Flaw-traces again

[Bruce Simcox]

Quality

Gordon,

You said everything I was hoping to hear from someone with a working knowledge of tool&die making.

What is it about a seeming lack of quality control, that people don't understand ( not you Gordon )?

What lack of quality control, one might ask, was the firm of S&L practicing so long ago?

Here is something I said in the other S&L post

The Ritterkreuz was, culturally, a very prestigious award, and for a company to have been involved in it's production would have been a very prestigious honor in it's own right. Therefore, it would seem ludicrous for a company to even consider using inferior methods to create an RK.

By inferior methods I do mean the use of flawed dies, among other reasons.

Why, then, is there really any question at all?

I, for the life of me, don't honestly understand how a firm engaged in the production and distribution of it's nation's highest award could conceivably produce anything less than the best possible product.

For me the answer seems simple. I will remain of the opinion that it never happened that the firm of S&L would produce junk.

So, for me, if someone else is happy with a flawed award, then they are certainly entitled to believe in it, but I really don't see how.

Cracked dies indeed!

--------------------

Bruce

[Prosper Keating]

I think Bruce has said all that needs to be said. Nothing more to say.

Prosper Keating

[Jack]

KC

Hello
PK the faults you mention on the cross are on the beading or next to it.Also can some body tell me the "frosting" that you see on some RK's and EK1 & EK2 what is it and how did they do it and can they do it today.
Cheers Jack

[moranimal]

Manufacturing

"I, for the life of me, don't honestly understand how a firm engaged in the production and distribution of it's nation's highest award could conceivably produce anything less than the best possible product.

For me the answer seems simple. I will remain of the opinion that it never happened that the firm of S&L would produce junk."

Well, I worked for Anthony Manufacturing, a subsidiary of Rainbird Sprinklers, for almost two years. I oversaw production, and my job was to ensure that quality pieces were produced in the time allotted.

The rank and file personnel were all non-company employees, and by law could only work a maximum of six months, and then either had to be hired or let go at the end of that time. What I found was that when a new crew started, one-quarter were gone in two weeks, another quarter within a month, another quarter in three months, until at the end only about one-quarter of those hired remained. This was truly "unskilled" labor at its finest.

Machinery was constantly breaking down, in need of repair, needing upgrades, etc. As part of "planned obsolescence", many of the new machines wouldn't handle the dies, parts, etc. that previous machines used, thus requiring some retooling in the process. (We had our own machine shop on call 24/7 for that.)

Now, pre-fabricated parts from other subsidiaries were routinely rejected in the QA process due to failure to meet tech specs. However, if the order came down that they were to be "re-inspected", we all knew what that meant, i.e. there was a hot order and the parts were to be used regardless. We could always send replacements later. Calamities played a part as well, as the Whittier Quake distrupted operations for a good week, so I can only imagine what consistent bombing would do.

What does all this have to do with S&L? Well, I'm assuming that as the skilled labor pool dwindled due to the war effort, that labor was imported and used from all parts of the Reich, regardless of the quality. Since they were in a non-critical industry, I'm also assuming that replacement parts, equipment upgrades, new machines, etc. were at a premium and rather random at times. Thus it was possible that an entirely new retooling process may have been necessary on occasion.
S&L would also have had multiple production lines for the various badges and what ever else they may have produced. On top of it all, they were out to make money like any other captialist companies. (Heaven help them if Goring, Himmler, etc. were investors!)

This all means that I won't be buying any S&L RKs with die flaws. It also means that having worked in such an environment, I can appreciate how such things happen.

[Prosper Keating]

Jack's question:

G'day Jack,

The flaws take the form of ridges of varying consistency, depending upon the state of the frame dies whenever a given frame-half was struck, running along the outer beading on each of the horizontal arms of the cross, at 9-o-clock and 3-o-clock. As for the actual process involved in the frosting, I have never bothered to study the details but I do know that it is something of a 'lost art', that modern attempts to replicate the matt silver and frosted finishes of many 3rd Reich awards and badges never get it quite right. Someone told me that it was similar to old-style cadmium plating, as found on the nuts of bolts of motorbikes up to the early 1970s, involving cyanide-based solutions, which is why it is hard to find anyone willing to do old-style cadmium plating today. I know that firegilding involved cyanide. Perhaps the matt frosting did too. I am sure someone out there can give us bell, book and candle on the subject.

