Announcement

**Rolfi** · 09-05-2011, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Julleuchter View Post

I knew some serious collectors who see this book not as a non plus ultra, but rather the theory of Nimmergut and Mr. Geissler share. with all due respect Mr. Dietrich opposite,

There should be an collector in Russia,he got such an KC from an russian Veteran,but I don´t Know by myself.

Hello,

I am a new member, but an old collector of KC and OL.
I bought the book Knight's Cross by Dietrich Maerz in English even though I am not a good English speaker and I have my eyes been opened. I had some questionable Knights Cross and oak leaves in my collection, also discussed here, ST & L. After further discus, I am happy to have found some collectors do not have the same opinion as me. I move with the times, former 100% expert are overtaken by science.

Theo

**90th Light** · 09-05-2011, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by 90th Light View Post

In more than one case recently, dealers in Europe are getting close to Euro 3000 on a regular basis for excellent quality "type B's". I have not yet seen prices of Euro 4000 . This would appear to be the market price at present and of course some collectors may sell for cheaper but as Leroy has stated more than once, no one was willing to sell him one for US $1500.

The threads about the "type B "continue to generate great discussion on this subject because there is something about the "type B" which has not yet been solved. If it was clear cut then this one would not get the intensity of debate which is does. The reality is that no one has proved beyond a doubt that S&L started making the "type B" in the mid- 1950's and this is the basis of the debate. If they had then the debate would have been over and concluded some time ago.

and some interesting finds to extend our knowledge have come out of this;

- Bob Hritz has a (water tight sourced example on the basis of his collecting experience) zinc centered "type B", USA veteran brought back from Kitzingen, May 1945 plus photos of the surrender at the time.

- Andreas Klein has recently picked up a mint zinc centered "type B" purchased by a member of Donitz's staff early in the war but stored away and never used.

- Also in a recent thread on the subject it was discovered that there is Deumer KC ( Did Deumer make the pre-May 45 type B's ??? )

- An interesting 1940 calender dated glass slide of a workshop in action has emerged

Very interesting and not exactly the sort of thing that comes out of any other threads about an item proved to be nothing more than a reproduction on this forum that I can think of.

I know where my one came from and I know what else came with it. The other items are the sort of things which collectors kill for.

The same situation with the "type B" has happened with the "ball hinge glider" badge. In fact the parallel is uncanny. A book has been written and the author of that book has said that on the basis of his research the "ball hinge glider" must be a reproduction yet just like the "type B", the "ball hinge glider" was being picked up by allied servicemen in Germany May 1945 and I can trace my example of that badge back to the very day the German guards left a POW stalag and the Russians arrived so how is that a reproduction also plus some other mouth watering badges that came with it so why are they not reproductions as well ?

To sum up; the reality is that there were badges and medals in existance in May 1945 before the Germans surrendered that we collectors are yet to fully explain and certain high quality "type B" KC's are one of them. The prices of which in the market today are reflecting this growing realisation,

Chris

I still stand fully by what I wrote in the above posting which appeared on another thread about the these S&L type B's. The big question is the ones made before the 1950's and those picked up at the end of the war. ( probably worth mentioning also that the prices of all KC's are challenged in the tough economic times we are presently living with. They are still selling for good money but it can take longer to find a buyer these days ),

Chris

**Dietrich Maerz** · 09-05-2011, 07:50 AM

The reality is that no one has proved beyond a doubt that S&L started making the "type B" in the mid- 1950's and this is the basis of the debate. If they had then the debate would have been over and concluded some time ago.

That statement is wrong. To my knowledge nobody ever stated or postulated that the B-Type was made in the mid-1950s. But it certainly was used in the mid-1950 and before.

The B-Type die is a war time creation as has been proved with the existence of the 935-4 and the 800-4, both found in Klessheim and both in typical wartime quality.

The question always was "What is the first post war model created with the B-Type die?"

The existence of the number "4" on the two above mentioned crosses places them into the time after the use of the PKZ number for the RK. Nimmergut, Geissler and other people, who made money with all the post-war B-Types, always like to overview one little detail: the non-magnetic, Neusilber crosses (and the ones with 800 silver frame and zinc cores and those with brass core ...) are made with the same die (which everybody can see if he wants to ...) but clearly show signs of wear, some even to the extend of additional flaws.

