Opinion on Ritterkreuz

[Dietrich Maerz]

If those pictures do not constitute a dead match with S&L then I have a serious problem with my eyes (and with my brain).


Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Front Numerals:

[Dietrich Maerz]

Numerals reverse:

[Gerd W.]

Hello!

I my eyes a perfect match!

BTW the cross in question was for sale on a Germany dealer webside a few weeks ago (Philipp Militaria -not my favorite indeed-). But since that day, I had it in my files as original S&L.

Regards

Gerd

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now we're cooking!

[tom hansen]

Dietrich-

Look again. As I stated earlier there are differences in the "1813", but the "1939" looks good.

1. The "1" is lower than the "1" on the original.
2. The shape of the downsward stroke of the top of the "1" is more concave that the original, which has a straight downstroke.
2.a on the side by side you can see the upper loop of the "8" is too large
b. the lower loop of the "3" does not curve back toward the lower concavity of the "3".
3. There is a slight diffference in the beading in the corners on the reverse. Look at the 4 oclock corner on the reverse.
4. The width of the ring is too big. It is 11 beads wide rather than 10.

[Dave Kane]

Yes, that looks much better!!!


It has been said before...picture angle and lighting can play havoc.

DM c'mon you can tell us.....you were up all night and didn't make it to the office today!!!

Dave

[Dave Kane]

Tom, I think that in retrospect we were a bit hasty and I for one didn't consider paint loss and photo angle...


There remains for me one last question however and that's the 'rising frame toward the ring'....other than that I think Dietrich has about 98% covered!


Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

yes, I couldn't sleep. Franticantly (sp?) aquired more pictures, better scans...I was so convinced that this is a real S&L! But now with the new pictures it is a piece of cake! Even the numeral match perfectly if one takes away the shadows and the missing paint on the cross presented.

Even the ring now makes sense. As one can see, the ring is slightly damaged which distorts the overall picture a little bit. The base of the ring looks a little odd, but one can clearly see the remainder of the 'regulkar' base which was evidently filed away.

Even the "800" stamp matches: the odd shape of the last zero and the upper right dent in the second zero.

It is a S&L without any doubt IMHO.

Dietrich

P.S.: I have a picture of the actual bearer of the cross (which I just got today). But it's not conclusive. I therefore know the name of the actual recipient, but I cannot veryfy this and did not mention this from the start. The cross was awarded in March 1943. I was asked not to reveal the name and I will respect that. Provenance is a double-sided sword anyway!

[tom hansen]

Dave-

Take another look at the points I stated above and I think you will see that there are differences. Particularly look at that reverse beading and the "1813". Granted, the numbers on the non-magnetic cores are different, but this is magnetic. If you have a S&L, take a look at yours with a magnifying glass and look at the ones in Gordon's book. They match the comparison S&L Dietrich has here, but not the one in question. Also take a very close look at the reverse beading at the corners. Is this within error of a stamp? How can the first inferior bead at the 4 oclock postion be longer? I think this must represent a difference in the die. Like I said, I am a novice, but the side by side images show differences.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

all comparisons are made with Dave's cross... And yes, the stamping can vary this much (which it actually doesn't. You must consider size. We are talking HIGH resolution here)

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

I sure hope the royality check is in the mail!!!


Tom, all things considered and even the "strike" may affect the appearance....

I'll bet that in-hand it's just fine visually.

Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

No royalty - just a favor! As always!


Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Thanks Dave-
I looked at those images and mine with a magnifying glass and saw those subtle differences. Interestingly, mine was a perfect match with the one in Gordon's book and other close-ups of original S&Ls.

I did not realize that this degree of "wiggle room" was acceptable and that any differences, no matter how small, would be indicative of a fake. I guess this is even more tricky than I thought. I really thought it had to be an EXACT match.

[Dave Kane]

Tom it's good to stick to that standard....set the highest possible and then the likelyhood of being burned diminishes greatly!


But to reiterate...there will be subtle differences (surely not major) and if a simple reason can be utilized to expalin the minor difference we are probably alright!

Dave