Knight Cross S&L

[Leroy]

If someone wants to have them as "good, rare and earl" - that is fine with me (however, I would certainly disagree). I stick to what Bob said: PROOF! And at this point in time there is no proof at all. Quite the contrary - a lot speaks against them, including the own admission of S&L.
Dietrich

This is one of the problems I have with how crosses are examined and labeled. Any "B"-framed cross falls into the generic category of "them", as if all crosses which use any type of "B" frame are the same. They are not. The quality of the ones I would even begin to consider as possibly wartime (in my observation at least) is miles away from the quality of the crosses produced postwar (even though some postwar crosses are pretty good). Very many postwar crosses have severe raised beading flaws. Very many have a type of frosting which at first may look attractive (from 2 feet away), but when you look closer is simply a silvery "wash" which does not compare to wartime work. On others, the paint or soldering is pathetic. I have personally looked at now, over the past several years, almost a hundred of these postwar "B" framed crosses (and this does not even include the 1957 versions which used a "B" frame). I have been energetic in seeking them out (and a pest to people all over the world when I learned of one somewhere). Some were assembled using what I believe to be wartime made parts, others were the product of newly stamped components.

I don't know what the "own admission of S&L" means. It may be a reference to the "Revue" article, or the ability of a collector/author to obtain a swastika-cored cross in the 80's, or something else. Certainly, crosses were made postwar. What is surprising about that? What I do know is that when Andreas (while researching the book now being written on Wound Badges) actually spoke in person to S&L and while there actually showed them the cross he had obtained from the officer on Doenitz' staff, it was immediately recognized as a product of their shop, but of a quality they had not been able to duplicate postwar. Don't believe me? Ask Andreas yourself.

Again (and I really hope people appreciate and understand this critical point), the criteria Dietrich uses is actual award of a cross. A perfectly fine criteria, but not applicable at all to a cross which was not made for award, but rather for commercial sale. So far, we have reported here 3 instances (Bowen, Bob Hritz, Andreas) of cases where a "B" type cross (other than an 800-4 and 935-4, both confirmed at Klessheim) was said to be wartime by the veteran. In each case, the "reporter" of the "story" was a person who dealt directly with the veteran and was in the best position of judging directly their credibility. None of the "reporters" were (or are) fools. One is even a trained and experienced detective, with more years of collecting experience than almost anyone else on this, or any other, forum. There are certainly other such experiences out there, but I fear many have been ignored
because of the concept that any "B" frame cross falls into the category of "THEM".

[Dietrich Maerz]

Chris,

based on the number of real crosses awarded, 50 (or more) is not a solid sample. But to imply that would mean that the chances of becoming a pre May 1945 cross are getting higher with higher numbers, is wrong. It is not the case. Every sampled cross had the same characteristics, the same lack of awardee, the same type of stories behind and some were even sold or known to be post war fakes. Some had flat out lies attached (the famous Normandy awards from Niemann!) I know of at least one advanced collector who had to get rid of high level times because he believed the stories and not the piece.

And quality on its own never was and never will be a sign of being genuine. If that would be the case, all 3/4 crosses would be thrown out (and with them we have less than 50 samples ....), all late A-types (which they were at some time) and some of the terrible low quality Juncker L/12. And the Rounder would still be real because it was a lot nicer and better done than the afore mentioned crosses.

And I do not dismiss the veterans! I just learned my lessons! The stories which came with the Rounder (far more than the B-Types here) were all extremely well told, crafted and believable. Even stories directly from the family with pictures and all that. Guess what? They were ALL wrong. And they were the strongest evidence!

Since then I do no longer put the "stories" at place number one but under "other possible evidence". And why should we here in this case throw the sentence "Believe the piece and not the store!" over board? I tell you why! Because it is the ONLY evidence which speaks for the pieces and that is why all over sudden this advise is no longer valid, but rather important and mighty.

Look at the 800-4. I reported in the book that it is borderline (with a tendency to bad...). The 800-4 had a lot of stories but nothing concrete. And then we have the Klessheim find from a veteran. There were rumors before, but that did it for me as strong evidence. And believe me, it is not easy to fake a Klessheim find... and I know how to check it as good as it can be checked.

