S&L Ritterkreuz Question

[VIPER]

Based on the fact of S@Ls involvement from the inceptsion of the award it would seem too me to be illogical that S@L would not have
made crosses with the 4 marking. To do so would have left a lot of profit on the table for other manufacturers to scoop up. It's just not logical too me that they would not want too get back in the game ASAP..Regards Jimmy

[90th Light]

Leroy, What is the status of the 6/9 knee flaw on the 14 renter........Regards Jimmy

Hello Leroy,

is the "6/9 knee flaw" a good indicator on one of these or a bad one ?

Chris

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I value everything you say. It was only the "this isn't true either" when nothing I stated was not true. Sure, you didn't find the information where I pointed you to. But I thought it might be enough when I say so....

Nobody here doesn't mind when ideas are kicked around. Gentry is doing this since years and a lot of good information has come out of it. Who am I to mind this? As I stated earlier, I leave it to others to debate the theory that there were two dies and that maybe the A-Type die was given to another company. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it should have some basis and it needs to encompass all known facts IMHO. And one known fact is that A-Types have been found in maker marked cartons. And it is also a fact that there are a great amount of minute details in common between the two die types. Too many to say they are clearly different.
I don't want to sound of like the pope but I do not exaggerate when I state that I have looked at at least 10 if not more A and B-types each here at my home under the microscope for hours and hours and that based on that I (and only I) came to the conclusion for me that they are both the same die. I am fully aware of the mother die process and I have worked with die making in my apprentice time. I also know what is a result of an impression from a mother or what is a result of aging (and can be found on both types...) It is not that I just flipped a coin and heads was one die.

However, I might be wrong. And I never ever discounted that possibility and I will always discuss this subject with a logic approach. But - and I admit that openly - it is strange to me when someone jumps in a says "There is nothing that ties the A-Type to S&L" and "The two dies are clearly different."

But this is not worth to have a fight over. I honestly do not care either way. I only care about one thing: that we as a community have the knowledge and the guts to identify the real thing without hurting someone financially.

And I am looking forward seeing you at the MAX. We will celebrate our new books!

[Leroy]

Chris,
So far, all "B" types observed have this 6-9 flaw. What causes it is unknown and it may be a die extraction "event" (that is one of several explanations for it).

What most people don't know is that it occurs (on the 3-6 arm juncture) on some "A" crosses, too. (Jimmy noticed this - credit where credit is due!) Here it is on an "A" cross featured in the Knights Cross Photo Database on this Forum:

[Thomas Durante]

And I am looking forward seeing you at the MAX. We will celebrate our new books!

Count on it!

Tom

[90th Light]

Chris,
So far, all "B" types observed have this 6-9 flaw. What causes it is unknown and it may be a die extraction "event" (that is one of several explanations for it).

What most people don't know is that it occurs (on the 3-6 arm juncture) on some "A" crosses, too. (Jimmy noticed this - credit where credit is due!) Here it is on an "A" cross featured in the Knights Cross Photo Database on this Forum:

Thanks Leroy,

my one has it almost exactly like you show in your photo in post number 21

I will photograph this too when I post my images.

Sorry for the delay in posting but will get them posted as soon as I can,

Chris

[Leroy]

And just a brief comment on Dietrich's response to Tom (we were apparently writing at the same time) - First, I am glad to see what appears to be reconciliation of sorts between them. It is a good step.

Second- I, too, have looked at multiple "A"s and "B"s for hours and hours and hours. I see common minute defects, but I also see multiple minute defects which are not common. To me, this indicates at least two working dies from the same "mother". More importantly, I see no evidence of repair to those areas of the "B" which should show them if the "B" was merely a repaired "A" (which I'm not even sure could have been technically accomplished in the first place). Additionally, the disappearance of the 9-12 flaw from the "A" to the "B" makes no sense whatsoever. That flaw was practically invisible to begin with. If you want to say "well, they were being very thorough in their clean-up", you will have a hard time explaining how they were being so careful and yet still managed in the process to create the completely new flaws which today serve to differentiate the two types.

[90th Light]

Hi guys,

Plenty of other mysteries in the Heer and Luftwaffe qualification badges realm for me to tackle, I assure you

Tom

Hello Tom,

when I get the images of this RK taken. I will also try and get that NS 3rd model Juncker flak done and post on that thread,

Chris

[VIPER]

In my opinion based on observation the 6/9 flaw appears to be progressive ie getting larger over time. It starts out as virtually non existent on the 800/4 and gets progressively larger through the 935/4 and then the 935 only series and then on through the 57s. ...Jimmy

[VIPER]

Chris,
So far, all "B" types observed have this 6-9 flaw. What causes it is unknown and it may be a die extraction "event" (that is one of several explanations for it).

