Knights Cross with Oakleaves..thoughts?

[Marc Garlasco]

Here is a test I did on a K&Q RK, the results were the paint was period and not post war.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...highlight=ftir

[vonStubben]

I can't explain their rarity in US vet finds etc etc...but KQ RK were NOT rare during the period. I've studied hundreds of RKT portraits and award ceremony photographs. The KQ characteristics are very obvious given the fat ring and shape of the arms. An enormous number of mid-late war RKT were awarded KQ crosses if the photographic evidence is to be believed, and the mid war period saw an expansion in the number of crosses awarded. Just my 2 cents...

and if I remember correctly, the KQ crosses have been tested by the SEM and found to be consistent w/ period pieces.

AGREED! Also, this cross does not show the 3 dot die flaw on the upper left corner of the 12 O'clock arm either. I believe it's an early K&Q.

Chuck

[Luftm40]

Here is a test I did on a K&Q RK, the results were the paint was period and not post war.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...highlight=ftir

Thank you...and the cross that was tested is one of the scary "minty" examples. I've been at this for over 30 years. I can surf the web and find multiple original examples of things I could only dream about seeing in 1975...the internet has simply made "rarity" more transparent.

[Marc Garlasco]

We are fish and only see what is in our tank. When the internet lets the fish see the ocean it is amazed and can't believe its preconceived notions were wrong.

[Mike Coleman]

Andy and Marc

Your points are well expressed and well taken. You are correct and it is probably just my paranoia. I must admit that I have one in my collection that I got long ago so I don't want to torpedo their value but it is just one of those things I have wondered about and could never stimulate any discussion before so thank you for your comments.
So, I pose this for discussion. Aa a disclaimer I respect and appreciate the bench research people here have done in analizing materials with SEM studies, etc. It is very valuable information to us all. So to be "the devils advocate" for a moment, if one scans the paint on a cross and it turns out that there is nothing that shows up as a new compound and/ or is indentical to results on other wartime peices is that proof positive that it is a wartime piece or is it proof positive that certain postwar paint formulas were not used. The reason I pose this is that I have a good friend in the FBI and have talked a few times with one of their agents who is expert in fine art fraud. He has told me that it is easy to make one's own paint and there are same manufacturers of artist's pigments that have not changed their formulas for years so it is very difficult at times to use chemical analysis to determine forgeries of 19th and 20th century art work. So would this be too sophisticated a sham for a medal faker?
Another question I have is why not use radioisotope analysis? Now I admit I have only read about this so I don't know how expensive or destructive that testing is. The reason I bring it up is that I used to work in a physics lab that was shielded by steel plate taked from a mothballed WW II ship. The reason was that we were looking for faint radioactive signatures and so needed a shielding that had low back ground radiation. It was explained to me that metal smelted after the atmospheric nuclear tests had taken place had picked up to much radioactive isotopes from the atmosphere to be useable for the lab. So I would think that if a silver frame or iron core had been molten metal at some time after the late 40's or early 50's we should be able to tell that.
I don't even want to get into the patents for resins and polymers that were stolen from I. G. Farben by U.S chemical companies after the war.
Anyway, for me it is fun to discuss these things and I hope I am not insulting anyone's hard work or opinions as certainly don't mean to do so.
Mike

[Don D.]

Thank you...and the cross that was tested is one of the scary "minty" examples. I've been at this for over 30 years. I can surf the web and find multiple original examples of things I could only dream about seeing in 1975...the internet has simply made "rarity" more transparent.

I think the rise in prices has had something to do with bringing more of this stuff to market as well.....

