S&L Ritterkreuz Question

[Leroy]

I know this will be of very little interest to most here.

We have heard repeatedly about the 23 (or is it 26?) minute "flawing" details which are said to link the "A", "B" and "C" Ritterkreuz frames from S&L. The easiest to see is a small split in a particular "bead" on the horizontal part of the 6 o'clock arm, and that is the one most frequently mentioned.

My question: Is there, or has there ever been, in one central location, a "catalog" of these matching details we can all look at?

[Bob Hritz]

Gentry,

I would love to see that also. A good chart, that could be expanded would be a benefit to our studies.

Perhaps Dietrich has made such a chart or technical drawing locating each of these flaws, and hopefully a time line of development through the various frames.

Bob Hritz

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have no such chart but I know that there was (is) a thread with pictures of most of them. Whether it was 23 or so I don't recall. I also do not have a chart of theses minute flaws over the three die stages and for sure none of the development of each such flaws.

If I would have it, I would have published it.

[Leroy]

Regretably, very many photos were deleted in those older threads by the person who posted them originally. Not much left to actually see on this particular subject.

[Leroy]

The best thread is: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...L+dies&page=51 The thread lasted from April, 2005 to September, 2005.

It is a very long read, and one I have done before, but last night I went back and read the whole thing again. And this morning, in excellent lighting conditions, and with a micro 800, an 800-4 and a 935 in front of me, together with an excellent loupe, I checked and re-checked all of the areas claimed to be confirmation of the "single repaired die" theory. (This is a theory, by the way, that Dietrich strongly and eloquently opposed, touching not only on die similarities but also the differences to be encountered. Further, and every bit as importantly, he confirmed that there was no evidence of repair in the areas of a 935-4 which would have had to have shown it if the "B" frames were simply repaired "A" frames.)

I was not a participant in that thread and, quite frankly did not even join this Forum until just a couple of months before the thread ended. I only started participating in the RK discussions when I realized that validity of the 800-4
as a wartime piece was being doubted. Since I had received one of those from a vet, as a gift, in 1958, I jumped in and haven't stopped. I am quite sure I have made dumb comments and offended many, for which I apologize, but this is a long learning curve if you wished to be serious about it (which I did).

Dietrich's main focus was the establishment of the two basic types, the "A" and the "B", which he has admirably done and which can no longer be questioned. So much so, in fact, that the collecting community now seems to believe that only the "A" types and the 935-4 and 800-4 "B" types seem to have legitimate claims to being wartime production, with the 800-4 still (but to a much lesser extent than when all this first started) being the subject of some doubt.

There seems to have been a "bright line" drawn between the "A"s and the 935-4 and 800-4 "B"s, and all other S&L produced crosses. Any suggestion of possible wartime production of other "B" types has been rejected and, frankly, riduculed. This is where all the mish-mash of stories of non-ferrous cored crosses, supposedly immediate postwar resumption of production by S&L, "put-together" groups, crooked dealers, etc., etc. has come into play.

The truth, in my opinion, is that very, very many of the "B" type crosses encountered are, in fact, either postwar assembled or actually postwar newly struck. Many dealers, even though they knew this, took (and still take)advantage of collectors by selling these crosses as wartime pieces, generally (but not always) for a price which was (or is) below the average market price for an "accepted" wartime piece. Again, these dealers (at least in most cases) were able to tell the difference between wartime and postwar pieces, but still preyed on the ignorance of collectors. It was, and is, reprehensible and, simply, fraud.

Without taking the rest of the day to write this (after all, we're only talking about pieces of metal which we happen to have an interest in), I would like to simply state my conclusions, after years of looking very, very closely at crosses and talking to fellow collectors, veterans, and, just as importantly, observing and talking to many of the "dark lords" of this hobby, most of whom (simply because I started so long ago) I have known for a long time:

1.) There was not a single, repaired die. There may, however, been some degree of repair or "clean up" to "working dies" during the course of their use. There were, IMO, at least 2 "working dies" and probably more during the period September, 1939 to April, 1945.