So for these guys the frames of the 935-4 and 800-4 must have been stamped very, very early (in Geissler's "Reinhardt"-theory before September 27, 1939) and stored away to make room for the die to stamp cheap Neuliber frames. A lot of them! Then these were sold privately (however, Geissler always states that Generaloberst Reinhardt had a zinc B-Type as an award piece - in real life he had a Juncker Neusilber and zinc core!). Then - for whatever reason - they stopped and used up until mid 1944 the A-Type die.How and why they removed the die flaws to go from B to A they don't explain (because they don't even acknowledge that fact - "close the eyes and it is gone!"). And then, very late in the war they dug out the old frames, added the 4 and came up with the 935-4 and 800-4.
This is what one has to believe if one wants to be the expertise's from Geissler and Nimmergut to be good.

To believe that the Neusilver zinc core RKs by S&L are barely pre-1945 is easier but still very close to a fairy tale. One needs to believe that S&L stopped making the 800-4 and 935-4 (iron core, high quality silver frame) and created the lower quality. Kind of Ersatz RK. Where did they go? In Klessheim - the last stop of the PKZ - were Juncker Lazy 2s, 935-4 and at least one 800-4. No awardees for these high quality S&L RKs are known, but a lot for the zinc cores are known (via veteran stories). The PKZ obviously held back the good ones and gave out the low quality ones .... next to the Juncker Lazy 2 ....

Why is it so hard just to look at the evidence, look at the awardees and look at the other timelines of events (such minor details like "When was Lüdenscheid captured?", "What happened with the PKZ?")?

This is big business and the more crosses are there the more can be sold. And a lot were sold. Why would a dealer not sell a S&L B-Type to somebody who only looks at the general fingerprints? And that was the case up until 2005/2006. Some dealer didn't know, Nimmergut didn't know, Geissler didn't know. The good dealer know now and Nimmergut and Geissler are still spreading the old mantra! In my honest opinion this is fraud!

But I personally do not care. I am no dealer, I don't have one. All I try is to present the facts as they are known and - more importantly - can be verified by every member here. Neither I nor anybody else can verify the Kritzingen story Bob was told nor all the others that ALWAYS come with a shady B-Type - just as they came in all variations with the Rounder. If somebody after knowing all the fact still likes to buy an B_Type with a Nimmergut and Geissler expertise, well, go ahed!

And why somebody would pay € 3000.- ($ 4200.-) for a post war B-Type is way beyond me. I understand that some dealers ask whatever they can get (and the cross for sure comes with a bombastic story which is included for free and most likely also with a statement that my book is completely wrong wink, wink, notch, north ...), but why someone would say: I buy that for that money is at this point in time not very wise and most likely will never be. Unless real Knights Cross rises to the level of $ 30,000.-.

In case nobody has noted it yet: there is NO article or other publication from Nimmergut or Geisssler addressing the B-Type findings. All one can hear (and I hear it well ...) is the typical behind the back talk that I am wrong and they know it is all wrong. But there is another thing they know: if they write an article and if they have the guts for an open and academic discussion they would go down in flames! So they decided it is better to continue and pretend nothing has happened ... making money with shady expertise.

What needs to be done is not to rehash the old stories at nauseum - what is needed is what we are doing here at WAF: step by step academic research with facts supporting the facts.

Dietrich

**90th Light** · 09-05-2011, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

What needs to be done is not to rehash the old stories at nauseum - what is needed is what we are doing here at WAF: step by step academic research with facts supporting the facts.

Dietrich

Hello Dietrich,

with all due respect, much of what goes on here on WAF is anything but "academic research". To call it such would be both an insult to and source of ridicule by anyone properly qualified with a proven track record in research or acknowledged academic publication.

What is even more alarming is what went on in a series of recent threads about "Herman Goring Panzer Wraps". Any real academic worth their salt would be seriously worried by any findings on a forum which allows such a shut down of discussion or complete disregard of investigation. This is a forum of collector consensus, nothing more, nothing less. Much of what is called research on this forum is often misleading and suffering serious bias in many cases.

