S and L typeS?
-
-
800 and micro 800!Comment
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy
May I ask by what means the crosses are linked to the original recipient?
QUOTE=Dietrich Maerz;2509386]What do you really expect me to answer to this question?
I'm even sorry that I mentioned it![/QUOTE]
Well, I bet you are sorry!
Except for those crosses which are readily identifiable in detailed close-up period photography by their prominent obverse features, the only way you can link a specific cross to a specific individual is by the provenance provided by the veteran himself. This is the same provenance you reject, however, when it comes from an American veteran, or a German veteran, regarding the award of any "B" cross (not just 800-4's and 935-4's).
We now know that your statistical data base, the thing that supposedly gives support to the conclusions you have stated regarding these crosses, is in fact too small and too incomplete to be used as support for anything at all. In a civil case (yes, this is the evil lawyer speaking) the standard of proof to support a verdict is "proof by a preponderance of the evidence". In a criminal case, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Neither standard has been met here, and there are enough "expert witnesses" (i.e. veterans) on the side of the 800-4 (and 935-4 and other "B" crosses) to easily render your conclusions "unproven".
This is like "The Wizard of OZ" when the curtain falls away. It is NOT the rest of us who need to "prove" anything now. It is YOUR conclusions which have turned out to be, by your own professed standards, unsupportable.
What's the expression?.........Oh, yes: "Hoisted on your own petard".Comment
-
Before you know it, the findings of the Rounder will be questioned ...
Comment
-
Not likely. The rounder was unmasked by a preponderance of the evidence. If identical criteria were used with the 800/4 and 935/4, I imagine they would pass with flying colors. As I recall was the Rounder not identified in period photographs and declared genuine based on these sightings. What Leroy says is true, there is no way any B type including the 935/4 can win. There are no features large enough for an accurate determination. The only way is through direct Veteran acquisition and all vets are dishonorable liars. both allied and german. At least that is what some would have us believe. We would still like too see more pictures of that cross Dave....Its appearance was all too brief. Nice shots by the way..........JimmyOriginally posted by Darrell View PostBefore you know it, the findings of the Rounder will be questioned ...Comment
-
Time Out !
Gentlemen,
I'm enjoying the debate immensely, and havent contributed much as I dont have anything usefull to add, other than to say that Dave's 935/4 is absolutely superb, as I know from first hand !
Anyway...just to recap for the "paying audience":
Dietrich's & Dave's position is that (based on the dent row) that the 800/4 came after the 935/4, and that the knee flaw is a "variable" feature. The 935/4 came out of the Schloss, and so was probably the last S&L WW2 made.
Jimmy's, Leroy's and Brian's position is that the knee flaw is not a variable, and as the 800/4 has been shown to have a less developed flaw than some 935/4 crosses, then they can be placed before or somewhere within the 935/4 run.
Ludwig's 800/4 places the 935/4 into 1943...but provenance (?)...(always a difficult one !) The earliest PKZ that I am personally aware of is Rudel's 900/21 swords, that were awarded in Autumn 1943...so PKZ were being used for at least the high end awards (we can assume) in mid 1943.
Jimmy/Leroy, putting aside the question of the knee flaw, I'd like your "take" as to why the dent row could be less well defined on an earlier cross than the 935/4.
Maybe we need to look at other common features between the 935/4 and the 800/4..for example the 3 o'clock 6 o'clock knee flaw (?)
Regards all
ChrisLast edited by Chris Jenkins; 03-08-2008, 06:37 AM.
Chris
(looking for early K & Q RK)Comment
-
...and...
..and lastly....
The real truth in this is what one personally believes, on the balance of the evidence as one assesses it.
800/4's are not magically authenticated by Dietrich being convinced one way or the other !Last edited by Chris Jenkins; 03-08-2008, 07:29 AM.
Chris
(looking for early K & Q RK)Comment
-
Your acid tone seems to indicate a change in position from intellectual debate to accusations, false premisses and the other learned arsenal .....Originally posted by Leroy View Post
I honestly think that the provenance form a German recipient is a better one but I can see you already shouting you foul on the basis of in-equality and racism.
That is not only wrong but now you go back to grandstanding in front of a jury. First of all, you know only a relatively small part and you should not start to take the same stand as another member here - talking about something you haven't seen. The 'thing' - as you call it so unbiased - is extremely helpful but id did not draw any conclusions out of it. I might draw your lacking attention to the 'things' I wrote next to it ...(side-note: conclusion is not opinion.... check with Webster)We now know that your statistical data base, the thing that supposedly gives support to the conclusions you have stated regarding these crosses, is in fact too small and too incomplete to be used as support for anything at all.
