Spanish Cross, marked "4"

[Dietrich Maerz]

In a not to be named German forum a Spanish Cross in Silver, marked incuse "4" on the outside of the pin, is hailed as an original example of Steinhauer & Lück, which it is most likley. But is it an example that was made before 8. May 1945?

As we all know meanwhile, the PKZ number "4" is Steinhauer & Lück and was to be stamped on medals ordered and shipped to the PKZ in order to be awarded. So we know that PKZ-numbered awards were actual awards, contrary to those marked with the LDO-code which were private purchases (with the exeption of the DK and RK and higher....).

We also know that the complete awarding of the Spanish Crosses was more or less held on 6.6.1939 in Berlin and that the award documents bear all this date (some exeptions fortify the rule). After that date the official awarding can be assumed as closed, something Dr. Doehle also confirms officially in his book.

It is also known, that the PKZ numbers were introduced beginning of 1943. This is documented and can be verified by the history of multiple awards, the DK and the Eastern Medal being just two.

That brings up the question "Why would Dr. Doehle of the PKZ order any Spanish Crosses on or after beginning of 1943?"
The award of this decoration was "completed". There was also no need to hold any crosses at the PKZ as replacements since the private sale of this decoration was allowed and is testified by the existence of multiple L-marked crosses, including L/16 for S&L. And eve if so, why not go to Juncker or Maybauer?

So:
- is it proven that S&L made Spanish Crosses during the war?
- if so, how are they marked?
- could it be that the "4" marked crosses are post war?

We have a similiar mix-up with the German Crosses from S&L. Some are marked "4", some are not. A GC could only be ordered by the PKZ and had to be marked with "4". There was no need nor any legal reason to have GC w/o the "4". Neither are any CG, with or without "4" proven as an actual award piece!

There was no reason whatsoever for any Spanish Crosses with a "4" and as far as I know there are no SC with "20", "2", "10" or "7" - but with "L/52", "L/12", "L/21" and "L/13".

I find this very suspicious, to say the least!

Dietrich

[liquide]

mmhhh, Dietrich...is there a new book in the air?

here a picture for more confusion - with maker mark 4 and L/16...


best regards,
Martin

[Leroy]

So:
- is it proven that S&L made Spanish Crosses during the war?
- if so, how are they marked?
- could it be that the "4" marked crosses are post war?

S&L certainly made SK's during the war. Here is a photo of its display in Leipzig in March, 1941 (the same month as the introduction of LDO numbers). (See the upper left in the photo.) Were these particular ones marked 'L/16' or '4' (or both, as just illustrated by 'liquide')? They are in its catalog, too.

In the other photo are the SK's on the famous "barter boards". All of the pins on these SK's are marked '4'. The pieces found on these boards came from the leftover stock of S&L (and a few other companies) at the end of the war. (Although some were surprised by some of the things they saw, no one has ever been able to "poke a hole" in their originality.)

Who knows why S&L would mark some "4"? Maybe the PKZ did order some to have on hand. Maybe there was confusion over the markings to be used. (Certainly, S&L's assignment of '4' - immediately following Deschler, Juncker and Deumer - indicates a very early relationship with the PKZ, irregardless of when the number was required to be used.) How would we ever know at this late date and in the absence of written documentation showing such an order (or, just as importantly, verbal interchanges between the actual people at both S&L and the PKZ at the time)?

Not everything will "fit" into the neat box we are constructing.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Sure they made them during the war! I have the catalog!

So the only logical explanation would be that that S&L produced the Spanish Cross after the introduction of the PKZ number (in 1943) for the private retail market but was under the impression that they now had to mark the medal with the PKZ-number also! Something they did not do with some of the the German Crosses.

Unless we think that Dr. Doehle really ordered some from S&L. Something that makes no sense at all. I agree that it is not realistic to try to fit everything into the boxes of the existing regulations, but at least Dr. Doehle knew what he was doing.

If we go with the still widely accepted date of mid 1944 for the inrtroduction of the PKZ number, the issue becomes even more "out of touch". And the stamping of "L/16" including the announcement in the catalog shows that the company knew the purpose of the number.

I agree thet it is most unlikely that anything will come out of this, but I think it is at least worthwhile talking about it.

So:
- are all of the Spanish Crosses on the barter boards stamped with "4" only or are they double stamped?
- are there examples of S&L Spanish Crosses with "L/16" only, "L/16" with silver mark and/or silver mark only?

Dietrich

[Leroy]

Dietrich,
To my understanding, the pieces on the boards were all marked '4'. Perhaps someone else can clarify if my memory is mistaken.
There are certainly S&L SK's marked only with 'L/16'. As to the silver markings, someone like Jacques would know better.
It would also be useful to see if any SK's at all were "awarded late" (i.e. after 1939). Again, Jacques would be "the man" for this.
IMO, we are just seeing a "hiccup" in the marking system......
Best,
G.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

I am sure that there were some latecomers and that some awards were made past 1939. But the time frame we are looking at here is past early 1943, i.e. 4 years later and in the middle of a war.

Dr. Doehle clearly states that the award process was closed, he even lists the numbers of each class. Furthermore, the documents I have from the PKZ clearly show that no awards were distributed (as an example April 1940, a month were crosses for surviving members of the family were given out). And this is typical - no more Spanish Crosses.