I add here a posting I have already presented in a previous thread concerning some of the academic / research issues surrounding any conclusions from the findings about S&L type B's,

Chris

Originally posted by 90th Light View Post

Hello Dietrich,

you did a sterling bit of research and you brought to light the "type A" / "type B" question. You wrote a book and published your findings and now all the world who want to take the time to read the book can comprehend your findings and even correspond further with you on the matter. I have the up most respect for your achievement on this and thank you for your hard work, an excellent book on the subject plus the effort this takes in one's life.

but at the end of the day that is all we have "your findings" in the matter.

and we do not in anyway even have a proper academic review of your book or consideration of the research. For example, what was the margin of error for the sample which was chosen as the basis to carry out the study ?

in fact Lereoy has done a very good job as a fellow peer questioning what you wrote and perhaps also some of the collectors who entered into the debate of the two die/ one die question in earlier threads about this. Now it may be that over time your theory holds up but at the end of the day that is all it is, your theory of what happened.

The challenge is that your theory does not explain why a collector like Bob Hritz got a "type B" with a zinc center from an American officer who got it directly from a German in the service of the Third Reich who was surrendering at Kitzingen in May 1945.

Now it may be very convenient for you to just dismiss Bob's "type B" as one of confusion or a trick pulled to impress but in my experience Bob Hritz is no fool and as skilled at reading or questioning people by way of his profession as you have proved that you are at yours to be able to come up with the theory in the first place.

Bob is 101% certain where he got his cross from and that this cross was in existance before May 1945 so it could be surrendered at that time. The only reason he is not here arguing the point is that he is sick in tired of trying to convince those who have become so know it all and zealous about this because they have read one book on the subject, your book. One book however does not make a theory complete by any stretch of the imagination and Bob's "type B" raises a serious question mark about limitations of the theory being deemed to be complete when it is not.

I am pleased that you have mention the "rounder" as your example of where a post war reproduction was discovered and if that is correct then that is tremendous because I have never had or seen a "rounder" and have never had any reason to enter that debate. If this was proved beyond doubt then that is great and a job well done.

but your mention of the "rounder" is the exact balance to my mention of the "ball hinge glider" because this is a badge that many on this forum also do not accept as being in existance before May 1945. They were however and they were on the shelves waiting to be issued. Why so late in the war for a badge which ceased to be officially issued in 1944. You tell me and again lets hope we are all wise enough to keep researching or trying to solve that one because this shows if nothing else that there is still much for all of us to find out.

The challenge is that there are some "type B's" which were around in May 1945 and the question is why. This has been complicated by the fact that there were also some around after May 1945 and that the "type B" rim was used on the first of the 1957 RK series.

The fact that there are post war "type B's" and 1957 version of the RK does not however explain why there were examples in existance in May 1945 and may be like all markets the forces of supply and demand recognise this in the prices being paid at any point in time.

The "type B" will not be for all collectors of the RK and certainly not for those who are paranoid about collecting via "textbook forum concensus" but some of us have been collecting a lot longer than the internet entering mass-culture and we are not about to throw good history be it a high quality "type B" or a "ball hinge glider" in the rubbish bin just because one book is published saying so and this becomes the basis of a pop-culture following of the subject at this point in time.

All research is on going and the "type B" is proving this. Your book/ research holds a lot of weight in the matter but Bob Hritz's veteran find "type B" holds an equal amount of weight from an opposite direction.

Now who is right and who is wrong but none of us can just dismiss Bob's "type B" simply just because is does not conveniently fit neatly into the theory of a book or certain recognised dealers have given COA's on "rounders" in the past.

Euro 3000 might yet turn out to be a very good price depending on what else is found but that is what the market is demanding at this point in time and nothing on this plant resists the "invisible hand" in such matters,

Chris

**Leroy** · 09-05-2011, 09:28 AM

First, I really don't care about Nimmergut or Geissler and have only marginal interest in what they think or even perhaps promote. I don't sell RK's for a living, either, and am not a dealer. The truth is that there are postwar "B" types which have been sold by people as wartime award pieces when they knew better. That's fraud, pure and simple.

