Flaw-traces again

[Ron Birch]

Hello Gordon,

I'm in total agreement in keeping the thread on track. I have been disappointed on more than one occasion when a thread spiraled down to who has the best way to call someone an SOB.


I hope I can read some interesting discussion and opinions from the 'for' camp and learn something of why they think they are good and draw my own conclusions from the thread as a whole..........so please continue.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I have a feeling this cross came onto the market like a trojan horse.
From day one it was perfect, except for the flaws, and initially noone noticed them because the crosses were so good that they could be overlooked.
Over the years many dealers have sold them with a clear concience (the exception being Prospers London buddy, the man at the fore of this escapade), many collectors have traded and sold them with the "full story" (This comes from a panzer guy, etc, etc).

The pieces have been around for so long without being questioned, that I bet there are hundreds of them in collections "with storys", as replacements in groups (unknown to the present owners) and all these pieces have "Provenance."

Stand up and tell these folks that the pieces are fake... you may as well hit them with "Jessie Ventura is Gay". They wont believe it because they all have pieces "with origin"

Now here are 3 points, the first one having being missed all these years.

1) the "for" guys miss one thing. When ye talk of S+L Dies we are talking ONE set. Die characteristics are characteristics of ONE SET of dies.
If S+L was using this ONE set to make flawless rims in the 50s.... it is technically impossible that they made flawed rims during the war.

2) Reworking the flaws. A few folks advanced the theory that the flaws were filed off. Throw a cross onto a stereomicroscope and you will see what each individual atom had for breakfast. a reworked /filed rim would be seem right away.

3) Ok, here is what may be a curve ball.... If I am right in thinking that the back rims and front rims are made from the same die.... Are the flawed crosses flawed on both sides, or just one ?

By the way Skip, was glad to see you show up way back when and dissapointed to see you leave.
I am sure most of us would be more than happy to have you as a regular. You just have to learn to ignore some of the nuts (most have moved on to other pastures)and you will find there are really some good guys in here.

[Ludwig]

S & L

Dear Skip,
I agree 100% to what you say!...and to what Prosper says, too. As long as a person has no commercial interest in having an opinion, but really honestly believes he´s right, we shall listen.
Do we REALLY KNOW that there was only ONE set of Steinhauer & Lück frame stamps during the war??? Isn´t that just a theory? I guess that S&L made thousands of KCs during the war and that they most likely had more than one stamp.
And if the crosses Forman tries to sell to collectors are the ones you refer to, they are NOT of the same high quality as the real S&L crosses I have seen.
I would (and I guess we are many) very much like to se a scan of a guaranteed high quality S&L fake with flaws. One that we can be sure of is made by and sold by Forman. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[Chris Boonzaier]

Ludwig,

Dies are handmade.
Make 2 sets of dies...and you have 2 different crosses.
As I said in my above post, put 2 crosses under a microscope and you will see if they are made FROM THE SAME DIE, not the same firm using 2 different dies.

A firm using 2 sets of dies would essentially be making 2 completely different crosses.

We are essentially talking about a single die that became cracked.

[Prosper Keating]

(the exception being Prospers London buddy, the man at the fore of this escapade),

Chris: he's no friend of mine, of that I can assure you! My buddy at the time was another crook, someone whom the police would dearly love to have nailed as a professional forger but he was, despite his severe drug habits, too smart for Scotland Yard. He's dead now so I can use his name or, at least, his first name. Geoff was also a professional museum thief, stealing things to order for collectors. He was the one who failed to buy the Steinhauer & Lück RK dies that night in a dingy Greek taverna in London. He wasn't sure about paying the asking price for dies with flaws which he saw immediately, die-cutting being one of his family's businesses.

