S&L Ritterkreuz Question

[Leroy]

And just so we'll remember what this is all about, here's Bob Hritz's non-ferrous cored RK ("B" type), obtained together with a Juncker RK with Godet Oakleaves from the same vet, who, in turn, got them both from surrendering pilots of Geschwader Immelmann at Kitzingen.

[90th Light]

And just so we'll remember what this is all about, here's Bob Hritz's non-ferrous cored RK ("B" type), obtained together with a Juncker RK with Godet Oakleaves from the same vet, who, in turn, got them both from surrendering pilots of Geschwader Immelmann at Kitzingen.

I have one like this from a veteran which I mention to you Leroy in another thread be but I do not understand what you mean by "without raised beading flaws"

What excatly are the positive signs with a non-ferrous example of one of these and what are the negative signs so I can see if it is what you are seeking,

Chris

[Leroy]

...I do not understand what you mean by "without raised beading flaws"...


Chris

Hi, Chris,
As you know, "B" types developed raised beading flaws (just like the "A" developed, leading to its demise, but in slightly different locations) which begin to show up on "B" frames shortly after the 1957 version RK's were introduced. It's my personal belief that these extensive raised flaws appeared shortly into the early production "run", using the original "B" wartime working dies, for the 1957 crosses. The first 1957 version crosses don't have these extensive flaws (and used, IMO, leftover wartime frames). It is for this reason that I believe a swastika-cored "B" cross having a frame with these flaws is definitely postwar.

In looking at "B" crosses with frames which do not have these flaws (which are the only type, IMO, which have a chance of being wartime), I would then look at quality of assembly and finish, and the type of paint used. By example, if I saw a cross with a "B" frame, but it had no extensive raised beading flaws, I would next (in the process of elimination) look at the quality. Is the frosting nice, or is it the "silvery" type? Is the soldering well done? Is the paint the granular type seen during the war (and there are different acceptable finishes, ranging from flat to satin to semi-gloss, depending on how it was mixed)? Any signs of lacquer? There are certainly other things, too, but that's a start (and will probably eliminate 90% of the postwar crosses seen).
Regards,
Leroy

[90th Light]

Hi, Chris,
As you know, "B" types developed raised beading flaws (just like the "A" developed, leading to its demise, but in slightly different locations) which begin to show up on "B" frames shortly after the 1957 version RK's were introduced. It's my personal belief that these extensive raised flaws appeared shortly into the early production "run", using the original "B" wartime working dies, for the 1957 crosses. The first 1957 version crosses don't have these extensive flaws (and used, IMO, leftover wartime frames). It is for this reason that I believe a swastika-cored "B" cross having a frame with these flaws is definitely postwar.

In looking at "B" crosses with frames which do not have these flaws (which are the only type, IMO, which have a chance of being wartime), I would then look at quality of assembly and finish, and the type of paint used. By example, if I saw a cross with a "B" frame, but it had no extensive raised beading flaws, I would next (in the process of elimination) look at the quality. Is the frosting nice, or is it the "silvery" type? Is the soldering well done? Is the paint the granular type seen during the war (and there are different acceptable finishes, ranging from flat to satin to semi-gloss, depending on how it was mixed)? Any signs of lacquer? There are certainly other things, too, but that's a start (and will probably eliminate 90% of the postwar crosses seen).
Regards,
Leroy

Thanks Leroy,

well I have got my one out and gone all over it

1/ Zinc center

2/ no raised beading flaw what so ever. The beading on the rims is very crisp & clear

3/ Has a dent row like that shown in post number 13 by Robert.T. but I can only count 10 dents with a 20 power loop if the other 3 or 4 are there then they are so faint as to be almost non-existant plus the dents on mine are not as deep as those shown in post number 14. Can not find any other dents any where else but I will go over it again later. (Feel cross eyed right now)

4/ Frosting is quite typical of what one finds on an excellent quality EK sort of favoring whitish acid type etching in color tone plus a little tarnished with age and the lacquer (or finishing of the silver ?) on the rims has possibly yellowed or browned slightly also with age. In fact when I look at it again then there is tarnish to the edges from slight wear and the odd spot where the metal tarnish of the rim is wanting to come through. The frosting is very strong but it is not mint and again I have seen this on EK"s.

5/ Paint is granular heading towards a satin shine. In fact if I made a call then it is Satin

6/ Soldering is excellent but I can see it slightly

7/ Overall quality is superb.

8/ has a large "800" mark at the top of the loop ring on the reverse side that is almost too big for the purpose

This one came in a case from the estate of the American general with quite a bit of other stuff including 3 other cased KC and a cased gold CCC with the top hook. This American had got his hands on the stuff but he was in Germany during the fighting and of course for some time after hostilities ended. I will go back and check my notes there were oaks on one or more of the KC's but I never got those.

I really appreciate your advise on this is and is there any thing else I should look for ?

Chris

[Leroy]

Sounds promising, Chris. Tried to send you a PM, but your mailbox is full!

Quality is everything here.

[90th Light]

Sounds promising, Chris. Tried to send you a PM, but your mailbox is full!

Quality is everything here.

Thanks Leroy I will clear out some PM's as soon as I can or feel free to email

Chris

[Leroy]

Chris - Photos would be very helpful . Did you mean that the "800" stamp is actually on the ring at the top of the cross itself, or is it on the suspension loop?

[Thomas Durante]

Good luck with your search and this thread Gentry. I don't own a single RK and therefore have nothing to contribute to the discussion, but I still find the analysis and theories very interesting.

Tom

[Leroy]

Thanks, Tom,

The whole idea here is to establish information which will be useful for collectors and help put an end to the uncertainty surrounding S&L crosses. That is the only point of this.

The entire timeline of S&L cross production is based on the very logical theory that if the frames used on 935-4 and 800-4 crosses simply did not exist until very late in the war, and "pristine" examples have 13 dents in the "dent row", then, per force, any frame with a lesser dent row must be postwar.

Now we know that there is a frame (whenever the cross happened to be assembled) which has 14 dents in the "dent row". That frame, if logic is followed, must have been stamped before the frames used to make the 935-4's and 800-4's. Then we have reports from very reputable people such as Bob Hritz and Andreas Klein of non-ferrous cored S&L crosses, with fewer dents in the "dent row", obtained directly from veterans. One traces its provenance to Otto Kretschmer and a member of Doenitz's staff, and the other came with other rare (and recognized as original) pieces from surrendering Luftwaffe pilots of Geschwader Immelmann. This is not "pie in the sky" provenance or dealer BS. If this provenance is rejected because it conflicts with a theory, then
it's time to re-evaluate how we think in this hobby.

It's my personal view (and that of many very serious collectors, whose integrity is beyond reproach) that S&L made crosses with frames having the "dent row" (in varying stages of development) very early in the war, most likely for commercial purposes and before the institution of the LDO, using a second working die. Some of these frames, among the very earliest produced, leftover in the factory, were used to create the 935-4's and 800-4's when the "A" working die for award pieces failed and there was no back-up undamaged die to use. The problem for collectors, of course, is how to recognize and differentiate crosses assembled during the war from such frames from examples which may have been assembled (using original components) postwar. Again, it is my personal
view that it is possible to tell the difference, based on quality and type of construction and finish. (Already, just based on what we can readily observe, 90% of postwar crosses are pretty easy to detect.) We simply need to see and closely examine as many S&L swastika-cored crosses as possible to have some useful base of information. If the only criteria to reject a cross is the state of the "dent row", or the lack of ferrous core, or the lack of a silver stamp, we are truly "missing the forest for the trees". There is more to this story than we currently realize, IMO.

Regards,
Leroy

[Thomas Durante]

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.

Hi guys,

Is this still being debated?

Sparked by this thread, I just pulled out Dietrich's excellent book and re-read the S&L chapter. Based on what I can see, I completely agree with Gentry that there were 2 dies. The fact that there is no 9-12 knee flaw on the B-Type crosses suggests that they were new dies and not just repaired A-Type frames.

I am also not a big fan of the thought of "repaired dies". I just don't see how you can physically repair a small flaw in a big, heavy hardened steel die that weights 50-100 pounds!

Sorry if this is rehashing old information that may have already been cleared up as I admittedly haven't followed all the history and threads on these crosses in the past. I only post this because Gentry mentions it in the first sentence, which makes me think the issue is not resolved.

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

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.

What is the reason one does not see any of these early RKs awarded? It is clear that most of the commercial RKs had to be sent to the PK and were awarded. The huge amount of L/12 and even the very few L/52 are testament to that. At this point in time it seems that none of the the early B-Types (iron and non iron core, Neusilber or silver frame) made it to the PKZ or to an awardee - if one goes with the theory.

Tom, regarding the two dies (or three or four or five....) made from one mother die you will find a ton of arguments for it and a ton of arguments against it. Most of them are opinions based on one observation neglecting some other facts - and vice versa.
I have asked a lot of people in the die making industry and my opinion is based in what I learned during that time and also on my personal observation and investigation. The mother dies existed and were and are used, that is not a question. The question is: was it used in this special case? After more than 60 years the possible existence of such a double set of dies (or maybe even more, why not???) can only be proved by the pieces produced by the dies. The time related to the production can only be proven by hard solid awards and then only by stating "The frames were made earlier than that date." Everything else will stay in the realm of theory.

There is no way to prove or disprove what Gentry theorizes above. The main reason is that nobody has a complete list of all RKs awarded with related dates so there is always the correct argument that only a relatively small cross section of all awarded crosses is known. My point of view at this point in time (since I cannot predict what the future will bring) is based on what the known awards and models tell us. A statistical sampling with a high degree of certainty. Gentry's viewpoint is that we don't know all awarded crosses and that we have neither an inventory of the PKZ nor of Klessheim. And that inside these big gaps (and there are gaps) could very well be hidden some makers, some models and some huge surprises.

And I agree to that, never said anything else.

There are two viewpoints: One is to find genuine examples made during the time without any ramifications regarding value, price, status and rarity. Pure historical research and historical justification. That is what Gentry is doing and what I always try to do.
But then there is also the monetary aspect and you should know how fast some dealers jump on any theory which allows them to sell their shady wares. (and this comment is not related to the S&L B Type - just in general). And only based on this one simple reason I am extremely cautious. Gentry knows that and we have talked in person about this.

If you write in your book something "might be real" it will be sold as real! This happens every day with the Rounder based on one book and maybe with some idiotic fakes with separate rings based on another book. It is in a book and therefore it must be real. And it always will be .....

I do not object to any theory but I will always stay on the safe side. There is nothing to loose to tell someone to be cautious and everything to loose to tell something that is still based on a theory or opinion and not proven (yet or never will be).

Everybody can fill a book with all kinds of theories and assumptions. And that is proven. As you know, it is far harder to write facts and support those with hard evidence.

But this discussion is important and it is necessary. And I am looking forward meeting Gentry at the Max again to discuss in person!

[Leroy]

Good morning, Dietrich,

This will be short, as I'm due in court in an hour.

Unlike Juncker, there are no S&L RK's with an "L" designation that we know of, indicating that S&L did not market RK's to any great extent after the LDO was established (despite the fact that both the RK and Oakleaves appear in its last catalog published just after institution of the LDO, and there are some "L/16" marked Oakleaves). It has been suggested by Chris Jenkins that perhaps S&L, as the primary designer of the RK, felt that it was inappropriate to continue marketing of this particular decoration. We don't know if there were even any S&L crosses left in shops by the time the October, 1941 order went into effect, so there may not have been any to be turned over to the PKZ. We just don't know.

Again, it should be clear that, until the "A" die failed, and "B" frames, out of necessity, were used to create the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses (IMO), no "B" type cross was intended to be an award piece.

Regards,
Gentry

[Robert T.]

Again, it should be clear that, until the "A" die failed, and "B" frames, out of necessity, were used to create the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses (IMO), no "B" type cross was intended to be an award piece.

Regards,
Gentry

Gentry,


“Out of necessity”… The dent row is hardly noticeable and is a much more acceptable defect than having beading flaws all over the “A” type frames. Why did they wait until a complete failure of the “A” die before using the “B” die if they already had it on hand? Was there something wrong with it, did they believe that it would fail even faster than the “A” because of the way that it was originally manufactured?

_________
Robert

[Leroy]

Robert,

I agree completely that the flaws on the "B" are significantly less noticeable than the raised beading flaws on the "A"; however, until those flaws developed, it was the "B", not the "A", which was flawed (I don't count the 9-12 flaw on the "A" because it was so minor).

Personally, and even though I am fully aware of supposed awards of badly flawed "A" crosses, I find it hard to accept that these flawed "A"'s were allowed to slip by, in any real quantity at all, the quality controls which must have been in effect for this high decoration. Perhaps some did, but at some point, someone must have noticed them and realized "this is not acceptable". When that occured, S&L had to fall back on the "B" frames, which now looked pretty good in comparison. When this happened is anyone's guess, but it is a fact that no "A" crosses bear the mandated "4" PKZ number. If Dietrich is correct that this number had to be used by February, 1944, it means that S&L stopped producing "A" crosses before that date. Another factor to be considered if that the raised beading flaws on the "A" may have, and probably did, progress from minor to "full-blown" in the course of just one "run" of frame stamping. There is no evidence of protracted and drawn out die failure (just as, similarly, there is no evidence of protracted and drawn out failure of the "B" dies when the 1957 crosses began production - the beading flaws went from very minor to fully involved in a very short period of time).

An interesting point about the design of both "A" and "B" frames: On the vertical and horizontal ends of each arm, the beading "dips" from the edges of the ends to the middle, just like a "sagging bridge". This is not observed on crosses from other makers* and it is only in those areas that raised beading flaws developed. Never in the curving arms at all. Was this an inherent design defect?

Regards,
Gentry

* This pronounced "sagging" is observable on the very earliest Juncker crosses (the ones awarded in 1939-40), but it disappears in later versions (the L/12's, etc.). Did someone think this might be a problem?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Just a quick note on the early 1944 date for the PKZ numbers:

- this is ONLY valid in relation with the Knights Cross and is ONLY based on actual awards.
- it was most likely due to the amount of L/12 available at the PKZ
- the PKZ numbers were for sure introduced earlier. For the German Cross the date is most likely late 1942 (and, interestingly enough, there are also "4" marked crosses but non so far tied to a solid awardee.)

An interesting question is this: is there a possibility to reconstruct with any award made by S&L when they were using the "4"???