I have followed the "Deumer" RK thread with interest, as I am currently in the middle of buying one of these style crosses from a fellow forum member. Grant it, I would certainly like to have a definite crowd pleaser in my collection, but after reading a previous thread started by the seller and in particular reading Gordon Williamson's rebuttal about these style crosses, I decided to ask the seller for photos of his RK. The photos, while not the best, were at least enough to convince me that I wanted to pursue a transaction. I might add that the seller is offering a money back guarantee should I decide to return the cross after an initial inspection period. Anyway, I buy what I like and that's that. This morning while looking through the book "Das Kreuz", I thought I would post some images of photos of RK recipients that seem to be wearing this style RK. These photos are not presented to you as concrete proof, only food for more thought. I have quite a few images to attach, so please be patient. Enjoy.
-
Last edited by herrgeezer; 04-27-2002, 07:57 PM. -
image 2 -
image 3Comment
-
image 4Comment
-
image 5Comment
-
image of cross I'm buyingComment
-
back of the cross I'm buying.Comment
-
Come on now!
Look at the the '3' on the backside....It's fighting for exposure and then there's the "ooops" on the inner lower arm. Guys this is WWll Germany's 'motivator' and highest award. Far too sloppy for me!Regards,
DaveComment
-
David, be careful ( as you would be with your tank!) and consider why the last few offered were coupled with phoney Oakleaves!!! Where did the 'original' loops get off to....
And, look at the "wear" on the corners of the 'Tiffen' cross...too much emorey (sp?) cloth...
Again, just thoughts!
JohnRegards,
DaveComment
-
Hello John J,
I have been following the posts on the RK's for quite some time now. I have a question for you. I was wondering how long you have been collecting RK's and EK's for that matter and how many do you have in your personal collection? I am curious only in that I read a lot of hard opinions that you've posted but little to suggest that the depth of your experience. This is in no way to be construed as a slam against you in any way. It's just a case of inquiring minds want to know. How about it?
Best regards,
Tiger 1An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
"First ponder, then dare." von MoltkeComment
-
To tiger 1 and John J
Tiger 1,
You will probably get no response to your question.
At the end of the Deumer Cross thread David tiffin and me asked for some facts, but still no reply.
The conclusions of John J only lead to confusion, I'm not sure what you are after.
John J,
You're questioning the knowledge of the experts, so in fact you are stating that you're more knowledgeable then the rest.
That's ok, but let us see where that attitude is based on.
It's always nice to read postings you can learn from, but in this case it's a bit half.
regards
BenComment
-
Hi Ben,
The purpose of my question to John J is to establish some sort of base line to go from in regards to his actual experience in collecting RK's and EK's. It seems to me that he's a novice swimmer in the deep end of the pool and all he's doing is slapping the water to stay afloat. This may be a harsh accessment but he's been politely asked to come forth with his expertise on several occasions and hasn't. His profile gives us no clue as to what his collecting interests are or whether he collects at all. If you're a poker player it would be "calling" his hand. No malice just curiousity.That's just how I read it.
So again I ask John J, since you posess this well of wisdom let us all drink from it and slake our intellectual thirst. how about it?
Best regards and good hunting to all.
Tiger 1An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
"First ponder, then dare." von MoltkeComment
-
45 year college education!
Guys I have been over this in the past! One does not have to have a 'shop' to be considered to have knowledge in this hobby. One does not have to drop names nor be part of the 'clique' to have knowledge. One merely has to study and get to the object of his/her collecting direction! I have had collections of helmets, tunics, K98k, P38, visor caps and yes RK's. Each time I changed direction was a new learning experience but, I followed through and learned all I could. Forty+ years and have heard every story and listened to every explanation of why something is original...If one has to explain the merits of WHY it's real that's not a good sign!
Example is Jody's recent post re: his RK! Read between the line about Angolia.
I have known or know of every crook flushed out these past 25 years and they are still comming.
You guys are attempting to pin or pull off the 'expert' badge not me! I'm just offering thoughts and knowledge of previous 'dodges' or out and out frauds in this hobby.
JohnRegards,
DaveComment
-
John,
So, could you provide a list of known makers of the 1939 Knights Cross? We want to know what your opinion is. What about the crosses in the photos with the rounded corners?David Tiffin
"They were the Leathernecks, the old breed of American regular, regarding the service as home and war an occupation!" (John Thomason, Jr. Fix Bayonets)Comment
-
David, respectfully but any sophmore collector will have the 'known' makers at hand or can p/u any reference and find it! I'm at a loss to understand your question..
The pictures are far too grainy to offer as proof however the first one is a bit tantalizing...look again and ask why are all of the rings different!
Is it airbrushing or its period eqivalent? Why have these just surfaced in the past few years....mint and with a set of Oaks and without ribbon?
Why out of 7000+ possibilities of an original recipient presenting this type of cross have we (not) seen any.
Why considering the "experts" who have written book, interviewed awardees etc. not identified this type.
And now just to have an open mind let's say there was a short run of this type that eventually was not officially accepted...but a 'few' passed out why are we seeing these as 'new' and 'mint' these past few years. They are allegedly wonderfully constructed yet are 'sloppy' in core design and as shown in the filing!
Just far too many questions..
JohnRegards,
DaveComment
Comment