Hope this helps...

PK

[Dave Kane]

Lovely matt finish!

PK..it's not lost! If someone out there ( not the believers ) has John Floch's address, and he'll raise his head, we might get the formula!! Then there's Falon.....The method is not lost just very closely guarded!

Point being....100 KvK 1st., today lacking the 'original' finish we look for..but 1 month later wonderfully finished with the matt / silver polished edges and the centerpeice of collections ( I have to George!) just like the "flawed" S&L and ofcourse the Deumer Knight's Crosses! The very same crosses came back and were they great!!

What most ( 10-15) year exposure collectors don't realise is the crap that went on before they became interested...

[Skipper Greenwade]

Hello again,

I will post scans of my RK early next week. Until then, anyone with a copy of Arthur Hayes' "SS Uniforms, Insignia & Accoutrements" can have a look...the actual piece in question is pictured on page 183 in the book.

The photo & scans will show that my cross does not have any trace of the flaw on the 9 o'clock arm. It is most pronounced on the 3 o'clock arm and there is just a hint of it on the 6 o'clock arm. You have to look really closely to see the flaw at 6 o'clock.

Now to address some of the comments made since my post on Tuesday:

Ron - I continue to think the piece good based on a number of factors - some tangible and some intangible. The intangibles, I think everyone will be quick to point out, are probably only valid in my mind and the mind(s) of others choosing to believe die-crack flawed pieces were produced during the war so I will list them here but don't expect them to be too persuasive.

The intangible portions are actually the source of the piece and the story surrounding it. I purchased the RK directly from Art Hayes. He has handled numerous RK's in the time I have known him and I know of few RK's that change hands at any show he attends without having first been run past him. We are close friends and he has steered me away from bad pieces in the past, to include one that he owned but wasn't sure about. The RK was purchased with an original case from Art at the MAX Show in 1995 for $4,000.00. At the time I bought the RK, the deal was that if I ever wanted to sell it, he reserved the right of first refusal at a price of $5,000.00. That arrangement still stands, but as previously stated I have no desire to sell the piece. To make things perfectly clear, I have a standing offer of $5,000.00 for the RK, but still think I would be hard-pressed to find a cased RK in similar condition for that price. Art bought the cross from Tom Wittmann in the spring of 1994. Tom had, in turn, purchased it from his banker who got it from his grandfather - the vet who brought it home along with four different grades of the Eagle Order, to include the 1st Class sash badge and the 1st Class breast badge, both with swords. Anyone with a copy of Witttmann's List# 27 (Spring/Summer 1994) can verify that this is the story thus far. Tom had no problems/questions re: the authenticity of the Eagle Orders and they are considerably rarer than the RK. In order for me to be convinced that the piece is a fake, I have to be convinced that the banker's grandfather lied to his grandson and/or that the banker lied to Tom. Tom's price for the RK was $2,500.00 - not a great deal of money, and we have to assume that he made a profit on it - seems like a lot of trouble for not much money on the banker's part! Next, I would have to believe that Art knowingly purchased a fake and then sold it to me - something I have a hard time with, given Art's track record and my relationship with him. Art's price ($4,000.00) allowed him very little room given the fact that a comparable length of ribbon and a case could easily constitute the entire $1,500.00 difference between what Art paid for the cross and what he sold it for. Again, not a whole lot of money being made for that much trouble, so the usual argument centering on greed is baseless.

Now, on to something a little less subjective. The RK is in unworn condition. Accordingly, it still retains well over 90% of the frosted (rhodium?) finish that Prosper mentions in his post above. The consensus among those who have actually seen/handled the cross is that the frosting is correct, as is the blackening of the center core. The weight is within accepted standards for an original S&L RK, as are the dimensions. The assembly and overall workmanship are certainly up to wartime standards. I regard the weight, measurements and the fact that the finish and assembly are correct as tangible, verifiable elements in this discussion - anything to the contrary would create more doubt in my mind than the flaw(s).