It would go against every common sense to accept the other "high quality" B-Types as pre-May 45 because of one or two stories - ignoring all the other negative evidence. You ball-hinge example is nice but doesn't mean anything. Just because of this one case all other veteran stories are now true? Each case is a case on its own.

If they are good (and I don't know either way), the truth will come out sooner or later. It did with other things. But that is a process that can't be hurried and it can't be solved by trying to "talk" them good (or bad). At this point what is known is known and everybody can do with that evidence what he wants.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

I really don't want to rehash all the arguments 100 or more times.

We know that the crosses past 800-4 and 935-4 are suspicious. The quality of the 935 is pretty good. I always thought that there was already a consensus that they are post war. At least Niemann thought so and also some "advanced" collectors. Now, Andreas shows a cross to somebody at S&L 50 or 60 years after the war and this guy (who has most likely no direct connection to anything happening before May 1945 based on pure time past!) states that S&L could not produce this quality after the war. Not in 1946, 47, 48, 57 or when? 1960? 1980? So based on that, the 935 is now a pre-May 1945 cross since "they" could not produce that quality after the war. They all went stupid after May 8, 1945!
I tell you another possibility: the admission of any employees of S&L at this point in time (post 1990) that they produced something with a swastika would most likely lead to the retraction of the orders form the government. The Green Party would not allow a subcontractor who produced Nazi items post war.
I never got even an answer when I e-mailed a lot of people at S&L in 2002/2003.
And if you look at the badges - well the quality of their post war pieces is extremely good! It is a nice story, I believe it is true what Andreas reports, but the guy didn't know what he was talking about. He is NOT a veteran - he is a paid employee of a company with a shady past! And I also think this "story" is completely irrelevant if one wants to lift a cross form $ 200.- to $ 6000.-. "The guy at S&L said so!" is very, very weak!

I used the word "them" not as a general label of a group but for easier reading. I don't think it is necessary every time to mention where at this point in time the line is drawn: post 800-4 and 935-4. So the "them" is everything else IMHO, good or bad quality.

Dietrich

[90th Light]

Chris,

based on the number of real crosses awarded, 50 (or more) is not a solid sample. But to imply that would mean that the chances of becoming a pre May 1945 cross are getting higher with higher numbers, is wrong. It is not the case. Every sampled cross had the same characteristics, the same lack of awardee, the same type of stories behind and some were even sold or known to be post war fakes. Some had flat out lies attached (the famous Normandy awards from Niemann!) I know of at least one advanced collector who had to get rid of high level times because he believed the stories and not the piece.

And quality on its own never was and never will be a sign of being genuine. If that would be the case, all 3/4 crosses would be thrown out (and with them we have less than 50 samples ....), all late A-types (which they were at some time) and some of the terrible low quality Juncker L/12. And the Rounder would still be real because it was a lot nicer and better done than the afore mentioned crosses.

And I do not dismiss the veterans! I just learned my lessons! The stories which came with the Rounder (far more than the B-Types here) were all extremely well told, crafted and believable. Even stories directly from the family with pictures and all that. Guess what? They were ALL wrong. And they were the strongest evidence!

Since then I do no longer put the "stories" at place number one but under "other possible evidence". And why should we here in this case throw the sentence "Believe the piece and not the store!" over board? I tell you why! Because it is the ONLY evidence which speaks for the pieces and that is why all over sudden this advise is no longer valid, but rather important and mighty.

Look at the 800-4. I reported in the book that it is borderline (with a tendency to bad...). The 800-4 had a lot of stories but nothing concrete. And then we have the Klessheim find from a veteran. There were rumors before, but that did it for me as strong evidence. And believe me, it is not easy to fake a Klessheim find... and I know how to check it as good as it can be checked.

It would go against every common sense to accept the other "high quality" B-Types as pre-May 45 because of one or two stories - ignoring all the other negative evidence. You ball-hinge example is nice but doesn't mean anything. Just because of this one case all other veteran stories are now true? Each case is a case on its own.

If they are good (and I don't know either way), the truth will come out sooner or later. It did with other things. But that is a process that can't be hurried and it can't be solved by trying to "talk" them good (or bad). At this point what is known is known and everybody can do with that evidence what he wants.

Dietrich

Thank you Dietrich,

I can see you look for tangible certainity in the matter, not intangible possibilty. I respect that fully.

The glider badge was for me however, a turning point in trusting the so called expertise of the forum. Before that, I took on board all that those who had handled so much more than my self had seen, said, illustrated and thought.

Suddenly however, a badge which I got directly from the hands of the returned soldier who brought it back to New Zealand in 1945 was written off by the author of the book on the subject.

His argument, he had made a study over many years of this subject and he has spoken to 100 or more glider pilots. His sample however was only a random one of convenience and is in no way a properly planed scientific sample reflecting a true cross section of the total population of pilots who were awarded the glider badge. Due to the short comings in his sample of pilots it is still possible that he may not have had anyone from the areas or the time when this badge was worn.

Secondary point, the ball hinge glider does not appear in photos of the time.

OK that is fine, who am I to argue with that. Except for one thing, I know in my heart and God strike me dead that I got a ball hinge glider directly from the hands of the veteran who brought it back from the war along with several other absolutely amazing badges and clasps.

Now if the author and the book is wrong about ball hinge gliders then may be they are also wrong about high quality B-Types and may be they too were on the selves awaiting issue in May 1945. May be the pilots who never got a ball hinge, never got a B-Type. That still does not remove the fact that they were made.

My research into this ball hinge matter also continues just as it does with these B-Types and although this could be completely off the point in a discussion about S&L KC's I have asked "ebony" to post an article here (when he works out how to post a " Adobe Acrobat Document, pdf " ???) about the find of the ball hinge to show you what I mean, add some substance and make the point as to you why I have become some what skeptical over the years. Hopefully you will find that interesting if nothing else,

Chris

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now if the author and the book is wrong about ball hinge gliders then may be they are also wrong about high quality B-Types and may be they too were on the selves awaiting issue in May 1945.

That is quite a stretch I have to say. Two different books, two different authors and one strange conclusion? Certainly not an argument!

And let me correct you in one thing: I don't say that the certain B-Types are bad. I also don't say that they are good. I report what is known, including the reference to veterans. That is all an honest writer can do. Please let me quote:

"No one can presently state with absolute certainty whether a particular B-type Steinhauer & Lück Knights Cross is post-war or not. It is the purpose here only to present the evidence and to allow the reader to come to a conscious and informed decision, based on what is known at the current time."

Written in 2007 on page 145 and it is still as valid as it was then. So please don't say I wrote something wrong in my book.

[90th Light]

That is quite a stretch I have to say. Two different books, two different authors and one strange conclusion? Certainly not an argument!

And let me correct you in one thing: I don't say that the certain B-Types are bad. I also don't say that they are good. I report what is known, including the reference to veterans. That is all an honest writer can do. Please let me quote:

"No one can presently state with absolute certainty whether a particular B-type Steinhauer & Lück Knights Cross is post-war or not. It is the purpose here only to present the evidence and to allow the reader to come to a conscious and informed decision, based on what is known at the current time."

Written in 2007 on page 145 and it is still as valid as it was then. So please don't say I wrote something wrong in my book.

Thank you for the reply Dietrich,

Yes you are right, my comment is not directed at the books themselves but refers instead to the discussions on this forum about the matter.

Thank you for clarifying this and accept my apology for any offence caused by that comment.

Your correction brings me to crux of the matter however, and that is the continuing dismissal of the B-type as nothing more than a Euro 200 item probably not really worth having.

Well, "what one man calls pleasure in life, another calls poison"

and the reality is that high quality "B-Types" do have a following for what ever reason. To sell one for less than Euro 1000 would be to shoot your self in the foot and they are definitely changing hands for Euro 1500 to 2500. I do conceed however, that given the current economic down-turns around the world then Euro 3000 might have become a stretch. That applies to more than just B-Types at present.

To qualify what I am saying here, I report that early reproduction Souval "L/58" KC are selling for Euro 150 to Euro 200 and can confirm that I have just had a dealer buy one off me for that price. Goodness knows what his retail will be but a post war Souval "L/58 is not a patch on a high quality B-Type.

The B-type has a place in the order which commands more than Euro 200 - 300 and that is a fact. The question here, is exactly what place for the high quality examples and why,

Chris

[Dietrich Maerz]

The monetary value is a complete different thing. I don't care if somebody asks $ 3000.- for a post 800-4 or 935-4 B-Type or if somebody pays $ 10,000.- for a "935".

That has nothing to do with being original or being post or pre-May 1945. Perceived monetary value in this case is strictly a question of taste and affordability.

