Knight Crosses today.

[InfanterieSammler]

I would have to agree wholeheartedly. A "big name" German dealer once offered me a complete KC group (medals and award docs) that in his words "just came directly from the family." I told him I would buy the complete group if he could provide provenance, he could not, so I just bought the award docs. Some months later I was able to get in touch with the family and I learned from the son that he had sold his father's medals years prior to another dealer. I still have all of the emails from the dealer. He made no apologies for flat out lying to me.

This is a for-profit business and many, to include dealer's and some of the vets themselves, will gladly add medals to a document group to enhance the value. Is there not a KC Holder who was discovered to have sold "his medals" several times over to different, unsuspecting collectors?

I believe that many are too quick to accept "provenance." We all must decide what is acceptable for our own collections - for me, a dealer's word or COA is not an acceptable form of provenance.

Sepp, thanks for posting the eye candy though!

Best,
John

[StefanK.]

I recall the Staudegger / LAH group was put-together. When it did not sell the pieces were seperated by the dealer.

I'm sorry, but I believe many groups here are put-together. They simply sell better and generate a higher instant profit.

Many times we collectors want to be fooled....

Cheers,
Markus

In fact it was seperated when DN was contacted by the owner of his "real" medals. Actually any of his awards ever were sold, just the documents. While it was sold again and again someone added the medals. I was told that the group even consisted of a second KC at some point of time. Sad how collectors get fooled to make more money.

[Sepp45]

I agree 50/50 what's been said here. On one hand, it's true: we have a lot of dishonest dealers; but on the other hand.. there's a particular syndrome called "doubt everything". I think if the seller is a well known guy (with many years of solid reputation), so why should we have any doubts?

Anyhow, I'll still doing this research and continue to find those RK with names.

RK awarded to Oberstleutnant zur See Johannes Limbach




Source: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...rouping&page=3


RK awarded to Obersturmbannführer Georg Schönberger
This grouping belongs to WAF member AndreM









Source: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...rouping&page=6

[InfanterieSammler]

...I think if the seller is a well known guy (with many years of solid reputation), so why should be have any doubts?

I would reply because the seller has a financial motive to deceive to the buyer. I can't think of a better reason not to trust someone.

Regarding the phrase "doubt everything" - you have perfectly summed up a good approach to viewing KC groups. Documents are always easy to judge, but when it comes to the medals 'belonging' to a group I believe that proof (photographic, etc.) should be offered, before stating that a KC belonged to a specific 'Holder'. COA's and empty promises mean nothing. Detlev Niemann sold dozens of KC groups during his years. He used to sell KC's separately as well, often stating that they belonged to a certain recipient. He had a KC that I was interested one time, it was named to a "Holder" who's Formal Urkunde I owned. I asked Detlev what the provenance was for the cross. He had none to support the claim. Why make the claim then? Because it enhances the appeal of the cross and thus the price - simple.

John

[Sepp45]

RK awarded to Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Pannier










Source: http://www.andreas-thies.de/onTEAM/g...46_257_288.pdf


RK with OL awarded to Kapitänleutnant Carl Emmermann








Source: http://www.andreas-thies.de/onTEAM/g...46_225_256.pdf


RK awarded to Hauptmann Albert Scheidig












Source: http://www.andreas-thies.de/onTEAM/g...46_193_224.pdf


RK with OL awarded to Oberstleutnant Paul Werner Hozzel
This RK has 50/50 chances to be the one of Werner Hozzel, but there's need some confirmation from the family and the auction site.







Regards,
Sepp!

[Sepp45]

It seems I'm getting lucky with the findings

Some more!

RK with OL awarded to Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Walther





RK with OL awarded to Oberst Adolf Dickfeld








Source: http://www.andreas-thies.de/onTEAM/g...45_129_160.pdf


RK awarded to Mayor Max Wandrey









Source: http://www.andreas-thies.de/onTEAM/g...n_S321_416.pdf

Regards,
Sepp!

[Sepp45]

RK awarded to Leutnant Otmar Hermes
This amazing grouping belongs to WAF member Harris













Source: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=RK+grouping


RK awarded to Major Robert Berger
This grouping belongs to WAF member Münster, and was sold at his selling site: MD-militaria.





Source: http://www.mdmilitaria.com/index.php...pshop&Itemid=1

Regards,
Sepp

[markus]

Hi Seppl,

Sorry, but what is the purpose of / motivation behind all of this again?

I hope your're not trying to establish of database for the more
than questionable origins of the crosses positioned into a certain
group.

IMO the whole thread is of no historical/scientific significance whatsoever.

With regards to my own group of swords holder Theodor Wisch, I can
state that the cross and oaks sold at the original auction in 1997 were
added by the person who had bought the rest of the group. The son wrote
me, that these pieces and others were not part of what he sold from the estate.

Then a while back I saw a whole set of cross, oaks and sword with were a
different set all together with a confirmation from the dealer that he bought
this set originally from the son and bla, bla - all bogus again.

Well carry on then with the pretty pictures...

[Sepp45]

Hi Seppl,

Sorry, but what is the purpose of / motivation behind all of this again?

I hope your're not trying to establish of database for the more
than questionable origins of the crosses positioned into a certain
group.

IMO the whole thread is of no historical/scientific significance whatsoever.

With regards to my own group of swords holder Theodor Wisch, I can
state that the cross and oaks sold at the original auction in 1997 were
added by the person who had bought the rest of the group. The son wrote
me, that these pieces and others were not part of what he sold from the estate.