At the time I purchased the RK, the die-crack flaw theory was either unknown or was a very closely-held secret. As I stated previously, there seems to be little support for it beyond this forum. That is based on conversations with a good many older collectors - none of whom, to my knowledge, own die-crack flaw RK's and presumably would have nothing to gain regardless of which position they chose to take. Were the theory common knowledge or a commonly-held belief at that time, I can't say for sure whehter I would have purchased the RK or not. What I do know is that the system I have developed over some 30 years of colecting for purchasing an item like an RK involves several key elements:

Buy from a well-known, trusted source - one that offers a money-back guarantee. This is certainly the case with both Tom and Art.

Buy a piece that conforms to the generally accepted criteria, i.e. weight, dimensions, quality of finish, fit.

Don't be reluctant to seek out a second (or third, or fourth) opinion. As I have addressed this in my earlier posts, suffice it to say that I am satisfied that this base has been covered.

Don't be afraid of making a mistake and/or admitting that you did so. As I said earlier, I have been collecting militaria for thirty years. To say that I have never been burned would be far from the truth (see my PO badge example in the earlier post).. at $4,000.00 the RK is far from the most expensive item in my collection and one that I would have no qualms about disposing of (not attempting to re-sell as an original!) and replacing were I convinced that it was aything other than a right piece. (Sorry, but unless you know me, you'll just have to take my word for it that I would do this!) My first collecting interest remains Third Reich daggers - I know just enough about medals and badges to know that I won't buy a piece much "heavier" than a black wound badge without having it looked at and resorting to the rest of the afore-mentioned guidelines.

To recap (thanks for bearing with me!) I bought a book-pictured piece with what I believe to be good provenance from a well-known collector (not a dealer!) with a money-back guarantee. The piece, with the exception of the flaw, conforms to accepted criteria. I have not had anyone who has looked at or handled the piece give any indication to me that they felt it was not original - I honestly believe most of them know me well enough to be brutally frank with me and, in fact have been in the past! In short, I like my odds! Everything in this post is indepently verifiable and the scans will be forthcoming next week. I will also be at the MAX Show, the OVMS Show in November and the OVMS Show-of Shows in February. I generally make the Houston Astrohall shows as well and would be happy to allow any and all who wish to do so to have a look, show it to their buddies, etc.

Best to all and thanks again if you stayed with this post,

Skip

[Ron Birch]

Thanks for the reply Skip, and look forward to you posting the pictures. Even though the other side of this "debate" makes more sense to me. But still would like to see and look forward to the pictures.

[Gordon Williamson]

Regarding the "white" frosted finish to the rim, this is still easily done. There is no big secret to it and there are several methods. The finish S&L used was very much a "white" frosting, K&Q pieces on the other hand lack this and just have a matt silver effect.
This can be done by heating the piece then dipping into a mild acid solution, some of the white finished were done by painting a caustic soda type solution onto the frame then baking it - there were many methods.

Still available today. Visit Cyrus Lee's "Soldat" site and he offers to add the white frosting to the rim of his fake RKs for a few $ extra.

It is true that most fakes lack this finish but it is not difficult to impart.

Gordon

[Skipper Greenwade]

Since this thread is devoted to theory, here's one of my own - formulated since the evolution/circulation of "flaw = fake"

Frst, the set-up: As an edged weapons collector, I occasionally run across anomalies in the dagger world. A classic example is a 1936 (chained) SS dagger, the blade of which bears a maker mark. The standard production 1936 SS daggers did not have maker marks by dedsign, yet there are numerous. bet bring-back '36 SS daggers that do. The generally accepted thoughts on the subject are (1.) the original owner/wearer simply had a chain hanger assembly fitted to his '33 pattern dagger in the interest of economy or (2.) a GI, Tommy, Kiwi, etc. selected a dagger from a pile of war booty and paired it up with a scabbard. (In addition to what are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of mismatched daggers and swords that came home as war souvenirs out there, there is ample photographic evidence to document that this did occur) In any event, there is no doubt in the minds of dagger collectors that a maker-marked '36 SS - the components of which otherwise conform to accepted standards is an original piece. A maker-marked '36 SS dagger may not be a dagger collector's first choice, but there is no denying that they did exist prior to May, 1945.

