I have seen two 935 4 marked Knight's Crosses that came inside Steinhauer and Lueck titled cardboard cartons.
Bob Hritz
Bob Hritz
-
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound. -
That is good info and I made note of it! Thanks!Comment
-
Hi guys,
Thanks for the info Bob, which helps to dispell the notion that only A-type crosses were found in S&L-marked cases.
Dietrich, you mentioned that a connection to the A-type crosses was S&L-marked cases and/or cartons. I was just looking in your book and that is not mentioned anywhere that I can find. Do you know of a piece with good, direct vet or recipient provenance where an A-type was found in an S&L-marked case? Can you show an example of an S&L marked case and/or carton? Just curious what they look like and am running a search now..
Thanks
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
And here's something that might make you smile (or cry). A 1989 auction catalog featuring a cased 935-4, but in an LDO case. (Price $1200)Comment
-
You should do a search in the cases forum.Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post
No, I do not have a provenance form a vet or a recipient regarding the S&L outer carton. And I do not know of any S&L marked cases, though.
And please let me clarify one misunderstanding. My statement "They were all A-types" was in response to your notion that "nothing ties the A-Type to S&L." I was not meant that only A-types (and no B-types) can be found in cases with outer carton but rather only A-types from S&L were found inside and not K&Q or 3/4 Ring types (which could support your theory that S&L never made the A-type). I did, however, not know that also 935-4 were found in carton cases but that is not relevant in the context you meant (since the "4" would indicate them as S&L anyway...). It is a tricky thing.Comment
-
To me it sounds very plausible that S&L would destroy/smelt all the leftovers of the flawed A-frame.Originally posted by Leroy View Post
Why reuse a product that you are about to change anyway, because of flaws?
In a modern production, if you notice a flaw in a production run, you will also destroy/not use these flawed sections.
Just my two cents in this discussion.
/FlemmingComment
-
Hmmm, this is odd. Dietrich, I did what you said and researched in the cases forum last night and this morning and did not find 1 single example of an A-Type Cross coming in an S&L-marked carton! However, I did find a number of B-Type Crosses in S&L cartons (I counted at least 4 B-type examples).Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
This seems odd to me because it directly contradicts your comment above, as I could not find 1 single example of an A-type in an S&L carton. Thinking that maybe I didn't find all the threads on this topic, I contacted a few members that I know collect RK's passionately and only 1 came back to me and said they only know of 1 example of an A-Type cross being paired with an S&L-marked carton. This 1 example was found in an auction a few years back and with no provenance at all to speak of.
So I guess I am just confused now where your statement comes from that: "quite an amount of A-Types have been found in cases with outer cartons marked with S&L. And inside was always an A Type."
Thanks guys.
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
I have always made the assumption (which in itself is a risk) that S&L made the "A", based on years' worth of that statement being made and accepted in the collecting community, and in seemingly reputable publications of all types, but, more importantly, based on the fact that S&L's master engraver, Herr Escher, was without question the designated "point man" to create the original RK design and S&L certainly was responsible for making design prototypes and circulating them (through the PKZ) to others, including Juncker. Being number 4 on the PKZ list doesn't hurt, either. The idea that S&L did not make the "A" model is a new one to me, but I can understand and appreciate Tom's questioning.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz
Most assuredly, the "A" and the "B" had their genesis in the same "mother" die. We, at least, know that S&L used "B" frames to make 1957 versions!
Comment
-
Well, then I think S&L did not make the A-type!Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post
I guess whatever I will say now is not good enough for you but rather "odd". I know what I have seen and I know what I can read. Geissler, page 200 for example. But, hey, this could have been switched!
Comment
-
Don't be like that Dietrich, don't take this personally. You know me well enough to know that I am not just messing with you, but honestly curious.
You tell us that "S&L Type A crosses have been found in S&L-marked cartons". I take that at face value and trust you because you have written a great book and are hands down the most qualified to answer that question. You also tell me to "search the cases form". I followed your advice and took the time to investigate that myself and turns out that I could not find 1 single example to confirm your statement. Am I the only one who finds that remarkable....or "odd"?
As an RK novice, I am trying to establish all the "facts" in this issue. Turns out some of the accepted facts may not be facts at all but long-held collector myths that are just accepted now as facts. For all your RK nuts, this may not be a big deal, but for an RK-outsider like me, it is inconsistencies like this that make this issue much more confusing than it should be. I am confident that other guys following this thread are also be confused by this.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that "S&L didn't make the A-type Cross". I hope my comments aren't coming off that way. I am much more obsessed with why its so hard to believe there were 2 dies in play here rather than 1 repaired die. Whether S&L made 1 or both of these type of Crosses is irrelevant to me at this time, I am just trying to figure out why many guys would be resistant to the idea of 2 dies.
To my novice, outsider eye, the 2 dies do NOT match eachother and therefore are logically two separate dies. The arguement against this is that "well, the A-types have also been found in S&L marked cases". But it turns out this isn't true either. So what to make of this? Again, I don't pretend to know what S&L did during and after the war, but I just want to layout all the exact facts so that future researchers will have a clearer starting point to connect the dots accurately when new information does eventually turn up.