Then a while back I saw a whole set of cross, oaks and sword with were a
different set all together with a confirmation from the dealer that he bought
this set originally from the son and bla, bla - all bogus again.

Well carry on then with the pretty pictures...

Marcus, I really don't understand your comment nor some members saying "this is fake", "that's a make up grouping", etc..
My intentions on this thread is to create a sort of database, to show people (when possible) the originals RK's of those brave frontline soldiers. If the RK that I show here is possibly a fake or does not match with the recipient, I'm most than willing to change it or adding the correct one.

What I can't deal with is your comment. You could have said that on a PM, or an email. What's the point of you? This research work I've done takes a lot of time, many many hours of digging websites, asking friends and collectors for their photos and RK's; You bet it has historical significance!

I'll say this again: when the RK that I've identified is wrong here, tell me and I'll change it (I've done it before). Mistakes can be made.

If you have any thing more to say, please send me a PM.

Well carry on then with the pretty pictures...

Thanks for the sarcasm, I really appreciate it.... It's nice when someone notice the work of others

[Sepp45]

Hi Seppl,

Sorry, but what is the purpose of / motivation behind all of this again?

I hope your're not trying to establish of database for the more
than questionable origins of the crosses positioned into a certain
group.

IMO the whole thread is of no historical/scientific significance whatsoever.

Ok, If you like, I could send a letter to Herr Reschke, telling him that his grouping might be a "put together" one..!




Or, also Herr Nugiseks, asking him to provide me with some "documents" or real proof of his RK. Would you be happy then?




Also we have Martin Drewes here; I'm sure he'll be more than willing to show you Marcus some of his fakes RK and medals..

[InfanterieSammler]

Hi Sepp,

This has been a fun thread to watch and I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into it. I've enjoyed seeing all the groups.

That said, I have to agree with Markus. I feel that as a 'database project' the methodology here is failed. No one is saying the crosses presented are not original, and in some cases, I'm sure some of the crosses are correctly attributed. However, what proof can be offered that these KC's can be "attributed" to individual Holder's? The answer is often - none. If someone has no proof, other than a dealer's word or COA, that KC belonged to a specific Holder, why should we accept this as fact? You are making statements that these KC's belong to specific Holder's to create a database and in many cases there is nothing to substantiate the claim.

John

[Sepp45]

Hi Sepp,

This has been a fun thread to watch and I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into it. I've enjoyed seeing all the groups.

That said, I have to agree with Markus. I feel that as a 'database project' the methodology here is failed. No one is saying the crosses presented are not original, and in some cases, I'm sure some of the crosses are correctly attributed. However, what proof can be offered that these KC's can be "attributed" to individual Holder's? The answer is often - none. If someone has no proof, other than a dealer's word or COA, that KC belonged to a specific Holder, why should we accept this as fact? You are making statements that these KC's belong to specific Holder's to create a database and in many cases there is nothing to substantiate the claim.

John

But John, thats my point. This is at least something; some light into the history of Ritterkreuzträgers. I beg the moderators no to close or delete this thread; it has taken me months of research. Let me continue this investigation that I'm sure will bring more satisfaction and joy to all of us, than rather be a bad database.

I have a question to all collectors: if you tell me that there's no substantial claim for some RK's, where's the substantial claim that says otherwise? I mean, perhaphs sometimes is better to trust a felling or willing to accept that REALLY is the RK in question (until proven otherwise, of course).

How sure can you all be about your own RK's then? How can you trust the one you hold in your hand, if it takes a miracle (for some) to really, really believe that's the KC of a brave soldier?

Must I letter every family of the nearly 4000 RK owners, asking them for proofs and documents? Must I ask the dealers and websites? I can't do that..

Maybe there are other reasons why some people don't want this thread to be open. I really don't know what to say.. Just let me continue

[Dietrich Maerz]

You mix up several things here.

The first is whether all the shown RKs and higher are genuine pre- May 1945 made examples. That might be the case in 95% of all posts. One would better pictures in some instances.

The second issue is whether the Knights Crosses shown are the actual award pieces or whether they are "put together". The percentage that that has happened is far, far greater and has been proven in many cases.

The third issue is that some groups might be put together with post-war crosses. That has happened a lot, too.

There were more than 7000 Knights Cross winners. One can put together a realyion between award time and award cross. Something that is not definitive proof that a cross is the actual award peice, but can be definite proof that it is not. The multiple and very famous 65 marked RKs in groups of 1941/42 come to mind.

We shant close this thread. Why should we? But - and no offense - it is not more than a brief historical look and a nice picture thread. Research it is not.

Please go on!

Dietrich

[Sepp45]

it is not more than a brief historical look and a nice picture thread. Research it is not.

Please go on!

Dietrich

Thanks Dietrich for the kind words. I'll continue posting then, no problem with that. But please, how this is not a research? I've been visting websites in every lenguaje possible; I've asked a large amount of collectors and dealers for pictures; I've been to museums websites; etc..
In your consideration, what would be a solid research?

Regards,
Sepp

[Dietrich Maerz]

We should not discuss the topic of research in this thread. Only this much but then let it be:
- what cross is it?
- when was it awarded?
- is it a good cross?
- where did the group come from?
- was the group already on the market years earlier (with more or less items)?
- ...

Posting pictures without asking any questions is not research and it does not need to be. But please go on.

Dietrich