The only thing I care about is that the seller tells the truth ("I don't know whether it is real or not, but I think so!") and that the buyer did his homework ("I know what I am buying!"). It certainly takes some guts to acknowledge the truth and the truth is that nobody knows at this point in time.

Dietrich

[kraut72]

They live on this vague situation,some people currently,wery well unfortunately...

[Bob Hritz]

To answer, Gentry's question, I do believe the US veteran who told me he got the non-magnetic St&L Knight's Cross from the receipient. However, my belief in his story does not pass scientific muster. Anyone who has been shown the group has had that cross pointed out and informed on the current debate on the authenticity of this version of the cross.

It seems that Dietrich is being made the detractor, where he is actually doing the opposite by inspiring the debate and encouraging the PROOF to come to the surface with real scientific evidence. Dietrich has no stake in being rigid, but will not accept any less PROOF than is required for those Knight's Crosses that have passed this standard with empriracle evidence; be it original photographs of the cross in wear, documented groups of surplus medals, or original receipients with further documentation.

As an example, I own a very nice post-war Souval Knight's Cross with Oak leaves and Swords that came right from the hands of Hasso von Manteuffel. It was a gift to an American who entertained the former Field Marshal. It was one set, of many, that von Manteuffel would give as a souvenir of thanks and friendship. I would never delude myself to say that that is von Manteuffel's Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. it is mearly a gift, a souvenir and an interesting story. How many other receipients obtained post-war crosses to replace those lost or taken, during the war? The waters were muddied many decades ago and it is only the Scientific Method that can be used to determine the cut off date of May 8, 1945 for authenticity.

I do get tired of the debate when there is no more PROOF submitted and we only rehash our personal beliefs, and disbeliefs, without adding something substancial. I, like Gentry, have collected every pattern of St&L Knights Cross we could find to see if close comparison, with known period original crosses, could add evidence to determine a final time line.

There are some military items considered post-war that I may believe are wartime.. There aresome military items, accepted as originals, that I believe are post war. My personal beliefs have no place in the Scientific Method. Only evidence of PROOF belong in serious study that may lead someone to spend the kind of money it takes to purchase an original Knight's Cross. I would never want someone, looking for an original, to have less than PROOF before buying.

Bob Hritz

[Leroy]

And I would not pay anywhere close to the price of an "award" cross for even the finest made cross (other than an 800-4 and a 935-4) with a "B" frame (and never have).

When will it be understood that these crosses should not be regarded as crosses intended to be award crosses? When will they stopped being judged by that criteria, or evidence demanded which fits only that criteria? Why is anyone even looking for such a cross to have been awarded to anyone?

Dietrich has made it clear that he regards the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses as being made from the first frames of the "B" type ever stamped (by S&L or anyone else) and that this stamping would have occured no earlier than 1944. Their "pristine" 13 dent "dent row" is the measure of all other "B" frames. Explain then, please, the existence of the beautiful cross, with iron core,with 14 pristine dents in its unmarked (and so presumably not silver) frame. A cross already personally examined by Dietrich (who opined it was just a question of whether it was made "in 1945 or 1946"). That, no matter how else you wish to spin it, is the "one repaired die" theory at work. Regardless of quotes seeming to give some latitude in the evaluation process, that is the bottom line.

If you believe in the "one repaired die" theory and think it is fully supported, logical and fully documented, and that there never were any other dies, then your decision making process is already complete and you need look no further or give any further thought to the matter.

[Bob Hritz]

I, too, believe the A and B type dies are separate dies and the B type is not a repaired A type. From the B type frames I have examined, a clear progression of flaws and defects can be discerned. Had the A type frame die been repaired, the correction of A type flaws would have been impossible without detection, in my opinion.

Bob Hritz

[90th Light]

I have no problem with a scientific apparoach to try and solve this.

The problems I have is when the rules of science, sampling, statistics and analysis are not being followed, reported properly or reviewed correctly.

Next are the references cited in the work and cross referenced on each page. Here again we have recognised procedures to follow.

If we are going to justify a theory using scientific and academic procedures then we need to check first that we have strictly followed them.

Other wise there are " lies, damned lies and statistics "

At the end of the day, one can study anything and create statistics to prove everything.

Finding the truth of a matter however, can be a challenge in more than one way,

Chris