S&L Ritterkreuz Question

[Robert T.]

Is it a "C", a "B" or an "A"??? Guess they weren't really thinking about what we would be doing almost 70 years later.......

Or Deumer....

[Leroy]

Robert - Photo taken in the Deumer facility (a few hundred yards away from S&L) in 1940?

[Robert T.]

Robert - Photo taken in the Deumer facility (a few hundred yards away from S&L) in 1940?

Why do I see some Oak Leaves....????

[Leroy]

Why do I see some Oak Leaves....????

Same question Philippe DeBock initially had, but apparently resolved, based on what was said on GCA, as not Oakleaves, based on the people shown, room furnishings, sequence and dates of the others photos in the series.

Interestingly, Deumer has been quoted in modern times as saying they did not make the RK, but was at a loss to explain their catalog, except possibly that they handled some from others for retail sale.

It would be very nice to have better photos. As a side note, Gordon Williamson posted an RK attached to a Deumer card, presently on display in the Shropshire
Light Infantry Museum, brought back by one of their Generals before war's end.
Here's another photo from the series and a photo of the museum's cross.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

I had to erase the picture of the Lüdenscheid museum since I know that they should not be distributed via the internet. I was given a full set of the pictures with that requirement and therefore cannot allow that the pictures are posted here. There will be a full article about them in one of the next magazine issues.

But back to the post from Robert: he meant that the core of the cross has no swastika but clearly a set of (1813?) oakleaves in the center. The pictures I have do not reveal anything "based on what was said on GCA, as not Oakleaves, based on the people shown, room furnishings, sequence and dates of the others photos in the series" that this core shows a swastika?
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to see it ....

Other picture doesn't show a cross with a loop ring but rather EK1s.

[Leroy]

Dietrich,
As you will recall, I was the one who, as a courtesy, sent the photos to you when they first appeared on GCA and before you had ever seen or heard of them. The thread, with photos still intact, is on GCA at: http://www.germancombatawards.com/th...ight=Deumer+RK

As a lawyer, I fail to understand why, or how, it is, because of some private arrangement between you and the Museum in Ludenscheid to furnish you with a set of the photos, you feel compelled to remove photos from this Forum which are accessable on another forum at this very moment, especially as you will write about them in your privately-published magazine. I am aware (as is most everyone else) of the on-going feud (for want of a better term) between you and DeBock, and, quite frankly, that is something between the two of you, not the rest of us.

When these photos appeared, DeBock voiced, via PM to me (and perhaps others) a concern that he could not be sure that the core center of the crosses shown actually contained a swastika (and I told him in reply that neither could I and that better photos were needed). Subsequently, according to what he has said, he became satisfied that the photos were, in fact, part of the same series, all dating to 1940. In fact, here is his public comment about the photos from GCA (when he moved them from the "Premium Member" section to the "General" section:

"Hi Guys, (added the 20th of May 2010)

Here is a thread that we started about two weeks ago in the premium member area. On the 11. & 12. of May, Karsten, Thomas, Franki and I visited the Lüdenscheid city archives in an effort to dig up information that might be helpful in better understanding how the Lüdenscheid based makers worked together.

We didn’t really find that much but made some interesting discoveries in other areas. The most interesting being a series of pictures showing the Deumer production facilities depicting the different production steps from administration over engraving , stamping…… until packing.

The pictures can be dated back to 1940 and on one of them we are able to see something that so far was never mentioned in any reference work. What we are able to see is the Deumer Knights cross in production. The quality of the picture itself sadly doesn’t allow positive identification of the type of cross being manufactured but what it proves is that an early maker of Kc’s so far has been completely overlooked. This of course makes us wonder about the relevance of information fed to the collector community as the final truth on KC’s.

To avoid manipulation of this information we decided to move the thread from GCA’s premium member area to the public area.

Our special thanks goes to Herr Tim Begler from the Lüdenscheid Stadtarchive for allowing us to share these pictures."