[Luftm40]

Your points are well expressed and well taken. You are correct and it is probably just my paranoia. I must admit that I have one in my collection that I got long ago so I don't want to torpedo their value but it is just one of those things I have wondered about and could never stimulate any discussion before so thank you for your comments.
So, I pose this for discussion. Aa a disclaimer I respect and appreciate the bench research people here have done in analizing materials with SEM studies, etc. It is very valuable information to us all. So to be "the devils advocate" for a moment, if one scans the paint on a cross and it turns out that there is nothing that shows up as a new compound and/ or is indentical to results on other wartime peices is that proof positive that it is a wartime piece or is it proof positive that certain postwar paint formulas were not used. The reason I pose this is that I have a good friend in the FBI and have talked a few times with one of their agents who is expert in fine art fraud. He has told me that it is easy to make one's own paint and there are same manufacturers of artist's pigments that have not changed their formulas for years so it is very difficult at times to use chemical analysis to determine forgeries of 19th and 20th century art work. So would this be too sophisticated a sham for a medal faker?
Another question I have is why not use radioisotope analysis? Now I admit I have only read about this so I don't know how expensive or destructive that testing is. The reason I bring it up is that I used to work in a physics lab that was shielded by steel plate taked from a mothballed WW II ship. The reason was that we were looking for faint radioactive signatures and so needed a shielding that had low back ground radiation. It was explained to me that metal smelted after the atmospheric nuclear tests had taken place had picked up to much radioactive isotopes from the atmosphere to be useable for the lab. So I would think that if a silver frame or iron core had been molten metal at some time after the late 40's or early 50's we should be able to tell that.
I don't even want to get into the patents for resins and polymers that were stolen from I. G. Farben by U.S chemical companies after the war.
Anyway, for me it is fun to discuss these things and I hope I am not insulting anyone's hard work or opinions as certainly don't mean to do so.
Mike

Mike, I actually remember a case where radio isotope testing was done on an RK, and a KQ at that. It was many years ago though, and I can't remember the details . I guess we need to decide how much proof is "enough". There is a point beyond which it just becomes insane, and people are probably better off not collecting these items. I personally have no fear of the KQ RKs. IMO they are quite distinctive and attractive crosses that were awarded in large numbers, and this is supported by die characteristics, finish, photographic evidence and SEM testing of the core. For me, that is enough to outweigh rumors of surplus dies and underground production of restrikes. I would like to see concrete details about the dies and supposed post war restriking. I mean, how many times have these rumors circulated about various things? Has one of the members actually seen these dies and witnessed them being used post war? At one point, L/12 RK s were considered post war restrikes, now they are the cat's pajamas. The "what if....." can be used to poke holes in ANY artifact. Like I said, beyond a certain point of scientific proof and provenance, it becomes ridiculous and people just need to be confident enough in their own analysis to decide for themselves.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The one Hartmann bought in 1944 is mint and it is with 100% solid provenance. K&Q were awarded during the war, no doubt about that.

Dietrich

[Harry]

I reckon that many cased, mint unissued examples remained in the stock room of K&Q well after the war and that many were bought by vets as replacements for their lost/confiscated wartime awarded pieces. Hence we see many groupings surface where the crosses are K&Q, but the award dates may pre-date the entry of K&Q into RK production.

The fact that the dies possibly existed bears no relevance, as we see with S&L the quality of postwar produced crosses is just not the same - just because you can churn out the frames does not mean you can replicate the high quality work of the original craftsmen.

Also, many mint K&Q crosses come in mint, original wartime cases, with mint, original ribbons (and indeed in outer cartons!) Cases on their own are extremely rare, rarer than the crosses. If post-war produced in any number, I do not think they would be coming in wartime cases.

[Mike Coleman]

Thank you

Thank you all for your comments. Taking all into consideration I feel more comfortable with the K and Q crosses - I wonder if Bob does?
Dave, I am sorry if I highjacked your thread.
Andy, I didn't know radioisotope had been tried. Very interesting. I guess what I was getting at was seeing if there was a single test that could be done that was not too expensive, non destructive and that would eliminate the null hypothesis. I think this was alluded to in the discussions when the rounder was being looked at so closely but how much would you pay for such test results on a piece you were going to buy. If it cost an extra hundred dollars I sure wouldn't want it (and shouldn't need it) for an IAB but if one were to spend $10,000 or $20,000 or more would an extra hundred be worth it - if not now but perhaps in the future when your heirs go to sell your collection? Has anyone bought a valuable gem stone lately and seen what comes with it?
Thank you all again. Very enjoyable and rewarding discussion.
Mike