I honestly think we can exclude the official side of the decoration, based on period documents.

This leaves only the possibility of S&L making a mistake in the use of the "4". Did they think that after they were assigned the PKZ number that everything needed to be marked with the "4"?

If that might have been the case, do we see it with other meadls. I know that there are EK1s with double markings.

It is most likely nothing of any great importance. However. I personally would have my thoughts based on the period documents and on the history of S&L if I would encounter a "4" only marked Spanish Cross!

Dietrich

PS: Is the exact same pin used on any other medal from S&L?

[Leroy]

Dietrich- This is an old discussion (which was a bit divided even back then): http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...+spanish+cross

Sal Williams (who knows his SK's) thought the '4' marked SK was good and Jacques thought a PKZ numbered cross could represent a request for a replacement for one lost in action. Some, however, were asking the same question you have posed.

I don't think we'll ever know. Despite the excellent work done in this area, I believe there was some confusion in the use of PKZ and LDO numbers, even in the ranks of well-known companies. I also happen to believe that PKZ numbers were a concept in existance very early on, even though it was not until much later that "official use" began or was mandated.

Whenever these discussions go on, I always think back to Schwerin (a significant player) which never had either a PKZ number or an LDO number. Dr. Doehle may have known what he was doing, but I'm not sure anyone else did! (Or that we do, either.)

[Dietrich Maerz]

Regarding to the factual evidence via medals and based on the statement from Mr. Paul Preuss (VP of S&L during the war), the PKZ numbers were introduced early 1943. I have no reason to think otherwise and rumors are just that. Some now not so famous author once tried to convince me that the PKZ numbers were introduced in 1938! It fit into the stories of his precious posessions ....

There is no doubt that S&L made the Spanish Cross during the period. The question is whether they continued to do so after the war. I know that if there is no visual sign or difference, the use of the same die and same hardware makes it impossible to differentiate and to find out.
However, there is the posibility that they made a mistake somewhere and maybe it is the "4". They did it clearly with the German Cross. But I am not saying they did it here also!

As I always say: if there is no difference, it is an original!

Dietrich


PS : I don't know why Schwerin had no LDO number, but if they only did Kriegsmarine badges they did not need one. They were not handled by the PKZ.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Just another thought:

If they were ordered by the PKZ as replacements it would imply that all the "4" marked crosses came from the PKZ and therefore were either left in Berlin or were taken with the department when it travelled to the South to end up near and at Klessheim. That also is documented with original documents.

I think it is very, very unlikely that the numerous "4" marked crosses all came from the PKZ. I think none are from the PKZ. And the "boards" are evidence that they were in Luedenscheid, not at the PKZ.

And we should not fall for the argumentation that if something fits our preset believe, we accept it. If it doesn't, we should not dismiss it before hand as a mistake in the system or such. morerealistic is just to wait for more evidence. And maybe we will never know. But to ask we have to!

[Leroy]

The postwar SK's that S&L is known for (as is also the case with Souval) have droop-tail eagles. I personally believe (and I am in the minority, but don't care anymore) that a few droop-tailed eagle SK's were produced during the war as variants.

In any case, I have never seen a postwar SK (of "normal design") successfully attributed to S&L manufacture.

P.S. We will never know with certainty what was left in the storerooms of S&L, or everything the PKZ had which made it to Klessheim, was left behind, or lost along the way. I agree, though, that we must continue to try to document what we can to the extent that we can.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Are the proven post war SKs from S&L with droop tail marked with "4" or "L/16" or both?
And any thoughts why they would make a new tool if they clearly had the old one?

Dietrich

[Leroy]

They are marked with neither. As to the other question: who knows? The tooling existed and one of the SK's on the "barter boards" had droop-tailed eagles (and was marked '4'). Here it is:

[Dietrich Maerz]

So the existence of a fake S&L droop tail eagle SK marked "4" proves that they used the "4" post war. The mixture of droop tails and regular eagle SKs on the barter board would suggest to me that they had both on stock. But it also proves that they marked the previously unmarked droop tails with "4" just for the boards.

Unless they had a lot of already marked "4" pins and used them for ( post war) production. Questionable it is anyway! An early droop tail marked "4" should raise all kinds of flags. Does it?

Dietrich

[Leroy]

The mixture of droop tails and regular eagle SKs on the barter board would suggest to me that they had both on stock. But it also proves that they marked the previously unmarked droop tails with "4" just for the boards....
Dietrich

That's too big a jump for me.........I can see, however, the possibility that an original '4' marked (and already-in-existance) pin was added to an incomplete original piece for mounting on the board. It is a mistake, however, to assume that this must be the case simply because the presence of such a marked pin does not "fit". I would question the theory as much as I would question the pin.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe I misunderstood. I understood the the droop tail are fakes as you said earlier. If they are ( and from what little I know about droop tails they should be) then the presense of them with what is considered war time on a barter board is fishy, or not? The presence of the "4" on a fake and the presence of a "4" where it clearly should not be is also questionable.

If one cannot accept that they marked previously unmarked pre May 45 droop tails after the war, then why are they marked "4" during the war and are also considered fakes? They can't be both, war time and fake.

This seems to be the typical S&L conundrum ....