What I write below is a "highly condensed" version of what I believe after studying intensely, and comparing next to each other, S&L crosses, for literally hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. I have looked at hundreds, of all types, including 1957 versions. What I write will still be "interminably long" for most people.

Dietrich is absolutely 100% convinced that the "B" frame is the product of a repaired "A" frame die. I disagree and believe, to put it as simply as I can, that they are separate dies, and that while some normal minor refurbishment of dies may have taken place over time, the presence on the "B" die of it's own set of flaws and the complete absence on the "B" of the so-called "9-12 o'clock corner flaw" found on the "A" is, by itself (although there is more), valid evidence that the "B" is not a "repaired A". Why on earth "repair" something (even down to the removal of the virtually unnoticeable 9-12 o'clock flaw on the "A") and yet have as your final product a cross with other distinct flaws?

Is it not more likely that S&L (which did not produce a cross acccepted by the government "for award" until late 1941, despite the intense involvement of its own in-house designer, Herr Escher, in the original design of the RK in 1939) actually produced the "B" frame first, and then produced a new "clean" working die to manufacture the "A", which was finally accepted by the government? It is very clear, from its last catalog published in early 1941 (the "artwork" for which was probably done in the Fall of 1940), that S&L was already offering for commercial sale, an RK. The type offered, and illustrated in the catalog, very clearly has the "unfinished" ring characteristic of the "B" crosses.

The publication and release of S&L's final catalog, which illustrated the "unfinished ring" cross, in early 1941, coincided with the granting by the LDO to S&L of it's offical LDO code '16', and this grant is announced at the beginning of the catalog. The ban on commercial sale of RK's did not take place until October, 1941; however, there has never been a single RK from S&L found (of any type) bearing the '16' designation. There are, however, Oakleaves from S&L which bear that designation, and we know (from that same catalog) that S&L manufactured the Oakleaves for commercial sale. What happened?

It is my opinion that S&L manufactured "B" framed crosses for commercial sale between 1939 and early 1941, but decided to abandon that "product line" in favor of creating a cross which would be acceptable to the PKZ as an "award" piece. The "A" was the result of that effort, and was used as the "official" S&L cross until it developed significant raised beading flaws in its arms. As a "last ditch effort" (probably in mid-to-late 1944) S&L fell back on the "B" frame (which, by comparison, looked much better than the "A" with its raised beading flaws) to create the "4" series of late war "award" pieces (the 800-4 and the 935-4). Whether any of these were actually processed for award is, today, unproven, although examples of 800-4's and 935-4's which have a "worn" appearance (i.e. not mint and cased) have been found from U.S. vets under circumstance which may indicate that they were in the hands of German service members and not in a storeroom somewhere.

There never would have been very many "B" type crosses in the period 1939 to early 1941, as the number of RK recipients was still fairly small and the market limited. In that time period, it was not an official award cross. For those RK recipients who had one, it would have been a "second" piece. There is the very reason you see so few truly well-made and well-finished "B" crosses, and a comparison between pieces which I believe were made in that period, and pieces made or assembled postwar, quickly reveals a substantial difference in quality. IMO, it is a waste of time, and meaningless, to condemn the "B" frame as never showing up as an award cross. Of course it was not awarded. The "A" was used for that. From late 1939 to early 1941, the "B" was a commercially available cross for a limited market. From early 1941 to 1944, the "B" was simply not around.

Why "B" crosses available with a mix of silver and neusilber frames and non-ferrous (zinc or copper) or iron cores? Look at other pre-LDO crosses which we today recognize (Juncker, the 3/4 ring, etc.). You will see the same mix. It is interesting that Bowen reported a '935' marked cross, with an unmarked suspension loop, in his listing of verified wartime-owned crosses. The '935' copper-cored cross (which I now own) in Dietrich's book has an unmarked ring and is beautifully finished.