A second example would be the souvenir or "Field Day" pieces. These were cobbled together from existing, pre-May 1954 parts and sold to occupation troops as souvenirs or to the military for use as prizes for sports competition, etc. They are generally accepted as "original" pieces by most dagger collectors and have even spawned their own branch of collecting.

Maybe dagger collectors are just inherently a more trusting lot - that would certainly explain my apparently unjustified willingness to accept a "die-crack flaw" RK as an original! - or it could be that we have all seen the photos of the enormous inventories of edged weapon parts that existed in Solingen at the end of the war and well into the 1960's and even the 70's.

At Chris' suggestion to "move on to new theories and questions", here's another theory. We have now seen or know of four S&L RK's - 1939 without the flaw, 1939 with the flaw, 1957 without the flaw and 1957 with the flaw. Most, if not all of the flawed 1939 RK's appear to be in unworn condition. Suppose for a moment that, in the waning days of the war, a number of RK frames were produced using the damaged die and that a number of them were assembled into RK's which were subsequently inspected and deemed unacceptable due to the flaw. Rather than discarding the crosses, the manufacturer simply placed them on a shelf, in a bin, etc. from which they were later removed by an employee or souvenir hunting occupation troops. The remaining flawed frames were kept in inventory - along with a relatively small number of frames that did not have the flaw - until S&L began producing the 1957 pattern RK. Initial production 1957 RK's could most certainly have been (and given the nature of piece-work, most likely were) produced from the stored frames, which would explain why some initial production '57's don't feature the flaw. We have opportunity, we have motive and, in at least one case (mine), we have an RK whose owner sleeps very well at night.

Before all but the most determined of the naysayers out there dismiss my theory as a last-ditch attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, think about the rest of the information shared in this thread:

Given the apparently rampant baiting and switching of RK's perpetrated on the orignal recipients Chris mentions, maybe the best approach is to never own an RK, since apparently even those in the hands of the original recipients or their families must be eyed with suspicion.

The finish on the silver frame has been characterized as "something of a lost art" and then a scant seven hours later is described as "...not difficult to impart". Which is it really? Given the collective experience and knowledge of the forum's membership, if we can't have agreement on something that basic, why should I "flush" my RK?

Bill Moran's very insightful and balanced post (lest I be accused of agreeing with him simply because it furthers my position, please note that it was far from a ringing endorsement of the flawed RK's) has yet to elicit comment, but - as I work in manufacturing as well - many of the points he mentions make perfect sense. It also, for the most part, lends credence to my own theory (above).

In my particular case, getting a fake RK into my hands for the not-too-princely sum of $4,000.00 would have had to be an excercise that spanned almost fifty years and would have involved countless hours of work - not the greatest return on one's investment! I almost feel flattered that someone would go to that much trouble on my account!

Best to all...have a great weekend!
Skip

[Chris Boonzaier]

"At Chris' suggestion to "move on to new theories and questions", here's another theory. We have now seen or know of four S&L RK's - 1939 without the flaw, 1939 with the flaw, 1957 without the flaw and 1957 with the flaw. Most, if not all of the flawed 1939 RK's appear to be in unworn condition. Suppose for a moment that, in the waning days of the war, a number of RK frames were produced using the damaged die and that a number of them were assembled into RK's which were subsequently inspected and deemed unacceptable due to the flaw. Rather than discarding the crosses, the manufacturer simply placed them on a shelf, in a bin, etc. from which they were later removed by an employee or souvenir hunting occupation troops. The remaining flawed frames were kept in inventory - along with a relatively small number of frames that did not have the flaw - until S&L began producing the 1957 pattern RK. Initial production 1957 RK's could most certainly have been (and given the nature of piece-work, most likely were) produced from the stored frames, which would explain why some initial production '57's don't feature the flaw. We have opportunity, we have motive and, in at least one case (mine), we have an RK whose owner sleeps very well at night"

Skip, that theory is as good as anyone has advanced, albeit just as unproved.