2.) The idea that "working dies" would not pick up minute defects from a "mother" is silly. There will always be matching "points" between dies produced from a "mother". There will also be many differences, some totally random. As just one example, I would invite anyone to study badges produced by different companies, but who obtained their dies from the same source. The Foerster & Barth and B.H. Mayer first pattern S-boat badges come to mind, as do the Souval and Mayer second pattern badges. Other examples are numerous.

3.) The "mother die" for the S&L RK frame was damaged early on, perhaps even during the initial process of creating working dies, resulting in one working die without the "dent row" and one working die with the "dent row". The working die without the "dent row" was the one used to produce pieces intended for award. The working die with the dent row was used to produce at least some pieces for commercial sale (whether by S&L itself or other companies). These commercial pieces (again, whether from S&L or someone else) could have used a variety of materials, including both silver and non-silver frames and both ferrous and non-ferrous cores. The use of these varying materials in the 1939-40 time period is accepted with both Juncker and the 3/4 ring crosses - why not S&L, too? At some point prior to, or coincident with, the establishment of the LDO in March, 1941, S&L's commercial production, which may have been limited to begin with, was halted, for reasons we simply don't know. There is no "L/16" marked RK (so far, at least). Were any of these commercial pieces actually awarded? Maybe some, but we don't know for sure one way or the other.

4.) At some point (we don't know exactly when, but prior to February, 1944) the working die used to stamp frames for the "A" crosses (i.e crosses intended for award) failed and developed raised beading flaws. Whether S&L itself noticed this in its own quality control inspection or whether the PKZ noticed it is unknown. No correspondence between the PKZ and S&L touching on this has ever been located and we don't know if there was a "blow-up" between the two or not.

5.) Sometime subsequent to the failure of the "A" working die, S&L completed two (and only two) models of the RK with its assigned (and now mandated) PKZ number of "4". Whether any of these were awarded has not been confirmed yet, although it is my understanding that there is strong reason to believe that at least some were. At the end of the war, crosses marked "4" were returned to the U.S. by U.S. combat troops (not occupying forces). It was U.S. troops who initially took Ludenscheid and Schloss Klessheim
(where at least one 935-4 is reported to have been found). We simply do not know all the exact locations where these crosses were found, or under what circumstances, nor do we really know when material was taken to Schloss Klessheim for storage. It could have been much earlier than 1945. In any case, "4" marked crosses were returned by combat veterans (as were, as evidenced by Bob Hritz' "Kitzingen cross", commercial pieces.)

6.) We do not know when the frames used to create the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses were stamped. Because of the "single repaired die" theory, the assumption is made that these frames came into existance only after the "A" die failed. I personally believe that this is false and that the use by S&L, in one of these types, of "935" silver content frames, points instead to the "re-cycling" of frames, still on hand, left over from the period of 1939-40. There may have been no new stamping towards the end of the war, except to add appropriate silver and PKZ marks.

7.) S&L, contrary to popular belief, did not resume, in the immediate postwar period, actual new die-striking of Nazi-era material. Instead, acting primarily through workers who operated out of their homes, and not on factory premises, it assembled leftover component parts into completed products. This holds true not only for the RK, but for many, many other badges. In the Ludenscheid area (home of at least 8 other prolific wartime manufacturers) the stock of leftover material was huge. Components available for use, at least as far as the RK was concerned, would have included not only iron cores but non-ferrous cores, as well. Both "B" type frames and even some flawed (factory reject) "A" type frames would have existed. In all liklihood, the supply of "B" frames and non-ferrous cores, both leftover from early "commercial" days, would have been greater than the supply of ferrous cores and even flawed "A" frames, as "award" crosses were produced "on order" and not stockpiled.


