Classic S&L RK "The Facts" Pt 2

[ChrisJ]

Here is an image of one of the RK's in my collection.
It is a classic S&L, marked 800 and weighing 29.3g
It was awarded to a Panzer Feldwebel in 1944 (fact).
Oh... by the way... it has a beading flaw 7th/8th bead down on 3 o'clock arm on obverse, and the very slightest traces of the same flaw having been polished out on the reverse (can only just be seen with a x 17 loop).

[Dave Kane]

Good morning Chris...great pic! Any way of showing us the close-up of the 'flaw' and its polished counterpart. And just for discussion why do you think the "finisher" would polish out the side not typically seen?
John

[ChrisJ]

Close ups

Yep... will do JohnJ... (when I get back home tonight)
To answer your question... no, I cant really say... maybe just oversight. There are two discerable features on the 3 o'clock beading. The one 7th/8th down, and another that can only be seen with jewellers a x 17 loop on the 8th bead up... it looks more like a minute solder blob but is identical both sides. In the reverse position its almost impossible to see (even with the loop) but there is a trace of polishing on the 8th beab down.
In my expereince S&L RK's are quite poorly finished when compared to (say) Junckers. I had a non metalic cored S&L some years ago also from a known recipient and that had discernable cracks between the rim halves, and generally was pretty rough. On the SS website there is another S&L up for sale with the ring not reamed out.... and this has been seen on another tracable original.
I recently acquired this particular RK that I have pictured.
Regards,
Chris

[Dave Kane]

Interesting...what is the link to the SS site?

[Bernhard Getzl]

It is interseting to compare Seppls S&L Ritterkreuz to yours, could you supply more Fotos of it ? Seppls is very sharp and as good as any Juncker i think in this case.
I have seen many Ritterkreuzs in collections in Europe, but none with visiable flaws to the naked eye, you would need a Lupe to see such small flaws as yours!
i saw the one featured in a previous thread, but the flaw was very obvius, easy to see without a 10x Lupe, unlike yours. It still leaves the argument open, when did the crack in the S&L Die occur before 1945 or after?

[ChrisJ]

Pics

Here are another couple of shots... new camera so I'm havent got the hang of it yet !
On the side shot you can just see the flaw....
Sorry, but try as I could I couldnt get anything of the reverse in this area that showed anything at all... it can only be detected with a 20 loop (if you are lucky!).
This RK is an award piece from 1944, and of this I have very little doubt.

[ChrisJ]

Pic2

2nd pic

[Philippe]

Classic S&L RK "The Facts" Pt 2

Hello Chris,

Here is a picture of one of the RK's in a friend collection from a widow of a french vet of Second Armoured Division (General Leclerc), this particular one surfaced in 1987, so..??



Best regards,

Philippe
majorplm.com

[ChrisJ]

RK

Thanks Philippe,
Do you know the story of this cross ?....if the vet "liberated" the RK during WW2, or from a POW ?
Regards,
Chris

[Bernhard Getzl]

I am still in doubt that such a flaw on a Ritterkreuz, would pass Qualitat control. My uncle worked for Friederich Orth during the War, and told me they had inspectors checking each batch of badges or EKs that came out of a Die. Little flaws on common awards would have been tolerated so long as the quality of the whole item was not affected.
Die were very strong steel and designed to produce thousands of frames for EKs or war badges. If a die was worn out or broken, then it would have been replaced, a flaw however could have been present when the Die was made!
This still leaves the question when was the S&L flaw happened during the war or after the war? Or was the flaw present in the original Die when it was made? Was there more then one Die for the Ritterkreuz? Who knows?