back and forth and await the next photo.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

I just don't like when I say I have (fairly solid) data of nearly 200 RK recipients and I tun around and I read that I have 300 S&L data !!!!

I'm not at the bestseller list (I wish I would be ) of any news paper - not even on the one of the "RK for Idiots"!

I just don't like when I'm constantly pressured into saying what people want me to say, when I'm misquoted blatantly (not only by you) and when I'm showing something what I find relevant it is either ignored or I am accused of being biased (since when is having an opinion being biased in a negative sense???) and forging pictures.

Why don't you guys just find out what needs to be found out. So far, what I have seen, does not change anything at all substantially for me and me alone! And for this now - my opinion - I will be bashed again!

I don't have a 935-4, I don't have a 800-4, I don't have any S&L with a swastika. I'm not a dealer nor am I a dealer helper (another subtle accusation made lately) nor do I hold back any information. Never have, never will.

All I want is that people know what is safe to buy! And a 800-4 (and a ton of other B-Types) is surely not!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

...I know what you don't have Dietrich, it's what you do have that's dangerous...

You have a book, the last book in a long line of RK books and now the 'de facto' book, this moment, for many collectors...

And, you have an opinion which people take more seriously than mine or Jimmy's or pretty much anyone else here on this forum.

No one is attacking you.

We are looking for evidence to support what many suppose to be a very important element in the what is and what is not wartime about RKs, your opinion.

So we're looking for evidence to support your opinions or find evidence that perhaps shows otherwise. I find value in Gordon's book, and many others, mistakes notwithstanding. Not my goal to point out your mistakes but make sure the "author" has all the evidence. I am not alone in this.

Jimmy, others, would like to see more evidence. That's all. No threats, no name calling, I am surely the first of many to say you are a smart guy with an opinion, and I'd like to know more... I know that's a crime for some who are benefited from your opinion and would like to leave it at that, the end, it works for me, move on... Oh, but that's not this hobby Dietrich. Evidence, the more of it the more we learn.

So I just want to see the photos, not just of the crosses you examined under your scope, but as many as can be culled.

But again, the acres of words don't allow for a methodical layout of the evidence. It's words and words and more words and people getting mad, irritated, upset, angry and wanting to end it now if the final call is in their benefit...

So, my understanding still not there Dietrich, you have 200 S&L's categorized by type to known recipients? I am not alone in not understanding what you are saying here? One thing I know from experience of period photos of one hundred Luftwaffe portraits is - You cannot see the dent rows in a period photo...

[Dietrich Maerz]

So, my understanding still not there Dietrich, you have 200 S&L's categorized by type to known recipients?

I have categorized nearly 200 recipients with their cross type, i.e. Juncker-types, 3/4 rings, Schickle types, K&Q types, Zimmermanns and also S&L types. And that gives a very nice picture!

I just don't know where you got this "200 S&L" from?

And in regards to the other subject; why don't you, Leroy, Jimmy and other interested persons proceed w/o me and I chime in with my opinion when the case is made? Quasi the opposite of what has been done so far ...