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
The two dies do very much match each other. I guess you have to lock a lot closer than you did so far. And why are you turning my words around? I did not say that the two dies are the same because A-Types were found in carton marked S&L (which is a fact - believe it or not!) This was the answer to your notion that the A-Type RK is not made by S&L. Big difference!Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post
And with all due respect, what makes you think I am lying to you? What is the reason for the "isn't true either"?
If you don't trust what I am saying, why should we continue to talk? Just because you cannot verify with the WAF database what I was saying you assume I made things up and lie to everybody? I had hoped you would take me a lot more serious!
And in case you don't have the Geissler ....Comment
-
Jeez, guys, relax! You'll be burning each other's books soon.
In the immortal words of Humphrey Bogart: "The whole world is 3 drinks behind. If everyone in the world would take 3 drinks at the same time, we'd all get along just fine"
Go get your 3 drinks.
Comment
-
Dietrich and Tom, please do not fall out over this one.
You guys are both doing a sterling job and this is an important debate for the evolution of the S&L KC let alone the KC in general.
I know mine does not hold the weight of Bob's or Andreas but I know the backround and all I can say is that there seems to be some sort of missing link in what we have worked out so far.
Dietrich's study & findings when first launched rocked the KC collecting world to the bottom of its core. What he put forward and supported with his in-depth study made sense and he must always be respected for being bold enough to do this. He broke the ice and now considers all further studies of this to see where it leads.
but knowledge has always been a process of finding and counter finding one of on-going investigation which I have to say Tom does more than his fair share of and does it very well too I must add.
We have one big question mark with this one, the type B's which have been obtained by veterans both German and Allied. How is that they existed in May 1945 and how do they fit into the time-line of the history of the KC plus what is their relationship with the Type A's ???
Please guys lets save our energies for this and stay focused on the question. Lets not waste strength climbing into each other which sadly too many threads have gone down that path in the past.
In the words of one great soldier "select and maintain the aim"
I will try and post some good images of mine as soon as I get a chance.
Thank you all for your efforts so far esp. Leroy who has been brave enough not to let this one go and I had not mention the great job he does, a true collector beyond doubt
ChrisLast edited by 90th Light; 06-30-2010, 04:48 PM.Comment
-
Hi guys,Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
Dietrich, I really hope that you don't think I am saying you are lying. If it is coming off like that, I apologize because that is not my intent at all. I don't pretend to know anywhere near the amount of information that you do on RKs, and to assume I do and think that I am calling you a lier is just silly.
I was merely following your suggestion to search the WAF database. Believe me, I know EXACTLY the position you are coming from. You are looking at me like I don't know squat about the RK, and then all of a sudden I come in here and start stating opinions and facts, etc. This is perfectly true and acceptable, I fully admit that because I really don't know much about RKs. I don't own one and only handled a few of them briefly. And I know that is why you say things like "search the carton forum and find out for yourself". I know you are saying this because you have probably rehashed this information dozens of times in this forum and to have to do it again for someone inexperienced like me would be a complete pain in the butt. Listen, I understand that completely and agree with you
So to answer my own questions, I was hoping you would post some examples of A-type crosses with S&L-marked cartons. But I can understand your reasoning not to want to do it because this has likely been rehashed before, and I am fine with that, trust me. So that is why I took your advice and researched the cases and carton's forum to see for myself. I didn't think that WAF has everything there is to see and know, but all I have is WAF and your RK book. I didn't see any examples in your book, nor did I find any in WAF, so that is the entire crux of my continued questioning. I am not calling you a lier, just trying to find information on my own.
But to be honest, I think this has gone far enough as far as I am concerned. I consider you a great friend and colleague and would not want anything to stand in the way of that. If my inquiries are coming off as less than honest and true pursuits of the S&L RK mysteries, then I don't want to make it worse. I really hope you don't think I was calling you a lier and I am happy to just follow this from the sidelines. I honestly don't know how I could have framed my questions better to make them not sound like I am accusing you of lying or misrepresenting the facts.
Plenty of other mysteries in the Heer and Luftwaffe qualification badges realm for me to tackle, I assure you
See you at the MAX!
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
Chris,
First, I echo your sentiments about Dietrich and Tom (and am glad to see Tom's response just now).
Second (and back to the subject matter at hand), it is my opinion, based on my personal observations and crosses such as those owned now by Andreas and Bob (and maybe yours, too!), that the "B" cross is simply an early commercial version of the RK. Until the failure of the "A" working die, the "B" was never thought of as an official award version. It only became that for S&L (and then only with mandated PKZ "4" stamps) when the "A" developed the very ugly and noticeable raised beading flaws sometime before February, 1944. We don't know if any were actually awarded (for sure), but unless all the U.S. combat forces who brought them back passed through Ludenscheid or Schloss Klessheim (and that is highly doubtful), some had to have been. It is a long time between February, 1944 and April, 1945, even if the PKZ had lots of crosses on hand in February, 1944. Some say "Why should S&L have had 2 dies?" It's a good question, but the response "Why not?" is just as good, especially when you consider that the creation of multiple working dies was common practice, as was the use of separate production lines for commercial and government versions of awards. Add to that the "wide open" 18 month period between the institution of the RK and the institution of the LDO (which would spell the end of commercial RK sales just 7 months after it was formed) when anyone could make or sell RK's, the known sharing of dies and components between firms, and the idea of providing a customer with a choice of materials and finishes, and "voilà!", you have the answer.
Regards,
LeroyComment
Comment