What most people don't know is that it occurs (on the 3-6 arm juncture) on some "A" crosses, too. (Jimmy noticed this - credit where credit is due!) Here it is on an "A" cross featured in the Knights Cross Photo Database on this Forum:

This frame may be the missing link between A and B types. Or are there 3 sister dies at work here. The knee flaw is showing a fairly high degree of development. More so than the 800/4s but not as much as most 935/4. While having complete A characteristics and none of the B......Regards Jimmy

[Leroy]

The 6-9 flaw is smaller on frames marked 800-4 than on frames marked 935-4, each of which have 13 "dents" in the "dent row"; however, the flaw is larger on the "14 denter" I showed than on the 800-4 marked frames, but smaller than on most 935-4 marked frames. This is another mystery which should tell us that what we don't know is more than what we do know.

But I fear we are getting away (as we always seem to do) from the point of this particular thread, which is the existence of "B" crosses (other than simply the 800-4 and 935-4) with highly credible provenance to wartime production, such as Bob's and Andreas'. I showed the "14 denter" in this thread only to establish that the "13 dent" row found on the 800-4 and 935-4 was not the beginning of the "B" series. That formerly accepted "fact" is not a "fact" at all (although it was perfectly logical for Dietrich to think that, and for the rest of us to think that, based on the information available at the time). It is only one cross, but it can teach us something we didn't know before. Where there is one, there will be another, and who knows what else we can find if we bother to look and pay attention.

Here is a comparison between the Andreas Klein cross and the quintessential postwar (but pre-1957) assembled and finished swastika-cored cross (made with leftover parts). I hope you can see the difference. The paint consistency is different, the frosting is the "silvery" type (replaced later with a new type of painted, but different from wartime, frosting for the 1957 "official replacement" versions), and the overall construction is clean but obviously imperfect. This is the real S&L "boogeyman". Not very scary, is it? (By the way, this cross correlates perfectly with S&L's statements to Andreas Klein, when he personally visited with them and showed them his cross, that they could not replicate postwar their wartime quality, as the companies which supplied necessary materials were no longer in existence and their skilled RK finishers had left the firm.) About the only thing in common these two crosses have is that they are both "B"s.

[Andreas Klein]

I follow this thread with much interest and have a question about the point that we always speak of 1 die.

What does this mean exactly for us?:

1.
SuL had 1 working die and used in 6 years of awards production the one and same working die to produce their crosses. When it cracked this die was repaired.

or

2.
SuL had 1 mother die and was able to re-produce an unknown number of working dies based on this mother.

[Naval Enigma]

Gentlemen,

I have read the thread closely. And the other A Vs. B RK thread. I have Mr. Maerz's book. Based on what is know today I have one very simple question.

Were any RK's marked 935-4 made pre May 1945?



Okay. Here are assumptions I have made based on these threads:

The 935-4 marked RK was never HANDED to a recipient during an awards ceremony. Meaning that version never entered the official supply system.

However 935-4 marked RKs were privately purchased from commercial vendors by RK winners as extras, for field wear, etc.

I appreciate it. As a new collector I would appreciate some clarity on the above points. Thanks!

[Rich G]

Were any RK's marked 935-4 made pre May 1945?

I believe yes because I believe these were found in Schloss Klesshiem towards the war's end.

Okay. Here are assumptions I have made based on these threads:

The 935-4 marked RK was never HANDED to a recipient during an awards ceremony. Meaning that version never entered the official supply system.

As I understand it there are no known recipients but (if i recall correctly) as they were at Schloss Klessheim then that suggests they were in the system (or am I getting mixed up here and it was only 'Lazy 2' Juncker RKs that were found there?)

However 935-4 marked RKs were privately purchased from commercial vendors by RK winners as extras, for field wear, etc.

I do not believe so. For private purchase the piece would have to have been marked L/16 (or unmarked) and been on sale before the ban in 1941.

It is extremely curious for me that there are no L/16 marked RK's yet we have L/12, L/15, L/52 but that is not the object of this thread. Although I hope it can be discussed at a later date.

[Thomas Durante]

SuL had 1 mother die and was able to re-produce an unknown number of working dies based on this mother.

Hallo Andreas,

This would be my opinion. The working dies would all be very similar to eachother, but also slightly different thanks to minute debris or wear/modification to the mother die. This exact phenomenon can be seen with Wurster Panzer Assault badges. We have 3 obverse designs that are 99.9% identical, yet have a few very minor differences to reveal that they were 3 separate "working" dies all made from 1 "mother" die.

Tom