8.) In 1957, S&L commenced manufacture of the "new form" RK's. At first, it used leftover "B" frames, some unflawed and some showing only the very earliest beginnings of flaws. Very soon, however, probably when it put the "B" working die back into use to have a new supply of frames, the widepread raised beading flaws on the arms developed and what we call the "C" frame began to be used. Whether this frame is just a repaired "B" or from a newly created working die from the damaged (with dent row) "mother" is open to discussion. (It would be impossible for the "C" to be a repaired "B" if, in fact, the damaged "B" dies were sold to someone in England and used to create fake RK's, as has been reported many times.)

9.) In my opinion, the real test of a cross from S&L is not the dent row or the type of core, but rather quality of construction and finish. Postwar crosses, even though many used original leftover components, have never been finished with wartime quality, although some approach that standard to about the 90% level. That may be awfully subjective, but I believe it is true.

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 will leave by showing first, a non-ferrous core, unmarked RK which belongs to Forum member Andreas Klein. The cross was given to him by a former member of Admiral Doenitz' staff. The cross was purchased in a shop in Berlin in 1940 by Otto Kretschmer and was intended by him as a gift to a friend who everyone believed would be awarded the RK. The award never occured and the cross was kept by the staff member until Andreas got it. Secondly, I am showing (perhaps in a 2nd post because of size limitations) the lower 3 o'clock arm of an unmarked cross I have (purchased from the seller as a believed postwar assembly). The dent row is fresh and "crisp" and the core is magnetic with paint that appears to match wartime paint. The cross is finished beautifully. The loop is marked "935". We all know that a "pristine" 935-4 is supposed to have 13 "dents". This one has 14. Some will say that the extra dent is an accident of wear, coincidentally in right location. I very much doubt this, as the cross is in beautiful unworn condition.

[Leroy]

The "14 denter".

[Bob Hritz]

I was just reviewing old threads and came across this. I would think the 14 dents would have to preceed the 13 dents, in the 935-4 crosses.

Of course, if it has an iron center and is otherwise a B-type, it may be a 'missing link' in the timeline.

Bob Hritz

[Leroy]

.... it may be a 'missing link' in the timeline.

Bob Hritz

Die Ersten und die Letzten.

[Bob Hritz]

Ich denke, dass der Titel dem Gewinde ist, warum niemand teilnimmt. Ritterkreuz, im Titel möglicherweise zu haben, würde besser sein.
Bob Hritz

[Dietrich Maerz]

And here we have a perfect example why it is important to have a deeper knowledge of both languages and not just a translation program! And, please Bob, don't take this wrong, my friend!

"Thread" was translated into German as "Gewinde", which is in German a thread in the meaning of "to tap a thread on a screw". And that is why your German sentence makes no sense and that is why it is also ridiculous when it is discussed in all earnest whether it shoud be Knight's Cross or not. Knight's Cross retranslated into German would be "Ritterskreuz" and that is nowhere to find.

I can, however, always change the title of the thread. Just let me know.

[Leroy]

Just saw this latest exchange. The title of this thread was, simply, "Question".
Perhaps, to attract more interest, it should have read "Ritterkreuz Question". If you can change it, Dietrich, please do so. Next time (if there is a next time) I will be more descriptive.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Done.

Don't be frustrated. There are not a lot of people who are interested in theses sometimes esoteric questions. This subject is really in the realm of the very last questions regarding this maker and most of the (few) people which can afford a Knights Cross are satisfied with with what is known right now.

It takes time and sooner or later more will be known and more will be detected. One can't force it. Sometimes the answer is that there is no answer right now. Mustn't be lack of interest.

Dietrich

[Robert T.]

The "14 denter".

The "14 denter" in comparison to the classic dent row.

_____________
Robert

[Leroy]

Thanks, Robert, for that excellent comparison!

Dietrich - This may be within the "realm of the very last questions", but many times it is a good thing to save the best for last.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

could you please post a full obverse and reverse of the "14 denter"?

Dietrich