I have never personally handled these photos or had any way to verify what they are and what they mean. I still do not know for sure what the center of the core contains. I find it highly interesting, that as a part of our discussion here, Robert posted a photo from the series (immediately after I posted the S&L catalog illustration) suggesting that perhaps that illustration resembled the "Deumer", and then, as soon as I make another comment, suggests for the first time that he sees "Oakleaves". In fact (for those here who don't visit GCA), Robert todayasked DeBock, on GCA, if these were oakleaves on the cores of the RK's. DeBock responded as follows:

"Hi Robert,

That is what we first thought but it isn't. Although the picture is all but sharp you can clearly see that there is no far intrusion of oakleaves in to cross arms as it is the case with any '57 made cross.

Also this picture is part of an entire series of pictures that can be dated to 1940."


I did not interject these photos here, Robert did, and then you jump in and remove them. The point is that DeBock has represented that he has confirmed that these photos are part of a series, all taken in 1940. If that is not true, and you had proof that it was not true, then you should have publicly advised the collector community of this months ago. IS IT NOT TRUE? I ask you this directly, right now and publicly.

At the start of this thread, in Post #5, I said: "I'm quite (as in 100%!) sure that my comments here will be attacked and even riduculed and some will come up with a million reasons I am wrong. I honestly don't care any more and am tired of the constant (and destructive) bickering, ego-driven and, frankly, political games which are played in this arena. "

I think we have just seen this illustrated.

This is the most disappointing event I have ever seen on this Forum.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

please dial back your emotion. I have not removed the pictures which are relevant to this thread. What I have removed is what I have promised to the nice guy at the Lüdenscheid Museum and as long as I am moderator here I will stick to the promise. He did NOT want to have the pictures publsihed in the internet and that is that. Therefore they will not be posted here as a complete picture. End of subject.

If you as a lawyer - as you point out - see no moral obligation for me having given a promise not to publish the pictures in the internet I can't help you. That I got the permission to use them in my publications is a complete different thing and - by the way - pretty much normal between an owner and a recipient of a picture. What happened elsewhere is none of my concern.... You are welcome to post a link to GCA and the pictures. But they will not be posted here since this is against the wishes of the owner. Has nothing to do with deBock as you try to make it. And it is no bickering, no political game and nothing else you try to make it,too!

Again, the relevant picture, the one where you make your point that Deumer made Knights Crosses with a swastika is still here for everyone to see. And everyone can see that this cross has no swastika. I also did not remove the picture Robert posted, I took out the reference to the origins of the picture and left the substance of his point 100% intact! Please note that, too!

The picture I took off shows a gentleman on a vice finishing a cross with a loop and is the bigger picture of the one with the heap of crosses. There was and is nothing in that overall picture that would point to anything that this heap of crosses are in fact Knights Crosses, made by Deumer, S&L or anybody else.

There are no other pictures substantiating that these crosses have a swastika. In this case you just have to believe your lying eyes.

And I certainly do resent very strongly that you imply that I take pictures off because I have a problem with the subject or with deBock. If that would be the case here I would take out the link to GCA and block out the reference to GCA. And where did I say that I would know or not know that the pictures are taken or not taken in 1940? There is no need for such an inquisatory tone with caps. All I am saying (and everybody with eyes connected to a brain) is that the cross has no swastika. And where do I ridicule you? Is it bickering by Robert to point out that there is no swastika?

You have to relax a little and take at least 2-3 shots of Whisky!

[Leroy]

The picture I took off shows a gentleman on a vice finishing a cross with a loop and is the bigger picture of the one with the heap of crosses. There was and is nothing in that overall picture that would point to anything that this heap of crosses are in fact Knights Crosses.

There are no other pictures substantiating that these crosses have a swastika. In this case you just have to believe your lying eyes.

In that "heap of crosses" shown in the version of the photo I posted (and there are probably 7 or 8 in the photo, all of which are the same size), the three crosses on top very clearly have the suspension ring for an RK. They are RK's and not EK's and you know that that was visible in the photo you deleted. Whether they are 1939 RK's or 1957 RK's is the only question. DeBock has represented to the world that the photos all date from 1940 and if that is true, these crosses could not be 57 versions. Another reason for my showing the full photo was so the membership here could see the way the man was dressed and the appearance of his work area, which certainly did not appear to be something from the late 1950's (or even later).

