S&L RK "B" Type "Dent Row"

[mdj]

strange, that an error 403 occur.

Another try.

martin

[mott-the hoople]

Hi ,I dont profess to be any kind of expert on the knights cross but from the threads i have viewed most 935 4 crosses seem to be unissued and boxed or in superb condition with frosting intact whereas most 800 4 crosses look to be issued and worn with the frosting gone. Could this be because the 800 4 was made and issued before the 935 4 ? Regards Jack

[Leroy]

Jack,
Of the very few 800-4's which have been seen, I think it's accurate to say that at least slightly more have been in "worn" condition than in mint, cased condition. Regarding the 935-4, I have only seen one (Jody's) that appeared in "worn" condition. I'm not sure, though, that this can be taken as "gospel", as who knows what exact circumstances these crosses were exposed to in the past 65 years. I understand that an awarded 800-4 is believed to have been found, as of about 6 months ago, but information is apparently still being gathered on that before anything will be said one way or the other. I have made no secret of my belief that, because of the smaller "bridge flaw" on the 800-4, it's frames were the first stamped in a series of parallel or alternating stamping with the 935-4 frames.

Remember, there are no "L/16" marked "A"'s, no "4" marked "A"'s, and only 2 "4" marked "B"'s.

Does anyone know what really went to Klessheim and when, exactly, it went? Was it really just a mass transport from Berlin all at once at the end, or was it sometime earlier?

Where are all the crosses from Juncker, S&L and Zimmermann with PKZ marks (as mandated by February-March, 1944)? Really not many of those around (although there are many K&Q's - but that is a different story). What was happening with RK's in 1944-45 (when most of them were awarded)?

I still believe we are all missing something very important in this entire discussion. When we find out what it is, I also believe it will be something that was right in front of us all the time, but totally mis-interpreted. I am very leery of all "absolute" theories at this time (including both my own and Dietrich's). We are too polarized, and need to "step back".

Regards,
Leroy

[Jody]

4 935

Hello,
The vet I obtained my exmple from (4 935) claimed it was obtained in the Ruhr Pocket. When I obtained it in the 70's it was stored in a coffee can along with several other German decorations (no ribbon and no case). All of which I obtained and which were 100% good.

Maybe I have the only awarded one. I can say this, I have owned the cross for over 32+ years (and it has been stored for all of that time in a safety deposit box). It has not tarnished anymore in my care. You can see rub marks on the reverse of the beaded edge and the top ring is slightly bent. It does appear to have been worn.

Regards,
Jody

[Dietrich Maerz]

I am very leery of all "absolute" theories at this time (including both my own and Dietrich's). We are too polarized, and need to "step back".

Gentry,

I don't think that I am putting out absolute theories. You will recallt hat I don't say "I know" that such and such is a fake (unless it is really known) and I don't say "This is good" (such as the Deumer RK, the Rounder and others...) unless it is proven to be so by numerous examples, awards and (German) veterans. I always was very clear in what I believe and what is proven and therefore safe to buy. You will not get form me a COA for an 800-4 in either good or bad. Why? Because - contrary to some others - I don't know.

And also contrary to some 'advanced collectors' who have (sometimes) the audacity to proclaim everything they own as 'real' (until they find out it is not and it is sold under the hand ... hush hush), I try to state facts.

As an author I would find it very shameful to postulate something as real based on rumors, hearsay or some hints by dealers and/or 'advanced collectors' () - which is something that is not proven and cannot be reconciled by every reader. I leave that to others.

But that also does NOT mean that the 800-4 might or is not good. It means - plain and simple - I don't know (yet) and neither does anybody else I know.

Dietrich

[Leroy]

Gentry,
I don't think that I am putting out absolute theories. You will recallt hat I don't say "I know" that such and such is a fake (unless it is really known) and I don't say "This is good" (such as the Deumer RK, the Rounder and others...) unless it is proven to be so by numerous examples, awards and (German) veterans. I always was very clear in what I believe and what is proven and therefore safe to buy.

But that also does NOT mean that the 800-4 might or is not good. It means - plain and simple - I don't know (yet) and neither does anybody else I know.

