Ek1 l15

[dcdefend]

L15 ic 1st

Shouldn't Peter Wiking's pinned article about the Souval frames be unpinned or modified since this thread says these L15 are not pre 45? I notice Craig Gottlieb is selling a boxed one and cites the pinned article as proof that it is pre 45 (item 4231).

Maybe I've missed something?

John

[dcdefend]

L15 ic 1st

Well, now the Souval frame post has been unpinned. It would be nice if whoever, moderators or author, took that action would comment herein on why they took that action.

John

[streptile]

My guess is that it has been un-pinned because it contained some information that is out-dated.

There is a ton of information on these boards that is incorrect. This is a function of the continuing research that moves our hobby forward. Anyone here, at any time, can bring up old threads in which an item is given multiple , but is in fact bad. The problem is, the knowledge didn't exist at the time the thread was originally posted. It is one of the great challenges of this hobby to keep current on the recent thinking. Take a break for a year, and something you sold as a fake may have been re-evaluated and determined to be authentic, or (more commonly), the reverse.

In short, I bet the thread was un-pinned because you brought its problems to our attention -- so for that, we have you to thank.

[George Stimson]

"Well, now the Souval frame post has been unpinned. It would be nice if whoever, moderators or author, took that action would comment herein on why they took that action."

Wow, that's a new one on me! I sure didn't do it!
Let me look into who did it -- and why.

[dcdefend]

Ek 1 l15

I don't have the book yet, so maybe it is stated, but who is "someone who should really know"?

[George Stimson]

"who is "someone who should really know"?"

The individual who actually manufactured them (or had them manufactured).

[90th Light]

I have a veteran brought back example which is marked "15" in a small incised box on the pin and it is 101% original. There is no L or L/ what so ever,

Chris

[George Stimson]

Yes, "15" - marked crosses are good.

[George Stimson]

Peter's article has been amended and re-pinned.

[morel5000]

Hi George,

"who is "someone who should really know"?"
The individual who actually manufactured them (or had them manufactured).

In my opinion this kind of sources should not be kept secret, that is like creating the best spaghetti with sea fruit and not willing to give the recipe for future generations to taste your magnificent dish.

If you give the name in the book I stand corrected,
Best regards,
Michel

[George Stimson]

Michel,

It's not too much of a secret, since the source (and the person) is probably the best known in the field of Iron Cross (and other awards) reproduction. (And the name is in the book, on the "Acknowledgements" page between Michael Fischer and Marc Garlasco.)

[morel5000]

Hi George,

thank you. As I said if the name is in the book, please accept my apologies.
The answers looked like it was a bit of a secret. I don't have the book at the moment, when I do have it it will be the first thing I'll look up! It probably starts with Fl

Best regards,
Michel

[Dietrich Maerz]

I just came across a thread in a German forum where the outlined theory (actual it is a fact) in the book by George and myself "The Iron Cross First Class" is doubted. The main doubter and thread started does not have the book ("uninteresting and too expensive") but he got a glimpse of the discussion from this thread. He also assumes as a possible motif that we two wrote that L 15 marked crosses are post war productions is because we wanted to make money ...

But his biggest beef (and that of a lot of people in Germany who do not have the book or do not take the time to study the evidence) is that we did not provide proof and that we did not provide the source for our statements.

I certainly do not know how much more proof than the actual admission of the actual individual who placed the order with a Vienna company to produce these "Frankensteins" is necessary. He told me several time and he also told both of us. He will not sign a written statement under oath, that much is sure. I will not name his name but who has not understood who he is by now will never understand ...

So all we have is his word (or you readers only have George's and my word) and the evidence of the crosses itself, the mix of parts, the use of a (wrong) LDO number of a company which went out of business in 1941 and the use of the same parts with known fakes by the same producer.

One could turn the argument around and ask the "doubters" why Orth used his real LDO number L/14 on Iron Crosses and why he also used his PKZ number "15" on real Iron Crosses and why - despite the fact that he evidently understood the reason and use of these numbers - he also used (allegedly) L 15 ?

And what proof do we have that L 15 is always Orth even when using Souval frames?

So we (George and myself) have to bring (more) proof that this L 15 business is fake, but the evidence is already overwhelming.

What is so hard to believe that companies after the war used left-overs to produce for a new market? Some people just behave like this is the most unbelievable thing they have ever heard! Oh, forgot to mention one thing: in most cases the doubters have one or more L 15s - could that make them a little biased?

But in the end one thing is true: everybody can collect what he wants and what he feels is good. Nobody needs to sell all L 15 in panic and nobody needs to buy them either....

... but facts are a pesky things. They don't go away!

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

This certainly is a great thread which presents important information for posterity, and I'm grateful for that.

Three questions for clarification remain in my mind, and perhaps for completeness someone could fill in the blanks?

1) Could a few of these Orth leftovers have been already completely assembled and finished medals which were then stamped L15, or were they all assembled post-war from bits and pieces. It stands to reason that there could also have been at least some finished badges lying around but not yet stamped. (A minor point perhaps, but would be interesting to know since this must also cast a shadow over unstamped Orth badges even if they have Orth-consistent setups.)

2) What was this "Vienna firm" that did the post-war assembly. Was it actually Souval or Orth themselves filling Floch's orders or was it a 3rd party who acquired their stock? (Mainly Orth's stock I presume since there was no reason for Souval to give or sell their stock when they were still using it themselves).

3) Could Floch have ever extended these entrepreneurial efforts into the realm of war badges? In the field of combat badges we now assume S&L was just a prolific as Souval in post-war assembly, and perhaps others as well with Pforzheim or Vienna leftovers, but maybe we're wrong in assuming it's the actual original firms doing this as opposed to a 3rd party like Floch acquiring the leftovers and tooling? An intriguing notion...

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hello Norm,

I will be glad to answer as much as I can. This whole subject is very touchy and for me was another extremely interesting experience. Not so much to find out about it in discussions with the relevant party (with witnesses!), but much more so the reaction in two German fora. It is clear that a lot of people (including myself) got such pieces with the L 15 mark, mainly Iron Crosses and KVKs. Therefore I can understand a certain reluctance to "believe" what one is told. Despite all the facts ( Schickle out of business, the missing "/", the parts mix, the use of the pin, the testament of the actual initiator of the fabrications), some "hard-core experts" (can't call them otherwise) just refuse to see it and have a very factual and solid counter-argument: "I don't believe it and I wait until I see more evidence. Just because one guy says so, it must not be so!"

Well, there you go!

Now to your questions:

1: Yes, that could have been. I would have no argument against it but I also have no proof either way. As a collector I would err on the safe side. As a researcher, I could not exclude the possibility. Purely pragmatic, however, I would not know how to spot the difference (if there is one or would be one).

2. I asked that specific and I was informed it was neither Souval nor Orth. He never, by the way, manufactured on his own. Even the later EKs which have a new frame and core were not made by him.

3. I do not know that. I only do know about the EKs and KVKs. I remember seeing some Krim Shields at his table in great quantities years ago.


It is very much known that S&L produced after the war. One also has to look into the stock Mr. Sedlatzek had after he run out of his initial and original supply. There is a lot still in grey areas and it not only takes diligent research (including original German documents) but also guts to find out. I do not know what is tougher: to find out about it or to convince the people that they have fakes. I do know however that the research process is far more rewarding.

Dietrich