Regarding your personal promise not to publish the photos on the internet, does this mean you have the right to delete something you did not "publish" yourself, but was instead "published" by someone else (showing the source and crediting the Ludenscheid archives) as part of an educational and intellectual discussion on this Forum (which I thought was meant for this very purpose)(and which is governed by different rules of intellectual property protection) and which had already been "published", and was still very much in existence, on another internet site? Did you make your promise on behalf of the membership of WAF in your role as a Moderator? If you did, and if you have that authority, then a simple "WAF has committed to the owner of images from the Deumer factory that such images will not be published on this Forum and they have all been deleted" would have sufficed (and Robert's would have been gone, too). That's not how you handled it.

You say to me: "In this case you just have to believe your lying eyes." Other than the patronizing and personally insulting tone of that comment, I remind everyone again that DeBock has said publicly for the past two months that this photo is part of a series, all dating to 1940, showing RK production in the Deumer factory. If that is wrong, and you know (and have known),and can establish, this to be wrong, and you further know that this information is being published as true on another well-known internet militaria site also frequented by members of this Forum, and possibly relied on by others, in a field that intimately concerns you and others interested in this subject, should you not have immediately refuted and corrected it? Yet now all you say is "And where did I say that I would know or not know that the pictures are taken or not taken in 1940?" Well, if they WERE taken in 1940, as claimed, what is the implication of that?

Good night, Dietrich.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

you seem to try to deflect the general issue here - that the crosses on that heap don't have a swastika - to something else. Especially you try to put me in a bad light suggesting I would remove pictures to not allow the public to be informed correctly and that I don't have the "right" to do certain things.

Maybe in your eyes I don't have the "right", but I still do it because I know that the owner of the pictures did not and does not want them to be published in the Internet. And I respect that just as I would respect any wish from you or anybody else in that direction. Anybody here can follow the link to GCA and look at the all the pictures. Where is your problem? And I did not make the promise in the name of WAF or the name of the membership but in the name of Dietrich Maerz. Furthermore, the pictures relevant for the topic are ALL here. Again, where is your problem?

Secondly, the picture you posted is the complete picture with the heap of crosses posted by Robert (which is turned 180 degrees for better viewing). There is no additional information. Nothing at all. Just a bigger picture of the same heap of crosses. Don't make is sound that this was another picture and that I suppress information.

Now back to the core problem:

You say that for months this picture (and there is only ONE showing these crosses) has been established as being from 1940. Did I ever say anything else? Did I say they are from past 1957? or from 1945? Or any other date? No, I did not and I have the same information as deBock. Not more and not less.

BUT, the crosses (actually only one cross has a feature that can be seen as "something") don't have a swastika on them. It clearly looks like oakleaves, surely not like a swastika. And only because the pictures are (most likely) from 1940 does not imply that whatever looks like oakleaves must be a swastika. It clearly is not. Why that is so, I have no idea. But I venture to say that the heap of crosses are NOT 1939 edition Knights Crosses.

And that is what I meant with "you just have to believe your lying eyes." It was not meant as patronizing nor personally insulting. Far from it. It is meant simply as : "believe what you see". And there is no swastika in sight! And the implication of these pictures (taken most likely in 1940) is NOT: It is 1940 and therefore it must be a swastika and maybe it is a B-Type S&L. Before that can be theorized, the picture should show a swastika.

Just imagine: I would have published this picture as proof that Deumer made the Knights Cross. Can you imagine the laughter and spite from the people clearly seeing that there is no swastika? By the way, I mentioned Deumer as a possible maker and the catalog picture is strong evidence that they really had one for sale. And maybe they bought it from S&L. Or had a die from S&L. I don't know.
And why would anybody think that I have an interest to suppress the information that Deumer made Knights Crosses when in my own book I mention it? Which is an indication that I think they really did. How crazy can one get? The remark (as quoted above) " .... that an early maker of Kc’s so far has been completely overlooked. This of course makes us wonder about the relevance of information fed to the collector community as the final truth on KC’s." is not quite correct - for whatever reason.....

But unfortunately this ONE picture is no proof that Deumer made the Knights Cross.

[Leroy]

No, Dietrich - you are missing the point. I am "deflecting" nothing. You are.

You said, very clearly and distinctly, that "There was and is nothing in that overall picture that would point to anything that this heap of crosses are in fact Knights Crosses...". There WAS something in that picture and that was the clear presence of the distinctive RK suspension ring on the top 3 visible crosses. If a member here wants to see that now, they can go to the GCA site, copy the photo of the old gentleman at the vise, and blow it up.