Dietrich

Dietrich,
Just "German veterans"????
I am tired of arguing. If a person can't read your book and come away from it knowing exactly what your theories and beliefs are, they are either blind, illiterate or mentally challenged.
Some "B"'s are provably post-1957. Others are not. Some are made completely of known available wartime materials, and finished with wartime craftsmanship. Others are not. Some came from American vets, not German vets (who didn't have them anymore because the American vets took them away).
Best,
Leroy

[ChrisJ]

Questions....(1) why are there no "4" marked "A" type crosses and (2) only a few "B" types with 935/4 and 800/4 marks (and no raised beading flaws) ?

Now, why would that be ?

The answer to 1 has to be that the "A" frame ceased production before the PKZ numbering started on RK's & above. By my reconiing mid 1943.... but others think later, but never mind.

So what were S&L up to for more than a year ?...only making a handfull of 935/4's and a few 800/4's ?..doesn't make sense does it.

[ChrisJ]

...so...as there are no L/16 "A"'s (that we know of) the life of the "A" frame production was between October 1941 and (for the sake of arguement) mid to late 1943....only 2 years, and maybe even less.

So ...what was S&L up to outside of this timeframe ?

Could a lot more of those "B's" be OK after all ?

Maybe S&L never engaged in the private retail market for RK's and therefore had no recourse to use an LDO stamp in 1941, and always used an 800 stamp before then ?

[Dietrich Maerz]

It makes a lot of sense. There are absolutely proven and untouched groups with A-Types (heavily flawed) awarded late 1944. Which means that either the PKZ still had S&L crosses or S&L was still delivering A-types.

Based on the types awarded after late 1944 (K&Q and Juncker 2) it could very well be that S&L did not receive an immediate order and they came up with the "935/4" to please the PKZ into a new order. Which was not very large ...

A production and, more importantly, a delivery to the PKZ of "4" marked B-Types, starting in mid 1943 would be reflected in actual awardees. It doesn't.

@Gentry,

the German was in brackets, meaning "preferably" German. I do trust the US (and other) veterans, no doubt at all. However, they are removed by one step from the source, that much is clear.

Dietrich

[Leroy]

...

Maybe S&L never engaged in the private retail market for RK's and therefore had no recourse to use an LDO stamp in the early years ?

Or maybe (since there are Oakleaves marked L/16, indicating a few were sold after the LDO came in, but before the "ban"), S&L did sell RK's in 39-40, but decided in 1941 to change their RK frame design from the one shown in their catalog (with the unfinished ring) to one of cleaner design. RK's commercially sold before the LDO could have used the old frame (with no L/16), and, by the time the frame was revamped, not only had the LDO come into effect, but the "ban", as well, had gone into effect. The "new" framed RK's would not have had an LDO mark.

Hard to believe that, after the "A" die failed, S&L would have "sat on its hands" for an entire year.

[ChrisJ]

..and yet V E Bowen in his lovely early book on the Iron Cross tells us that:

"The design and development work on the Knights Cross was done by the main government contractor of Steinhauer & Luck of Ludenscheild, who also did the same for the 1939 EK2 and EK1. It was their specimens of these that were forwarded to Dr. Doehle Ministerialdirektor in the Prasidialkanzlie de Fuhrers for Approval. A prototype Knights Cross was forwarded by Dr. Doehle of the new design to all medal manufacturers involved to appraise them of the new design." He also states that the first production batch was by Junckers, and then by S&L.

Now Vernon was no fool, and tried to be as accurate as possible according to the data he had...was he so wrong one wonders ?

[ChrisJ]

and early Junckers were not iron cored.

[ChrisJ]

So that means ........






(Off to bed...nite all)

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think I know what it means: it is exactly as one can find in the German documents like Schwert und Spaten and Uniformenmarkt. The first Knights Crosses were made by Juncker (no doubt), quite some companies uses non-iron cores and that is the reason the LDO was founded. The process is clearly laid out in plain German for everybody to read. Nothing mystical about it.

It helps immensely in this hobby if one can read and understand German.

Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

Now....what if during the design process of the RK S&L made more than one die. Normally I couldnt see the need for this in a production mode, but in a prototype situation I can see that this is very possible.

Let me postulate that the "C" could very well be one of these first dies...contemporary pictures surely indicate that with the famous dipping ring, then followed by the "B" and finally with the very clean and developed "A" becoming the main production die from the early 1940's..

935 marked "B" frames with non iron cores might well come into this early time frame.

The "A" failed and was superceded by the "B" and when that failed a return to the "C" was made.

The common part of these die usages was probably the male half, which in my opinion remained the same, and was the tool used to form the others. It would have been modified to remove the dipping ring feature.

(I'd better get the old tin hat on )