A discussion for the New Year

[Leroy]

Some will remember the thread concerning boards of badges allegedly sold and/or bartered to occupation troops in Ludenscheid (which ended up in the British Zone, after initially being taken by U.S. troops): http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...salesman+board

These boards were auctioned in England, in the Summer of 2008, as coming from the estate of a British officer who obtained them after the war ended. Member Dave-B attended the auction with a friend and, although he was an unsuccessful bidder, he did take photos of many of the boards. The boards eventually ended up for sale on Barry Turk's site ("emedals.ca") with guarantees by Detlev Niemann.

One of the boards contained RK's and DK's:

[Leroy]

The RK's are, as of today (12/25/09)(and Merry Christmas to all!) still visible on the "emedals" site, although the basic RK and the RK with Oakleaves have been sold. Because the photos may be, in the normal course, removed from that site, I saved some for this new thread.

At the time of the original thread concerning these boards, it was believed by everyone, including me, that all three RK's were "A" types. After looking at more, and better, photos on the "emedals" site, however, two of the RK's (the basic one and the one with Oakleaves and Swords) appear to be perfectly standard "A" type S&L crosses, but without the raised beading flaws which Dietrich believes to have led to the repair of the S&L frame die and the emergence of the "B" type RK. The third cross (the RK with Oakleaves) however, appears to be a "B" type, or perhaps even a combination of "B" and "A" types, not previously seen. Here is that RK:

[Leroy]

The Cross is noted to have an iron core and is marked "800":

[Leroy]

If you look closely, the obverse of the cross has the 6-9 o'clock "bridge flaw" characteristic of "B" type crosses. (You may have to copy this photo and blow it up - for some reason I can't seem to save the "blown-up" version to post here).

[Leroy]

The obverse also appears to have the "dent row' on the 3 o'clock arm.

[Leroy]

Closer. (Again, save this photo and blow it up.)

[Leroy]

The reverse of the Cross, however, does not show the "bridge flaw".

[Leroy]

Closer. (Again, save and blow it up.)

[Leroy]

Nor does the reverse appear to have the "dent row".

[Leroy]

Closer (blow it up).

[Leroy]

If you can, please go to the "emedals" site and look at all the photos of all the Crosses while they are still there, to verify what is shown here. Although you can't copy directly ("function disabled"), the computer-literate of you can save the page and zoom in on sections. Later (and I personally needed a computer-savvy person to do this) you can copy from the saved page.

The Crosses on the board shown in the original thread on WAF pose some interesting questions:

1.) If, in fact, I am not seeing what I think I am seeing, and all three Crosses are standard "A" crosses, why did S&L have "A" crosses in stock at the end of the war which DID NOT have the raised beading flaws which led to the creation of the "B" type? Certainly, "A" types WITH the raised beading flaws appear to have been awarded and those flaws appear to have grown over time.
2.) If I am right about what I am seeing, is this cross a "combination" with a "B" obverse and an "A" reverse frame? If so, why is it a combination of an UNFLAWED "A" and a "B"?
3.) If this Cross IS a combination, is this the first of this type observed?; and
4.) IF this Cross is a combination, was it assembled before the PKZ mandated the use of the assigned PKZ number (in this case "4")?

Perhaps an interesting thing to talk about, in the New Year, once everyone has had a chance to look at things, draw their own conclusions and think about it.

I certainly could be wrong in what I think I see, but the "bridge flaw" appears to be present without much question on the obverse and the "dent row" certainly LOOKS to be there, too.

[Leroy]

This Cross, now sold, was listed at $14,500.

[Franco]

Hello Leroy,
What do you think they did to the die when it was altered from A to B.For instance,did they do a complete make over,or just repair those parts that were damaged.
I dont know if Im seeing things,but the beading on a B type seems to be wider than on an A.
what do you think.
Cheers

[Leroy]

Franco,
The beading on some crosses does appear to be a bit "fatter" than on others, but that is something that varies between crosses and is not consistant even between every "A" and every "B".

I honestly don't know what was done, or how, to create "A" and "B", even though I have been able (which many haven't, unfortunately) to study authentic "A" and "B" versions side by side and in great detail for many, many hours. Without getting again into the (very complicated) arguments and counter-arguments (one die, two dies, "mother" die, "working dies", repairing a die would not work,repairing a die would work, why repair and yet create a new set of flaws?, etc. etc.) I think we can and should all acknowledge the accuracy of the general premise that there is an "A" type and a "B" type cross frame, which Dietrich Maerz was the first to publicly explore. The questions NOW are "what was used and when?". Although Dietrich's belief is that the "A" frame developed flaws which eventually led to its repair and the creation of the "B" frame, and that this happened so late in the war that perhaps only two "B" types (the 935-4 and 800-4) may have been produced before war's end (Dietrich today still only really acknowledges the 935-4, although I understand he is still reviewing the 800-4), I (and others ) remain personally convinced that there may be "more to it" than that and that the "time frame" for development and use of the "B" frame is something which is not yet definitively determined. This is NOT a criticism of Dietrich's work, but only an effort to further define the "grey areas" so that, in the future, no dealer will be able to "fudge" the possible genuineness of a piece and that collectors will be able to determine for themselves, in a few very simple steps, the period of manufacture and/or assembly of an S&L RK (wartime, early postwar, "the 1957 era", '60's, 70's, etc.). Perhaps some crosses thought generally to be bad will be found to be good, and vice versa. Perhaps others, thought to be "maybe" crosses, will be eliminated altogether. In any case, we will never know unless we take the time to look.
Best,
Leroy

[Leroy]

Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether this cross is a "B", or combination "A"/"B", cross?