Announcement

**Leroy** · 11-07-2012, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

So what is the story on the "seven dots" versus "eight dots" on the swords?

Who knows?

All I would feel confident to say (based on the information we have now) is that this set is postwar. If someone can show believable evidence that the flaws existed before May, 1945, I would be happy to change my opinion.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 11-07-2012, 08:36 AM

Do all Swords which are considered pre-May 45 have the same dot-number-swords?

**Leroy** · 11-07-2012, 09:27 AM

If you include the 8 dot S&L versions (which I do), the answer is "No".

Is there something magical about the 7 dot configuration?

**Dietrich Maerz** · 11-07-2012, 10:18 AM

Not that I know off. I just find it interesting that there are two sets of swords. Maybe a staring point?

**Leroy** · 11-07-2012, 11:44 AM

There could be any number of explanations. The 7 versus 8 dots was something observed by collectors a long time ago. In his book, Gordon Williamson mentioned that the set shown was originally thought to be an S&L piece but the 7 dots put it into the category of "unknown manufacturer". The Oakleaves component, to me, based on the one I have and have been able to compare to the "standard" S&L, is most assuredly S&L.

Again, this is just speculation...

**Dietrich Maerz** · 11-07-2012, 12:28 PM

I also think that the real determination factor of a set of Swords is the oakleaves part, not the sword pieces. Willimason should have better concluded that the set is made of S&L oakleaves with previously unknown swords....

But this is my question: if we have obviously two set of S&L Swords with identical oakleaves but different swords attached, is taht not something that might help establishing a time line?

Dietrich

**Leroy** · 11-07-2012, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

I also think that the real determination factor of a set of Swords is the oakleaves part, not the sword pieces. Willimason should have better concluded that the set is made of S&L oakleaves with previously unknown swords....

But this is my question: if we have obviously two set of S&L Swords with identical oakleaves but different swords attached, is taht not something that might help establishing a time line?

Dietrich

It might and everything should be considered, but carefully.

On this note, it was interesting that the "barter board" set of Oakleaves and Swords was a set (appearing to be unfinished) of large and elongated swords attached to the standard (unflawed) S&L Oakleaves. This style of swords was also pictured (luckily for us) in a photo showing a British soldier bedecked in liberated decorations, including an RK with this style Oakleaves and Swords. This style of O&S has also turned up (very, very rarely) in some advanced collections. From this, one might conclude that S&L only made this particular type of O&S during the war. The problem with this sort of conclusion is that this "style" appears to be linked to only one particular 1944 recipient of the Swords (von Manteuffel) and that the "other" style swords from S&L ("normal size" and with the 8 dots, attached to "unflawed" Oakleaves) is instead the style found in the Imperial War Museum collection, attached to a later war K&Q cross (with the 3 dot "bleedover" on the upper beading), in the Heinz Bar set mentioned previously,in a cased set pictured by Geissler indicated to be a "sample" set submitted to the LDO, and in a very, very few other sets in advanced collections, including one mint set (which we have both personaly handled) in an American collection which came still attached to its mint condition wartime ribbon, all having beautiful finishing and the type of frosting used on wartime crosses. The "Manteuffel" style sets might, IMO, be more properly ascribed to "one time" pieces made, and recognizable to the public, for some patriotic displays, while the "normal" sets might be more fairly attributed for "standard" displays or even wear as second pieces. The problem with S&L "unflawed" Oakleaves and Swords is that the information regarding them is almost non-existant and there are so very, very few around (in comparison to the "flawed" sets - none of which appear to use frosting of the kind used during the war - which show up with much greater frequency). Were the "Manteuffel" type and the "normal" type contemporaneous, or did the "normal" type precede the "Manteuffel" type, which was a "special" not created until 1944 when he won the Swords? IMO, the "standard" set both preceded and followed the "Manteuffel" type, and I think this is given some support by the fact that S&L told Vern Bowen, when he was writing his book, that the dies it used to make Oakleaves and Swords to be used in conjunction with "57 version" crosses were the same dies it had used to make Oakleaves and Swords during the war. Since there are no "large and elongated, Manteuffel-type" swords to be found commonly in use with "57 version" crosses, it would seem a safe conclusion that the normal wartime type was the type with smaller swords (and 8 "dots").