As far as Geoff was concerned, real S&L RKs had no flaws (even then, back in 1981, it was an issue) and being a perfectionist and also being wary of taking a risk because the authorities were looking in his direction over some top quality forgeries of British DFCs and DCMs, as well as forged campaign clasps and other things covered by Crown Copyright and serious prison time if caught, he hesitated. So a wellknown London dealer got them instead...which infuriated Geoff. He hated to lose and like most amphetamine addicts, had rather a paranoid and violent nature. Imagine, if you will, Sydney Greenstreet on Class A drugs and with a Tae-Kwon-Do master's qualification and a penchant for carrying automatic pistols and you'll get an idea. I joined the army and got away from this cesspool but I kept in touch with a number of those still flailing about in it.

I can understand Skip's position. I know someone personally who has an S&L RK on which the infamous flaws are very slight, as if the cracks in the dies were just beginning to occur. Apart from that, it is generally of quite a high quality. It was in all likelihood made by Steinhauer & Lück some time before they disposed of the dies in that backdoor deal. He believes that it is an original pre-May 1945 RK and will not hear otherwise. While it is of quite a high quality, it just doesn't strike me as being quite up to the quality of known, original wartime Steinhauer & Lück RKs I have seen and handled. It just doesn't have that certain 'je-ne-sais-quoi' discernible in originals, even wellworn, battered originals. Now, Ludwig makes a good point in writing:

And if the crosses Forman tries to sell to collectors are the ones you refer to, they are NOT of the same high quality as the real S&L crosses I have seen.

Skip: is there any chance of posting some high res scans of your S&L RK? A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words. I remember the thread a couple of years ago that Skip describes as being full of personal attacks on him and others who contended that flawed-beading S&L RKs were original wartime pieces. I certainly remember being attacked for sharing my knowledge. All I can say is that nobody is attacking Skip for putting his case. But let's see the cross in question. Skip writes:

It has been looked at, weighed, measured, photographed and scrutinized by numerous, notable dealers and collectors (most with no axe to grind) at the OVMS Show of Shows (2001 & 2002) as well as the MAX Show. Several of the dealers and collectors who have seen the cross are respected members of this forum. No one - let me emphasize that - NO ONE who actually seen the cross has expressed any doubts as to its originality / authenticity / pre-May 1945 manufacture. In fact, the only place the die-crack flaw = reproduction seems to have any credence is here.

Which notable dealers and collectors is Skip referring to? I recall that somebody who was defending these flawed RKs on this forum a couple of years ago cited Stephen Previtera as one of the experts who had given his RK the thumbs-up. When contacted and asked about this, Mr Previtera apparently denied the encounter and went on to say that he would never declare one of these crosses to be an original piece because of the doubts surrounding them. I do not have my records to hand and I cannot remember if the person who cited Previtera was also the person who questioned Gordon Williamson's qualifications because Gordon had also expressed doubts about these crosses. As Skip says:

The last time this thread ran on the forum, it became so rife with personal attacks on me and the others who own "die crack flaw" RK's that the Administrator saw fit to terminate it. Most of us have better things to be doing than opening ourselves up to abuse or ridicule. I'm sure the attacks will start up again and my motive(s) for even posting this will be called into question. It is, in fact, a classic "Catch-22" situation: If no one who truly believes the crosses are good responds, our silence is taken as an admission on our part that we are somehow trying to deceive the entire collecting community. If, on the other hand, we do respond, we are illegitimate idiots, sore losers, and (add your own insult(s) here______________.)

Okay, guys...I'm all yours!

As I said, I remember being attacked on quite a personal level for sharing my knowledge of these flawed-beading S&L RKs and I remember defending my position...no doubt upsetting a few people as a result! But as you can see, Skip, nobody's attacking you for defending your flawed S&L RK. However, with my journalist's fact-checking head on, I would be more prepared to listen to your arguments were they peppered with facts - and, if possible, pictures of your RK - instead of passive-aggressive presumptions about our opinions of you. As Gordon says, the people largely responsible for the abuse on that occasion have moved on or grown up.

Prosper Keating

[Chris Boonzaier]

Here are a couple of thoughts......

Am I right in thinking that a die is a block of steel? if so, the flaws would not really get bigger over time, because the die would not really "split" any more, the flaws only being caused by a scratch.

A question... are there any 57 pattern crosses WITH the flaw ?

We have mentioned that the original 57 pattern crosses were made with the WW2 Dies and had NO flaw.

IF the flaw occured in the 50s and the initial batch had no flaws, did S+L continue to use this die after the flaw appeared, or did they cut a new one for their 57 crosses ?

Does anyone out there have a 57 S+L with the die flaw ?

[Larry Lipps]

While hoping to stay completely out of this fray, there is at least one point that I'll weigh in on. I was with Skip a couple of years ago when he showed his cross to Stephen Previtera at the OVMS. The fact that he later decided to crawfish when pressed on this issue taught me a valuable lesson about citing opinions from the "experts" and provided me with a totally different outlook on authors. Since I've no dog in this fight, I'll remain on the fence and wait to see which side best proves their theory.
It took a long time for the fences to mend the last time we struggled with this issue and I hope a definitive finding can be made that will someday put this to bed.

[Chris Boonzaier]

here are some more crazy questions and theories Based on no facts and just basically brainstorming, but I would be interested to hear opinions.

S+L still whip up knights crosses today. Obviously on a different set of dies.

Now here is a question.

When did they cahnge dies ? If I understand correctly we have the following...

War time crosses without cracks... 57 crosses without cracks....(do we have 57 crosses with cracks ????).... 57 crosses with new dies.

This opens up a few possible scenarios and interesting questions.

Did S+L sell their dies in the early 80s because a crook wanting to use them for fakes made a huge offer... or were they approached to sell then and did they think "why not, we had a new set made after we saw the die flaw."

If they were making 57 crosses with a new die in the 60s or 70s (before the fakers got the cracked dies) then it means they retired the old dies because of the crack.

I am not to sure where this line of thinking is going either, but if the die was retired and replaced then it would pretty much indidcate that even to a postwar S+L company, a damaged product had to be replaced.

Anyone have any thoughts ?

(I realise that the above has no facts in it, its just brainstorming)

[David Tiffin]

If they're still in business why doesn't someone just write them a letter and ask?

[Chris Boonzaier]

If they knows...they aint telling....

[Ron Birch]

Now this is interesting Chris have you ever spoke to anyone at S&L?

[Chris Boonzaier]

I once called up to find out about a 57 KC.
The woman on the phone said I should call sometime around the middle of the summer. She said they would get together a bunch of orders (from collectors) then whip up a batch of KCs.

I didnt bother to call back as I found one in the meantime.

Basically it means that most 57 crosses are made for collectors and are borderline fakes as well.

[Prosper Keating]

Oh no! It's turning into a re-run. Here are three extracts from the first major Steinhauer & Lück flawed-beading Ritterkreuz thread. I'd have posted the entire thread for everyone's general interest and amusement but there seems to be a limit to the length of a posting.

Before we read on, I cannot resist observing that Snigley didn't come forward in February 2001 to say that Stephen Previtera was lying when he denied examining Skip's RK and declaring it original.

As you will see in the third extract reproduced below, Mr Previtera made this statement to François Saez and as you will also see, Mr Previtera clearly felt that the RK in question was not an original pre-May 1945 piece.

Anyway, this should say it all...or most of it at any rate:

First extract:

Prosper Keating
Member posted February 26, 2001 12:16 PM               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too true, mate, too true! Sadly, legal considerations prevent us - for the time being - from taking off the gloves and really going for the British dealer who supplied 1939 pattern RKs from the cracked S&K dies a while back...taking up where S&L themselves left off when they sold him the dies.

There again, I'd happily stand up in court, as it were, and relate what I know of this individual, based on personal experience and personal relationships with people involved in fraudulent militaria dealing. To say nothing of other dealers from Britain.

Of course, he's not the only bad bear in the forest. I'd say that over 90% of dealers are capable or dishonesty. But this c*nt...he's really screwed over a lot of people.

They get away with it, of course, because very few people are inclined to admit that they've been had, even indirectly. They prefer to bore us all with groundless arguments instead of thanking us for putting them right and then taking matters up with the vendor(s).

Take this S&L RK argument, for instance: the owner comes winging in, implicitly accusing anyone involved in the argument whose views are at odds with his of being opinionated and offensive. It's a classic ploy: attack as a means of defence. And what's his argument in the end? It runs like this:

"I paid through the nose for a Ritterkreuz described to the man I bought it from by the dealer he bought it from as an original piece acquired from the dealer's banker who apparently stated that he'd been given it in 1955 by his grandfather who was, presumably, a WW2 veteran of some kind. A load of people at some show examined it for a whole day under jewellers' lens, measuring and weighing it, and told me that it was original. So...it's original and yah, boo, sucks to you!"

OK...put it up for sale and see how many serious-minded collectors line up to buy it!

Or take one's medicine like a man. I got badly burned a while back on a Blood Order, an award I happily admit falls outside my normal scope, but I took it standing up.

One should go back to the vendor, and request a refund. One will soon see just how good a friend he is then!

And if one doesn't like what one is told in this Forum, one expressly doesn't rate the people who take the trouble to share information in good faith, and one is allergic to crow pie, then one is not obliged to come here, is one?

Anyway, I reckon that's enough S&L RK ballocks for the time being. Let's move on and leave the blind to fumble and wail in the darkness.

Prosper


IP: Logged
Snigley
Member posted February 26, 2001 02:02 PM            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to be up front in my response, I’ll admit that I’m a friend of Mr. Greenwade and Mr. Wittmann. Consider my comments skewed in their direction if you desire. I’ll also state that I’ve no dog in this fight so hopefully open objectivity can be maintained. Chris Boonzaier has an excellent suggestion on running comparisons on the different crosses to determine if they all came from the same die. Until that is done this is still just a matter of opinions.

Personally I resent the insinuation that any of these individuals are lying about the circumstances under which they obtained their Knights Crosses. Mr. Wittmann’s banker knew what Tom did for a living and inquired about selling the two medals his Grandfather had given him back in 1955. This was not a sinister plot to defraud perpetrated by an unscrupulous counterfeiter. Mr. Wittmann’s reputation has borne the test of time, and I’ve no reason to doubt any of their comments.

Now that we’re dealing in the opinion category, let’s poll our panel of individuals who thought the cross was probably correct.
1. Stephen Previtera, author of “The Iron Time”
2. Wolfe & Hardin
3. Bill Shea
4. Bob Thompson
5. Jason Burmeister
6. Gailen David
7. And other equally knowledgeable individuals

The reasoning behind some of their opinions was that the 1957 crosses often fall outside the weight parameters of an original piece (of which this one doesn’t). It is almost impossible to correctly duplicate the color of the aged rhodium finish and there were changes in the way the black finish was applied to the center core between 1945 and 1957. Why would Steinhauer and Luck jeopardize a government contract to produce replacement medals by knocking off a few Nazi items at 1957 collector prices? Steinhauer and Luck certainly had individuals on their staff talented enough to remove any trace of a die crack on their early 1957 restrikes in case it might have become an issue for government inspections.

And now the list of knowledgeable individuals at the show who agreed with the post war theory:

1. None
2. Absentee expert (Prosper Keating)

So Mr. Keating you want proof; show us yours! At this moment the scales aren’t exactly tilted in your favor. Unfortunately Mr. Stump was not able to attend so we couldn’t make a die crack comparison with his 1957 cross. You may long term be proven correct, but until then it’s still just your opinion and the last time I checked your opinions didn’t come down from Mt. Sinai chiseled in stone. As an interesting side note, Mr. Kondor (who started the original posting) was there too and received the same favorable responses.