I for one would never buy a cross with this fault, but it is a bias based on circumstantial evidence and gut feeling.

I also very much respect the opinions of anyone who has one and believes it to be good.

I think it is a grey area (much as I hate that expression) and think it is not worth fighting about. it may be that proof pops up at some stage and we can take this further, until that day, I suggest we bury our guns on this thread.

A WW1 slogging match or war of attrition helps noone if it does not eventually lead to a break in the lines somewhere.

Lets call a truce until someone comes up with something new.

(some RK studio photos are untouched and crystal clear, maybe a good shot would forward the case of the yea sayers, whereas an absence of such photos is unfortunately no proof for the nay sayers)

[Skipper Greenwade]

Chris,

I respect your position and the spirit in which it is intended, but I have one question - after which I, too, will be content to "bury the guns" - at least until the question arises again and comments such as the following begin to appear:

"POST WAR..and they know it! That wasn't difficult...First year law school...."there is no tort in the truth"!"

"There are still a few hold-outs clinging to the faint hope that their RK with die flaws is an original pre-May 1945 piece but the most vociferous and, in some cases, abusive of those who refused to listen to truth and reason seem to have fallen silent."

"They will sell them all day long but asked to defend originality and explain why all we get is the big SILENT!"

"Silence can be an effective way of dealing with awkward questions."

"I have already heard the reasons why they are not, so where is the explanation from the other side. And I do agree Prosper, John, and Ben that with no answer there is only one conclusion anyone can make......and we all know it's not good!"

"Skip...ask them ( the experts) to buy it from you...
Solved!!!"

"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""



I could go on, but I think you see where I'm heading. Now my question:

After reading the comments above, if I had proposed the truce, what do you honestly think the response would have been? If you really, truly think some of the others on the forum would have been content to let sleeping dogs lie, I have a Knight's Cross to sell you!

Lastly, here's a tongue-in-cheek (I hope!) e-mail I received Wednesday - enjoy!

"Skip,
How many times will you have to have your nose rubbed in the indisputable, undeniable and unquestionable proof presented on this forum many times. Any idiot should recognize these flawed crosses as fakes from across the room. Numerous witnesses saw Carl Steinhauer throw every left over frame in the trash can at the end of WWII. Fritz Luck was so cheap he found a way to manufacture his entire product line using only one die and a little hand enhancement. Do these sound like people that would have had more than one die? What kind of idiots do you take us for? There has been a photo posted of a '57 without the flaw and that alone should make you see the light. This is proof positive any fool can see! There can be no doubt that the ten people you showed this to have at least six months' less experience than our entire forum, so we win! The fact that yesterday's heroes lilke Kai and Detlev have chosen to disagree with the pack has justifiably relegated them to the outer regions. Like you, they refuse to accept our thuths so they can no longer be trusted. As any forum regular will tell you, you can only trust someone with nothing to sell who never comes to a show to know the real stuff. So go on back to the rest of your lying, cheating accomplices who wouldn't know a Knight's Cross with Diamonds if it bit them in the a**."

Best to all - it's been fun...do you still want me to post the scans or are we all sick of this?

Skip

[Chris Boonzaier]

Hi Skip,
I tried to Email you, but cant get through, pleaase contact me off the forum,
All th ebest
Chris

[Mohawkwarrior]

Anyone who would send an email like that must have some serious reasons as to why they would want to try so hard to proove something is fake.This has been an enjoyable and extremely interesting debate and civil as well.I commend all of you for your tact.I havent owned a KC for many years but with the knowledge available now that wasnt back then, I would feel better about investing in one again.

[Skipper Greenwade]

Hi Chris,

Please try me again - skipgreenwade@hotmail.com

See ya'!

Skip