IF the set with 7 "dots" is in fact (because of the flaws) postwar, then that could possibly mean that the swords attached to them were also a new postwar creation, meant to mimic for some reason the Godet swords with 7 "dots", but how does one prove that? While the elongated swords on the "Manteuffel" type actually appear in the S&L catalog as a type in its inventory for use on ribbon/medal bars, the 8 "dot" swords which appears on "standard" sets (and which S&L indicated were its normal wartime type for Oakleaves and Swords) do not. Were they a type, created by S&L (after their last catalog in early 1941) just for their Oakleaves and Swords, which used 8 "dots" so as to differentiate them from Godet's particular design, while still matching the accepted general size and appearance of other Oakleaves and Swords? Did it also make a 7 "dot" set during the war? Who knows?

There are enough "unknown" areas surrounding the "Knights Cross and its Higher Grades" to keep a lot of us busy for a very long time.........(

)

**Robert T.** · 11-08-2012, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

It might and everything should be considered, but carefully.

On this note, it was interesting that the "barter board" set of Oakleaves and Swords was a set (appearing to be unfinished) of large and elongated swords attached to the standard (unflawed) S&L Oakleaves. This style of swords was also pictured (luckily for us) in a photo showing a British soldier bedecked in liberated decorations, including an RK with this style Oakleaves and Swords. ........(

)

The "barter board" and British soldier picture can be found here:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=409189

It was suggested in the above thread that the "barter board" unflawed S&L KC attached to the Oakleaves and Swords may have been assembled postwar from leftover parts because of the paint finish.

This cross has a "dipping 3" type core that has up to now never been found assembled to "B" frames or flawed "A" frames. IMO, it would very surprising that this cross could have been assembled postwar.... but IMO, most likely during the period of mid 43 to mid 44....

Robert

[IMG]

[/IMG]

**Leroy** · 11-08-2012, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Robert T. View Post

IMO, it would very surprising that this cross could have been assembled postwar.... but IMO, most likely during the period of mid 43 to mid 44....

I agree that the cross is a wartime cross, but would be very interested how you arrived at that that particular date range.

**Robert T.** · 11-08-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

I agree that the cross is a wartime cross, but would be very interested how you arrived at that that particular date range.

If the S&L KC's with flawed beading are wartime, then they must have been assembled after 1944. This fact combined to my observations that the S&L KC's with "painted" frosting are later than 1943.

The cross does not seem to have any beading flaws but has the thick painted frosting, so IMO...a more or less mid 43 to mid 44 manufacture date.

This is not considering the "bottom of the bin theory"...

Robert

**Leroy** · 11-08-2012, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Robert T. View Post

If the S&L KC's with flawed beading are wartime, then they must have been assembled after 1944. This fact combined to my observations that the S&L KC's with "painted" frosting are later than 1943.

When do you think the "4" marking came into play (and why do you think "painted" frosting did not begin until 1944 ("later than 1943")?

**Robert T.** · 11-08-2012, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

When do you think the "4" marking came into play (and why do you think "painted" frosting did not begin until 1944 ("later than 1943")?

I have not seen S&L KC's with painted frosting in grouping with solid provenance dated before 1943. In my other post, "later than 1943" means; later than January 1943...

About the "4" marking...

Robert

**Leroy** · 11-08-2012, 01:21 PM

Thanks for that clarification. Do you recall ever seeing a "large 800" cross with anything other than the "dipping 3"?

**Robert T.** · 11-08-2012, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Thanks for that clarification. Do you recall ever seeing a "large 800" cross with anything other than the "dipping 3"?

This is like asking me: "Have you ever seen a B type or flawed A type with the large 800 marking?"

Or "Do you believe that all B types or flawed A types are marked with the micro 800?"

You must be a prosecution lawyer...

Robert

**Leroy** · 11-08-2012, 02:12 PM

Actually, it's not (and I'm not a prosecutor

).

I'm asking the question because I have never seen a "large 800" with other than the "dipping 3" and would like to know what others have seen.

Announcement

Oakleaves with swords

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread