Strange finish on a Knights Cross - Original?

[RobertE]

I would appreciate any opinions as to whether this is an original Knights Cross, and whether this odd bubbly finish is a known form of aging.

I looked through the posted examples until my eyes crossed - I just can't tell. Is this a good one?

regards, Robert

[RobertE]

Any opinions as to originality?

[grueni1208]

A well known fake.

Regards

Daniel

[RobertE]

Thanks for the fast reply.

[AlikN]

Looks like there is dent row ...???

[Leroy]

Looks like there is dent row ...???

I was thinking the same thing............

[RobertE]

...which means that it could be an original?

[dc9]

Robert,

I am not sure that it is a fake per se, but it looks to have the features and characteristics of a S&L "B"-type "800 marked". I say "per se" because that depends on your definition of "fake." It is currently believed by some/many that (if this is a S&L Cross of this type) these are post-war manufactured - if it is, in fact, post-war manufactured, then, in my opinion, that deems it a "fake", even if it was manufactured by a legitimate firm, with wartime tooling, materials and quality of finish.

I believe in your photos that one can see two flaws attributed to the B-Types (as seen in the enhanced photo below.) It would be helpful if you could post closer pictures of those areas. Also a close-up of the '800' mark would be nice. If you notice any "bridge" flaws "linking" the ridges of the frames, most likely on the 3- or 6-o'clock arms, please post those too.

The poor adhesion of the paint could be caused by a number of reasons; environment, material quality, preparation of surface, etc. -- one question of interest is whether the core is magnetic - can you test it and let us know.

Regards,

Eric

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is not a S&L B-Type frame, but rather a fake.

[Leroy]

Here is a cross sold by Weitze, some time ago, with the same core. It was sold for approximately $1000 US as what Weitze believed to be a postwar assembled S&L. At the time it was originally listed, it was discussed briefly here and there was some confusion as to whether or not it was, in fact, an S&L frame. Closer examination, through the enlargement feature available on Weitze's site, however, showed that it was. The core was not the typical S&L core, although Niemann has made mention of a variant early S&L core.

Not at all to defend, especially from these photos, this cross (and I told Robert last night that it would be very difficult to convince anyone that it could be real, even if it was), we should at least look at it as "part of the ongoing S&L RK investigation". The question has been, legitimately, raised as to whether S&L supplied "B" type RK frames, or perhaps frames and cores, or dies for either, in the very early, pre-LDO, days to other companies. IF it did (and please note the "IF"), as it certainly did with EK frames (and perhaps cores, too, and/or dies), that may be one of the reasons we remain confused about such crosses. We assume they were made by S&L, and are, to many, therefore, automatically postwar (as they are not 935-4 or 800-4 "B" types), but are they really?

P.S. The Weitze cross did not have extensive raised beading flaws.

[RobertE]

Eric, thanks for your comments. I don't own this cross, and can't test the core or obtain any other photos, sorry. I know of the controversy that Leroy addresses above, and felt it was best to pass on this cross.

I appreciate all comments on this cross. The collective knowledge on the Knights' Cross is impressive. I like how Leroy tries in a very civil manner to continue discussion on what constitutes wartime manufacturing, and Eric echos the same collecting attitude. That's how we learn.

While I'm at it, I hold out no hope for this cross, but wanted to check before dismissing it as well.

regards, Robert

[RobertE]

2

[streptile]

Before this core was seen in these relatively good-looking frames, it was commonly found in terrible-looking fake frames. I believe what we see here is just the evolution of this fake, getting better as collectors get wiser. I have one of the "old" versions of this fake.

[streptile]

While I'm at it, I hold out no hope for this cross, but wanted to check before dismissing it as well.

Hi Robert,

That one is bad as well, known as the "Rounder," or maybe the "new Rounder" -- I have trouble keeping track of which is which.

[Leroy]

Robert - This is what is sometimes called the "new Rounder", supposedly a derivative of the original "Rounder" (so named because of the rounded corners next to the swastika), but certainly from a different source. They are still 100% fake.