With all due respect, I doubt that. I even doubt that you believe that! Based on the simple reason that everything I say is dismissed, ignored or stamped as forged. Since when is it so easy to throw out evidence? By the way - in case it slipped your mind - the 934-4 provenance in Klessheim is veteran based....In a civil case (yes, this is the evil lawyer speaking) the standard of proof to support a verdict is "proof by a preponderance of the evidence". In a criminal case, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Neither standard has been met here, and there are enough "expert witnesses" (i.e. veterans) on the side of the 800-4 (and 935-4 and other "B" crosses) to easily render your conclusions "unproven".
The nastiness is uncalled for and there is no reason to stand in front of a perceived jury and having a moment of 'grandeur.It is NOT the rest of us who need to "prove" anything now. It is YOUR conclusions which have turned out to be, by your own professed standards, unsupportable.
It fills me with great sadness that I have to point out again and again that I did not draw any conclusions but that I rather wrote " unproven opinion" and that I outlined the reasons for that "'unproven opinion".
In the light of my written word you above statement is close to ridiculous! I have to prove an opinion????
But I knew it was coming:
"The second part is about interpretation of the evidence. Here is where my personal opinion comes to bear and I sincerely hope that I always made it very clear that it is "my" interpretation and "my" opinion only, not proven fact or infallible conclusion"
For some people reading and interpretation of the written word seems to be a challenge.
Now that I had to look up!What's the expression?.........Oh, yes: "Hoisted on your own petard".
"The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoist by one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoisted, or blown upward) by one's own bomb."
No further comment .....other than: Spend your energy on finding something substantial instead on wasting it on uncalled, unjustified and immature attacks on me.
Go out there where the truth is and find it! As long as that is not done I will not with a good conscience list something as 100% pre-45 with the consequence that hard earned money is spend on a cross that just doesn't have that status as of today. Can you understand that?Comment
-
Thank you very much Chris! And I'm not even 'convinced - I rather only have an 'unproven opinion'. For that I have to burn at the stake!Originally posted by Chris Jenkins View Post
Just take D. Niemann who thinks in his opinion they are good and he had several directly from German veterans.
If you don't like my 'unproven opinion', take his opinion! The 800-4 is in his book. It is also in Gordon's book. Or fall back on Geissler - he asserts clearly that the "4" marked models are the early, first production run. And so does Nimmergut.
... or find out on your own 'beyond reasonable doubt".....Comment
-
Chris,
I wish I really knew the full story behind the dent row, but I don't.
As I understand it, the dent row on the 800-4 was found by Dietrich, at least in his opinion, to be marginally less distinct than on the 935-4. The same situation applies to 2 other "pock" marks found on the lower 3 o'clock arm, near the 6 o'clock arm. The problem is, we haven't seen enough 800-4's and 935-4's to feel confident we have seen the "first" or "last" of either series. What Dietrich says he observed, even if all of us would agree that we see the same thing (which is not the case), may hold true for the very few specimens observed, but might change dramatically if more specimens could be observed. We know he had Bob Hritz's 800-4 and Erickn's 800-4 to look at (that's two). There may have been others, as well, but certainly not very many. I'm not saying that it would be likely or even probable that the appearance of the row would change, in his perception, if more specimens were examined, but no scientist would dream of drawing any definitive conclusion based on the few specimens observed. Another point to consider is that, in fact, 935 is a marginally "softer" silver type than 800 silver. Could the "marginal" differences observed in the appearance of the dent rows be simply a normal reflection of the "marginal" differences in metal composition between the two types? It makes sense to me, personally, that that could be the case, but I am not a metallurgist.
There is not, as far as I am aware, any provenance of the 935-4 to Klessheim, beyond possible oral vet history. There is no written official record of any kind. At least one dealer/collector (Bob Hritz) who vigorously "tracked" Klessheim vets reports NO finding of 935-4 crosses from those vets. I have been TOLD (no personal knowledge) that another prominent dealer who followed those vets has said the same thing. Thanks to the efforts of other forum members, we have recently learned that the same American (not British) units who captured Ludenschied may have been within miles of Klessheim just days or weeks later, at the time of the "discoveries" there. There may be some link to be found from these circumstances. Further, there is that same oral vet history to contend with regarding both award of a 935-4 in 1943 and the recovery of "B" type crosses (including 800-4's) directly from both actual German prisoners and from possible storage areas (military or factory). I understand that Detlev has had groups including 800-4 crosses which were not "souvenirs" but rather in fact the retained property of German veterans. The matter of "provenance" is certainly confusing, but no one challenges that there is loads of it out there, at least through veteran oral history. Who is to say which veterans can be believed and which cannot? I'm not capable of that, except in my own personal experience, one-on-one, with the vets I have spoken with.
There is another interesting matter, which I have been reluctant to talk about here as it may have been a distraction to the then current discussions. Several weeks ago, Davetourle posted at GCA, and later here, a very strange S&L cross, which he had purchased as postwar. The reverse side of the cross was a straight "B" type, with 6-9 full flaw and a dent row which, although fully visible, could not be said to be "crisp" at all. The obverse side, however, had the characteristic 9-12 o'clock knee flaw of an "A" type cross, matching completely that flaw as illustrated in Dietrich's book. Well, ordinarily, one might say it was a rare case of an "A" front being paired with a "B" back, EXCEPT that the "A" front ALSO had the distinctly visible remnants of the "dent row" on the 3 o'clock lower arm. Additionally, and to compound the confusion, Davetourle's cross had "beading flaws" which did not match those found on either "A" or "B" types. Davetourle, in fact, produced a very nice chart showing a comparison of the "A" and "B" beading flaws to those on his cross. At the time, I commented on GCA that this cross could well open a "Pandora's box" in the discussion of S&L crosses. It certainly (further) convinced me that the distinctions between S&L types might not be as "cut and dried" as we might like them to be.
At this point, no one is absolutely sure what caused any of the flaws we see on S&L crosses, although there are many theories. Did they "come and go"? Were there multiple die repairs (or, in fact, multiple dies)? Every time it seems we have figured out a timeline, something comes along which makes reasonable people question that timeline, or at least the supportive data used to create ANY timeline. Were frames mixed and matched, obverse and reverse? Could it even be that some frames are incorrectly marked and that one side was one type of silver and the other another type? I don't want to go "all silly" here, but there are certainly more unanswered questions than answered ones, and our expertise in the many different fields necessary to properly answer questions is significantly lacking or mis-directed.
I would certainly hope, Chris, that you and the many other distiguished RK collectors we have on this forum would give us your thoughts. We are not all of "one mind" here, nor should we necessarily be. It gets pretty old, and boring, and petty, however, when just the same few people (including myself) are the only voices heard. A passer-by might easily believe that we have one hell of a bar fight going on here and just want to keep on walking. I would be very happy indeed to be able to sit on a bar stool and watch for a while!
All the best,
Leroy
P.S. Dietrich does not need to burn at the stake, nor would it be pleasant to observe that. I have said before, and say again now, that I believe his book is the finest contribution to this hobby in many years, maybe the finest ever. That does not mean anyone has to agree with everything in it.
P.P.S. Humphrey Bogart once said "The whole world is 3 drinks behind. If everyone would take 3 drinks, we'd all catch up and get along." There may be some truth to that!Comment
-
I just want to see pictures, not hugs...Comment
-
800-4 9:00
Here R a few additional images of the infamous 800-4 & `57 drilled out type "messy" frame.Comment
-
`57
3:00 armComment
-
800-4 57 3:00-9:00
..Comment
-
Dietrich,
How can you make the comments you do and NOT expect an equally direct response from me? Are only MY comments "grandstanding","personal" and "nasty"? I have not played the "nationality card" and will not. I can certainly appreciate that, as a German, you would put more stock in the report of a German veteran than an American would put in an American one. That is inherently normal.
It is entirely true that you have said that your views are your "unproven opinions". However, you have "come across" (whether you realize it or not) as being intractable in those views and perfectly willing to attack and ridicule those who disagree with or challenge them, especially when your methodology is questioned. That is entirely your right, but PLEASE realize that this is a "two-way street".
I honestly am starting to believe that there may be, at the heart of this, language problems at work here. Your English is wonderful, and certainly MUCH better than my poor German; however, there are "nuances" to conversation which I feel we sometimes each miss. Not even our native English speakers always communicate with clarity, and frustration always (in my experience, at least) leads to significant loss of communication skills and eventually reduces discussion to basically just "name-calling". At times, I think you are saying one thing, but then when I go back and read your words again, I can see subtle differences in verb and noun arrangement, or omission, which change that meaning. By the time that happens, however, we (or others) have responded again and the situation has escalated beyond redemption.
Can we please "start over"? I, for one, apologize for any remark which seemed (or in fact WAS) intemperate. Will you do the same?
With (sincere) best wishes,
LeroyComment
Comment