Secondly, there WAS additional information in the deleted photo: the work station and clothing and general appearance of the area, none of which appeared to be modern. That is, however, a subjective (to some extent) thing, but it may have been important or useful to some in judging the matter. Again, they can go to GCA.

Thirdly, I did NOT say that "for month this picture (and there is only ONE showing these crosses) has been established as being from 1940". What I said was that, for months, DeBock has claimed that these photos are all from 1940. If, in fact, you have no reason now to doubt DeBock's statement, and if, in fact (as I say) the photo shows crosses with the distinctive suspension ring of an RK, please tell us what else these crosses could possibly be (regardless of the blurry core area). The "ring" is perfectly visible.

Let the membership here go to GCA and look at the photo of the old gentleman with the vise, and the crosses on his worktable, themselves. I am perfectly happy for their judgment of whether the crosses (whether 1939 or 1957, I don't care) are RK's. IF they think they are, and if you acknowledge that the photos are from 1940, then there is a problem. They are not big enough to be Grand Crosses and not small enough to be EK's.

We will see........

[Dietrich Maerz]

You said, very clearly and distinctly, that "There was and is nothing in that overall picture that would point to anything that this heap of crosses are in fact Knights Crosses...". There WAS something in that picture and that was the clear presence of the distinctive RK suspension ring on the top 3 visible crosses. If a member here wants to see that now, they can go to the GCA site, copy the photo of the old gentleman at the vise, and blow it up.

You don't want to understand me but I certainly hope the other members do. The picture you posted is the SAME one as the one which is still up there in post 226 and 228! No need to go to GCA, no need to blow it up. It is ALL here!

Secondly, there WAS additional information in the deleted photo: the work station and clothing and general appearance of the area, none of which appeared to be modern. That is, however, a subjective (to some extent) thing, but it may have been important or useful to some in judging the matter. Again, they can go to GCA.

Nobody ever here or anywhere else disputed either the originality of the picture nor the time taken. I have no reason to believe it was NOT taken in 1940. You started that subject. Again, I don't like the notion that I took the picture off to misguide someone.

Thirdly, I did NOT say that "for month this picture (and there is only ONE showing these crosses) has been established as being from 1940". What I said was that, for months, DeBock has claimed that these photos are all from 1940. If, in fact, you have no reason now to doubt DeBock's statement, and if, in fact (as I say) the photo shows crosses with the distinctive suspension ring of an RK, please tell us what else these crosses could possibly be (regardless of the blurry core area). The "ring" is perfectly visible.

There is no "now to doubt" because there never was any point in time to doubt. Don't make is sound like I doubted the time. I never did. And I don't know what it is in the picture. Never said I would. But just because it is (most likely) from 1940 and the crosses have rings it must not be a Knights Cross. The more so since the "something" on the obverse of one cross is clearly NOT a swastika. It is not my invention, it is not my fault. Just because nobody can say what it is , it is no reason to say it is a swastika. It is not!

Let the membership here go to GCA and look at the photo of the old gentleman with the vise, and the crosses on his worktable, themselves. I am perfectly happy for their judgment of whether the crosses (whether 1939 or 1957, I don't care) are RK's. IF they think they are, and if you acknowledge that the photos are from 1940, then there is a problem. They are not big enough to be Grand Crosses and not small enough to be EK's.

If this is down to the clothing of the one gentleman whether this is a Knights Cross or not we are in trouble. If only the crosses on the table matter, they can see them here. If the clothing is a factor of determination they have to go to GCA. I don't see how that changes the visual appearance of the obverse of the one cross.

But let's just assume that it would be a swastika. Now what? Now we know more than we did before? We know already that Deumer had a Knights Cross in their catalog. So what is the big news? Can we see from the picture what type of beading, core, finish, ring, flaws , .....??? No. Clearly not. So the best case scenario would be that it is confirmed what we already know. And why do you think I (or anybody else) would "fight" that with "bickering", "political games" or whatever???

But first this needs to be a picture of a cross or of crosses with a swastika. But it is not. And I have no idea what it is. And sometimes life is just like that!