After the war, S&L did not use the "A" frame die, which was damaged with raised beading flaws, to make crosses. Who knows if it even still existed? Instead, it used "B" frames (some very likely wartime commercial leftovers) to create both swastika-cored crosses (some of the cores also likely being leftovers), as well as the earliest 1957 version crosses. Shortly after production of the 1957 cross began, the "B" die developed significant raised beading flaws and was replaced by the "C" frame.

There is a lot more to this, including the very real possiblity that S&L may have also provided RK dies and tooling, in the period 1939-41, to others. There are at least two distinct versions of the "B" frame (before raised beading flaws developed) in existence and it is entirely possible that some crosses we think were made by S&L were in fact made by someone else. There is also some evidence of possible prior markings on some of the frames used to create the 800-4 and 935-4 crosses. None of this has been really publicly discussed before and there are many unsolved mysteries in the field of RK production (both S&L and others). This is not a contest of some sort between individuals, but a search for the truth about the "B" crosses.

**Douglas 5** · 09-05-2011, 10:24 AM

Interesting and scary every time reading about S&L RK and range of different types which no other RK maker has . Was wondering if anything is known about how S&L RK die or dies were made ?

Douglas

**Leroy** · 09-05-2011, 10:34 AM

Pieter Verbruggen has given significant thought to how S&L, and others, made dies. Whether he will comment here, or not, is entirely at his discretion.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 09-05-2011, 10:47 AM

Gentry,

we have talked about that already a long time and there is nothing at first or maybe even second glance that would dispel this theory. It is - excuse the comparison - a little bit like the typical conspiracy theories: one has an idea and finds an indisputable story to back up that idea. The two or even more die theory was the prominent one before the relation of the die was explained and was even used by "advanced" collectors to declare the 935-4 an early luxury model. Of course, they all had one ... The minute and absolutely identical flaws and fingerprints between the two dies are left aside or are explained with a miraculous duplication process.

Here it is also the believe by some, that the crosses they own are early and real and to make that work a scenario is theorized. That is completely legitimate and very often such a procedure leads to better things due to the driving force.

It is also possible that it is completely wrong just as my proposed timeline of events might be wrong.

As you know, I always was of the opinion that the ultimate proof is an actual awardee. For every cross we have one, even for the very very rare ones - crosses which are rarer than any S&L cross, A or B. We don't even have an awardee for the 935-4 or 800-4 but strong evidence of existence in the last month of the war.

With the (now early) Neusilber frame, zinc core (or maybe even your 935 brass core) we have only a theory and among some others one story from Bob Hritz who could have been fed a complete lie. He was not there and I seriously ask since when is ONE story - no matter from whom - the solid base for authenticity. Go to the dagger forum and your ears will fly away ... Sure, there are more stories and there are stories for every badge I know.

This has nothing to do with Bob Hritz which whom I have the best of all relationships and it has nothing to do how often one repeats it or whether one thinks it is 101% or even 105% sure. It is and never was enough - and never will be.

I also do not have the slightest problem with people strongly believing that certain B-Types are early or late or jeweler made or whatever. But would any of you seriously state in a serious book or another written statement anything other than "I think" or "I am of the opinion, that .."? How could you? Since they have not been awarded, obviously, they are now only private sales. At the same time and even earlier zinc and brass core crosses were awarded. So the PKZ did not care. No need to change the design. The later A-Types looked far worse and were awarded.

And strangely enough, these zinc core B-Types sometimes show up together with some other funny things. Or with awardees which were in Russia for years.... And then, the complete complex of post war sales of S&L crosses, documented in newspapers with the name S&L and with a Knights Cross is dismissed or it is said: oh, yes, some are postwar - but some are not. And strangely enough, always the ones in collections are not post-war, but pre May 1945 without any proof at all other than the strong will to have it so.

I have not the slightest problem adding to my previous statements when the proof shows up. I also never say that I know everything about the B-Type - the book only reports what is known. Everybody who can compare can see for his own. So far everything fits, the timeline, the documented awardees, the early pristine B-Types in Klessheim in May 1945, the multiple zinc-cored post war S&Ls sold as such, even before my book.

But again, as long as the people buying such a cross, no matter for what price, know about the theories and facts surrounding them, well they should do what they have to do. To push the price of these types into the realm of proven crosses is not only premature but also at this point in time baseless.

