This is the photo from post #59, but I have rotated it so the 12 o'clock arm is at the top. I have also brightened it so the details are clearer. I believe I can see the flaw between the 9 and 12 o'clock arms (only on the "A" types) and no bridge flaw between the 6 and 9 o'clock arms.
-
Last edited by Leroy; 01-22-2010, 04:29 PM. -
Bob,Originally posted by Bob Hritz View Post
I have blown it up, but it loses detail so it's impossible to really say for sure.
The cross even looks like a "New Rounder"!
Best,
LeroyComment
-
This is the best I can do, Bob.Originally posted by Bob Hritz View Post
When you look at these pix, the swords don't look the same.
Both types are oddly 'elongated', but the swords worn by von Manteuffel seen to have longer crossguards.
Could just be the angles, but I think they are different.Comment
-
Last try. The swords seem to be mounted "deeper" below the surface of the Oakleaves.Comment
-
Originally posted by Leroy View Post
And..................look at the poor definition to the outline of the oakleaves worn by von Manteuffel.
Could these have been field-made?
Just a thought.
I think the photo was taken before he received the diamonds.Comment
-
The photo, according to the Bundesarchive, was taken in May, 1944. He won the Swords in February, 1944 and the Diamonds in February, 1945.Comment
-
-
Great comparison, Robert!
This certainly appears to be a nice "A" cross with a ring less finished than what we sometimes think we have to see.
Comment
-
Let me do a brief little summary here. The 3 crosses from the "boards" being sold by "emedals" appear to consist of 2 "A" unflawed types (1 plain and 1 with Oakleaves and Swords) and 1 (with Oakleaves) which appears to have, on the obverse only, a "bridge flaw" (which "A" types are not supposed to have) and the "dent row", with its reverse side being, just like the one discussed here in this current thread, an unflawed "A" type. Here is a photo from the thread a few weeks ago showing a "bridge flaw" on the 1 with Oakleaves.Comment
-
And here is what appears to be a "dent row" on the 1 with Oakleaves. It does not appear to be just loss of frosting, but instead shows "depth", into the metal itself.Comment
-
You've lost me.
Too many flaws for my poor brain to absorb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robin Lumsden View PostYou've lost me.
Too many flaws for my poor brain to absorb. Okay, Robin:
"A" types are not supposed to have a "bridge flaw" (that little ridge of material on the edge of the beading in the corner between the 6 and 9 o'clock arms). Nor are they supposed to have a "dent row" (a line of impressed dots into the beading along the right side of the beading on the lower 3 o'clock arm). Both of these "flaws" are supposed to be present ONLY on "B" type crosses. IF these flaws are present on the obverse side of the cross with Oakleaves being sold by "emedals", that obverse side is a "B" type. The reverse side (which does not have these) is an "A" type. Not just an "A" type, but an "A" type with no raised beading flaws (imperfections in the beading which show up as little "lines" running across the top of the beading on the vertical parts of the 3 and 9 o'clock arms and in the horizontal part of the 6 o'clock arm).
We can send out a patrol to look for you if you are stlll lost!
Comment
-
Yes, please!Originally posted by Leroy View Post
So few Knight's Crosses awarded..................but so many variants!
Joking aside, thanks.
I have yet to invest in 'The Bible' as I only have one RK and don't intend buying another!Comment
-
Still, a great book to have (even though Dietrich and I have little disagreements from time to time).Originally posted by Robin Lumsden View PostComment
-
Comment