[AlikN]

.......

Just as a refresher, here's the illustration from S&L's last commercial catalog in 1941, in which it announced that it had received the LDO designation "L 16" (no "/"). Is it a "C", a "B" or an "A"??? Guess they weren't really thinking about what we would be doing almost 70 years later.......

....On that picture in 1940 catalog is an "A" type frames, only the ring is not finished, I think that the dipping ring is the way unfinished frames looked like, and when it's doesn't dipp into the frame - it is not part of the die it is part of the finishing process, .... originally when the dies were designed, the only other previous "Iron type" neck award was imperial GC - ring dipps in, so having this experience I think some makers design their dies(mother hubs) with dipping ring and some at first were made that way, maybe that is why we see on some period pictures crosses with dipped in ring, but later on they probably didn't like the look or saw other 'cleaner' looking designs who knows and dipped ring was filed off, this kind of finishing process is better visible on K&Q crosses, where what looks to be like a perfectly round fat "donut" was cut off from the bottom, but I think that S&L had a better tool or better technique to finish their dipping ring.

The "C" die came from the same mother hub, so the hub is still the same, mother hub don't change(so the dipping ring is on the mother hub from which "A" and "B" were cut earlier) only finishing techniques may change, so I think they just got lazy and skip a step or two in a finishing process and that is why we see "C" frames with dipping rings - those just unfinished rings (btw any good jeweler can remove that dipping ring from the "C" cross very easy). So in my opinion an early S&L cross with brass or zinc core should have an "A" type frames, even dipped ring cross as long as it have "A" type frames.

....
It would be very nice to have better photos. As a side note, Gordon Williamson posted an RK attached to a Deumer card, presently on display in the Shropshire
Light Infantry Museum, brought back by one of their Generals before war's end.
Here's another photo from the series and a photo of the museum's cross.

That picture shows an Otto Schickle RK

[Leroy]

You honestly think that these are not RK's? I can't see the swastika either, but if it's 1940, it certainly isn't the 57 version. And please tell me one other type of cross this reasonably could be, given its size, silver frame and black core.

And, no, you are right, we CAN'T see the beading details, or finish, or flaws. But we can see an RK being assembled in 1940 just a few hundred yards from S&L. Does that mean it's an S&L? NO. Did I say it was an S&L? NO. Did I, in fact, post the photo from the Shropshire Light Infantry Museum showing an RK which Gordon Williamson has identified as the purported "Deumer RK"? YES. Did I say that cross was an S&L? NO.

What DID I say when I posted the illustration from the S&L catalog?: "Is it a "C", a "B" or an "A"??? Guess they weren't really thinking about what we would be doing almost 70 years later......."

And then what did Robert say?: " Or Deumer...." - and posted a flipped version of a part of the GCA photo.

And now it's me saying this proves Deumer was making "B" crosses????

[Leroy]

...

The "C" die came from the same mother hub, so the hub is still the same, mother hub don't change(so the dipping ring is on the mother hub from which "A" and "B" were cut earlier) only finishing techniques may change, so I think they just got lazy and skip a step or two in a finishing process and that is why we see "C" frames with dipping rings - those just unfinished rings (btw any good jeweler can remove that dipping ring from the "C" cross very easy).

Entirely possible, Alikn. And this scenario acknowledges the existence of more than one working die made from a "mother". Unless one wants to say that the "A", the "B" and the "C" were all stamped from the same, single hardened steel die, which just happened to produce a frame with no dent row and a 9-12flaw, then a frame with no dent row, a 9-12 flaw, and raised beading flaws, then a frame with a dent row, a 6-9 "bridge flaw", and no 9-12 flaw, then a frame with a dent row, a 6-9 "bridge flaw", no 9-12 flaw, and raised beading flaws, then, finally, a frame with a dent row, no 9-12 flaw, and (on some) the remnants of a 6-9 "bridge flaw", but no raised beading flaws.

[AlikN]

.... But we can see an RK being assembled in 1940 just a few hundred yards from S&L....

I don't really see how we can tell for sure that those pictures were taken in 1940, are they period dated or some one in museum sad that those were taken in 1940s, which maybe late '40s or early '50s and I also see the oak leave design on one of them, which didn't exist in 1940.