Dietrich

PS: I do not want to give the impression that I am against it because I am against it. As I said, I only care about one thing: the people buying should know what they are buying. And if they buy a zinc core B-Type they should know that there is no awardee, the physical and forensic evidence speaks against it and that the authenticity rests on the word of on or two veterans and some theory how it could have been.

**Douglas 5** · 09-05-2011, 10:51 AM

Thanks Leroy... see if I find any threads of his .

Douglas

**Dietrich Maerz** · 09-05-2011, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Pieter Verbruggen has given significant thought to how S&L, and others, made dies. Whether he will comment here, or not, is entirely at his discretion.

I remember that very well. It as during the very early discussions about the S&L and whether the 935-4 is very early and was a special exquisite Knights Cross (expensive and rare of course - think it was called the Holy Grail!) or not. This only works when there is more than one die ...

and a mother die!

And he showed the manufacturing process of coins.

The process of die making is pretty well documented, however.

But this here is really not so much a question of one or two dies. The zinc cored crosses are B-Types just as the 800-4 and 935-4. They show less defined characteristics in the dent row (and later on even new flaws) and at least for me this is a sign of later production. Since the point in time for the 800-4 and 935-4 is now known (unless there are early and have been stamped later with the "4" ...

), the frames of the zinc cores have been stamped later. No need for two dies in that scenario.

**Leroy** · 09-05-2011, 12:00 PM

D- You are making the assumption that the frames used for the 800-4 and 935-4 crosses (with 13 "dents") were not only the very first "B" frames ever stamped, but that no other "B" frames were stamped by S&L (or anyone else) in the interim between 1939 and 1941 (my theory, of course), and available. At this point, we have no idea from what supply or storage the frames used to make the 800-4 and 935-4 crosses came from. We already know that there is a cross with 14 dents in the dent row, so the frames used on the "4" series were not the very first stamped, nor is it likely that they were the last stamped during the war years. What would be more important is to know exactly what the first frame newly stamped postwar looked like, as well as whether any other company may have possessed and used dies from S&L at any time.

**Brian S** · 09-05-2011, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Dietrich is absolutely 100% convinced that the "B" frame is the product of a repaired "A" frame die. I disagree and believe, to put it as simply as I can, that they are separate dies, and that while some normal minor refurbishment of dies may have taken place over time, the presence on the "B" die of it's own set of flaws and the complete absence on the "B" of the so-called "9-12 o'clock corner flaw" found on the "A" is, by itself (although there is more), valid evidence that the "B" is not a "repaired A". Why on earth "repair" something (even down to the removal of the virtually unnoticeable 9-12 o'clock flaw on the "A") and yet have as your final product a cross with other distinct flaws?

Dietrich, I have remained silent but with you privately that I disagree with your theory. This particular die flaw "repair" makes absolutely no sense. I too believe in the multiple dies based entirely on this evidence. We had long involved discussions with people on mother/daughter dies. People who had firsthand experience in the creation and duplication of dies. I respect and admire your works but when it comes to the S&L, this arguement speaks loudly.

**Julleuchter** · 09-05-2011, 12:45 PM

I also think this could be a very early one, It is always the talk of zinc core,but my KC has got a brass core for sure,I haven´t seen another one till now.

**Leroy** · 09-05-2011, 01:20 PM

Dietrich - My Post #41 was in response to your Post #40. I missed completely your previous Post #38! Again, I want to say (and you already know this) that I am not a big fan of the BS in this hobby, as most of it is "self-interest" motivated, and I simply want to get to the bottom of this. If I am wrong, I will be glad to acknowledge it and move on. It is not a question, though, of who is right and who is wrong when the ultimate goal is the truth.

P.S. Looking for a person who was awarded a "B" cross (other than the 800-4 and 935-4) is, IMO, a waste of time and not a criteria of originality at all.

**kraut72** · 09-05-2011, 01:32 PM

"As you know, I always was of the opinion that the ultimate proof is an actual awardee"

Exactly!

Announcement

Knight Cross S&L

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread