Knight´s Cross "4"

[DavidM]

Hello

One thing I forgot mention in my earlier posts is that the traditional means of manufacturing EKs, RKs etc is known as the Blanking Die method. Around late 1942, early 1943 a new, faster means of production was introduced called the Gablonzer Press. This used strands of wire placed in an outline an EK rim. This was then pressed into the pattern of the frame, with a finishing die cropping off the excess material. This used far less material than the Blanking Die method, but apparently all sources agree that very few companies took up the Gablonzer Press system, with most continuing with the traditional means. In all the references I can find relating to the the Gablonzer Press method, it is only mentioned in connection with EK production. Although by no means definate, it would seem that the RKs were made using the Blanking Die method, and as we know that S&L used a die for their RKs then it follows that theirs were made using the labour intensive traditional method.

Regards
David

[Dietrich Maerz]

Also , do you know whether S&L actually followed the Juncker procedure and sawed out, individually, each frame by hand?

I don't know whether they did that and I would need to go through all my files to look for the marks. However, I would not know why no?

How long would that procedure take, approximately, for each cross? And one last, perhaps silly, question on this issue...was there an interim step where the bulk of the excess silver was cut out by machine stamping, so that workers only had to "finish" the removal by hand-sawing?

I don't know the time it took. I also would not discount a 'rough' cutting with a machine press or such before doing the hand sawing. However, that would be no time saving since a saw cut is a saw cut - it doesn't matter whether one cuts away a 3 mm strip or a 20 mm strip. Time is the same.

[Leroy]

I don't know the time it took. I also would not discount a 'rough' cutting with a machine press or such before doing the hand sawing. However, that would be no time saving since a saw cut is a saw cut - it doesn't matter whether one cuts away a 3 mm strip or a 20 mm strip. Time is the same.

Thanks, Dietrich. I asked again because of the photo David posted showing a worker sawing a frame with what MAY be a powered saw blade.

Also, any idea on the "feed" question I asked?

Thanks,
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

That is not a powered saw, it's a so called "Laubsäge".

It would be very easy to fit out any press with a guiding system to feed a let's say 55 mm wide silver strips through any press. No big deal at all.

[Leroy]

Thank you! Just didn't know whether S&L used such a "feed" method.

[Brian S]

What a funny guy he is first copying the photos shown by Martin and saying " Are those the rank tabs of an Oberleutnant ?

In his rk/oaks photo. Bottom of the photo is a little blurry... " and now asking me if I am OK now, while he is now talking about another photo.

ANYWAY THE WIND WILL BLOW !!!!!!!!!!!

Well, Eric-Jan's extreme defensiveness aside... Why he is so defensive when questions are asked...

Do we have any conclusions on that cross and its provenance.

...it really does matter if that cross can pass the provenance test.

If, and I am now quite skeptical when someone seems to be aching for a thread war, if that cross's provenance is right it places the die failure of the S&L mid to early 1944.

No comment?

[Brian S]

Dietrich,

IF the cross presented to Glunz in June 1944 shows the final stages of beading flawing and is similar to the NOV. 1944 CROSS (post 240)and also to the one in you book on page 107, does it mean that they could have been all from the same run or strike done weeks before ?
If so ,they must have repaired the die sometime in mid 1944 or completely stop making those crosses until the end of the war.

___________
Robert

This is THE salient point!

[Sal Williams]

Are those the rank tabs of an Oberleutnant ?

In his rk/oaks photo. Bottom of the photo is a little blurry...

Brian, I also thought you were implying something in this post. So matbe this was a simple misunderstanding, but I can see how Jan took it badly.

Best, Sal

[Leroy]

May I ask someone to state what the repercussions would be if this cross turns out to be the original cross awarded to Glunz in 1943, and not a duplicate cross presented to him together with the Oakleaves in 1944?

Thank you,
Leroy

[Sal Williams]

May I ask someone to state what the repercussions would be if this cross turns out to be the original cross awarded to Glunz in 1943, and not a duplicate cross presented to him together with the Oakleaves in 1944?

Thank you,
Leroy

I think that there would be no repercussions because on its own one would have to conclude the Vet was not perfectly clear as to which he meant (as Dietrich pointed out in the german writing) or that he was mistaken or something.

If it doesn't fit the evidence one cross with provenance would be considered to be a mistake in the provenance somehow. The way I would handle something like this would be to put it on file and see if it can be added to other crosses with good provenance that show the same (new) timeline. Some other first hand German Vet crosses of the same type of situations would make me start to rethink it.

What I am saying is that I don't think there is any way for this to absolutely "turn out" to be the cross awarded in 43.

On it's own it is interesting and compelling, but I think it can not be considered the Rosetta Stone by itself. I know you will say there are others with provenance, but for me anyhow , I would need more like this one, without the ambiguous wording. If more like this were produced, I would consider the wording on this one to be less ambiguous.

Certainly one for the files without a doubt.

Best, Sal

[Leroy]

I know you will say there are others with provenance...

Sal,

No, No. I will not make that argument at this time. Forget MY position, please.
I would simply like to figure out which cross Glunz wore at a particular time, because I am now truly interested in his actions. By example, can anyone determine what type of cross THIS one is?

Best regards,
Leroy

[Leroy]

Or THIS one?

[Leroy]

Or this one? Are they the same or are they different. No ulterior motive here. I'm just not good enough to tell and I am hoping someone else can.
Thanks,
Leroy

[Dave Kane]

Or this one? Are they the same or are they different. No ulterior motive here. I'm just not good enough to tell and I am hoping someone else can.
Thanks,
Leroy

Some years ago this pic might have been offered as PROOF that the 'Rounder' was period. We have grown from there

While angled pictures take away from an absolute we must consider the majority of information offered in the image.

This angle in pics of an S&L often show the 6-9 corner near the Swaz to be somewhat rounded while the other 3 corners are sharp. However, here we see all 4 corners ROUNDED which suggests to me that the Cross may be a Juncker.....

I (think) that he may have received a gorgeous S&L at the time of the Oaks awarding and it is this Cross (an S&L) that was sent home!

[Leroy]

Dave,
Thanks!
The cross in post # 240 appears to have rounded edges, but all of this is a matter of photo interpretation, of course.
My interest in this was piqued because Glunz received his Oakleaves on the same day Hartmann received a higher award. In his recollections of that day, Hartmann never mentioned receiving a "second" cross (and we know he had to buy another in Vienna just a few months later). None of the other 3 Luftwaffe pilots decorated that day ever mentioned, from what I have been able to read, receiving a second cross. I just thought it interesting that Glunz would receive one and the others (as far as we know) did not.
As you see, I am mellowing.................
Best,
Leroy