If you feel the need, feel free to attack me personally. I’m pretty thick skinned and it won’t bother me in the slightest.

Second extract:

Chris Boonzaier
Moderator posted February 26, 2001 06:39 PM               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
I feel like the guy standing at the back trying to get a word in, at least thats how I feel because everyone seems to be looking over, reading around or simply ignoring one factthat I have tried to make .....
To quote Bill

". How do we know that S&L didn't have TWO dies, one broken and one not? My 1957 S&L is an early model and doesn't have a die flaw. I have seen others with the flaw. "

With a good Russian Lab Microscope, bought on a MÃ1/4nchen Flea market you can see right away if the same set of dies were used or not.

There are some folks on the forum on some other threads who seem to think that a firm can have 2 sets of dies and turn out the same badge with both of them. The difference between 2 badges produced by the same firm on 2 sets of dies can often be as big as the difference between the badges of 2 totally different firms.

In this case, even if S+L had 2 sets of RK Dies (and lets seal that can of worms up right there as it is only a thought)the crosses from the 2 sets of dies would be so different that it has no relevance to our topic of discussion.

We are talking of the 57 cross with the die fault, made from the same die as the WW2 S+L crosses.

But I agree with all the above, this topic has been thrashed to death with no progress shown in either direction.

Third extract:

François SAEZ
Member posted February 27, 2001 07:07 AM               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
If I understand well (correct if I am wrong):
Some collectors are arguing about the fact that S&L had or didn't have 2 dies to produce RK during WW2.
To defend the fact that the one owned by Snigley was original (but produced from the 2nd die) he is giving a list of well know people in the field of militaria. So, because everything is possible (at least in the beginning), I have simply contacted the first name of the list, given by Snigley as a reference, asking if the RK in question was good as stated on this public forum.
So attached are the words of S. Previtera (author, in my opinion, of the best book on Iron Crosses, ever published):
"..., I did not tell this individual that he had an original 39 KC. Please tell the
forum this for me as I do not wish to enter into a debate which has already demonstrated to be a huge waste of time. I did see the cross in question but did not offer a huge amount of hope to this individual...".
Hum.....when you state things like Snigley did, taking S. Previtera as reference, be sure of what you state, because, other collectors, like me, could believe what is written (specially new collectors)and when in fact we see that what was stated is not true (at least partly)all your argumentation is not "credible" anymore.
In conclusion:
- We have again the proof that the collectors community in splited in 2 distinctive parts:
a)one part is "working" with text books, references, daily studies and comparisons...(I try to belong to this part)
b) An other part, "opened mind", collecting "stories" and "dreams". When you start to accept theories based on "stories" the is no limit.
Friendly
François
P.S.: Concerning the fact for Prosper, to give the name of the British dealer there is non added value to name him on a public forum - it will create a new polemic and risks for Prosper what we don't want, no?

It's all been said before so there seems to be little point in going through this all over again, especially as the Pro contingent - essentially the same two people as before - have still not managed to show the Ritterkreuz in question on this forum despite invitations to do so then and now.

I think we will simply have to agree to disagree about these RKs because it is clear that any discussion of them involving people who own one and assert that it is an original pre-May 1945 RK is as futile as telling Flat Earth Society members that the Earth is round or suggesting to Creationists that the Earth was more than six days in the making.

Prosper Keating:o

[Chris Boonzaier]

I almost agree with prosper, move on to new thories and questions.

When and why did S+L change the dies ?
Did S+L damage the dies before they sold them to make faking impossble ?
Has anyone got a 57 cross with flaws?

If we want to keep this topic up and running we should brainstorm a little as there are not enough facts to keep a cork afloat.

[George Stimson]

Very well put, Prosper!
Now it's time to lock up this thread, wrap it in a heavy chain, and throw it over the side of the boat along with the "Deumer RK" one.

George