Announcement

**90th Light** · 12-09-2012, 05:38 PM

[QUOTE=Robert T.;5629723]Hi Chris,

The “Barter board” RK’s were IMO wartime quality control rejects. This “DIPPING 3, MICRO 800, A” RK taken from a board shows an over trimmed and uneven frame when compared to a wartime example. (The ruler is not to scale)
They would have been retrieved from the quarantine bin and offered as souvenirs, this is a plausible reason that can explain their presence at the factory after May 1945.

Robert

Hello Robert,

thank you for addressing this point. Yes I agree we see a bit of a Ludenscheid "hotch potch" turn up on the boards and your point about the reject bin being rifled for parts even a whole cross or two is realistic.

This lets me build upon the point that I was making. We do not see highly finished zinc centered Type B's turning up on the boards in abundant numbers. In fact have we seen any ?

If the highly finished Type B was being made after the war then these boards would have been their heyday. Why go to all the trouble of finishing one off so nicely when you can get away with throwing one together or using reject material. The unsuspecting allied servicemen from May 1945 onwards did not rate them by the high standards expected. Any old RK was an RK to them,

Chris

**90th Light** · 12-09-2012, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Chris - We are in a very small "niche" area of collecting (possible variants from a "common source" design), within an only slighter more broad area (RK's in general), in which only a very few collectors participate, study and research, are really interested, or even give a damn. The same voices appear over and over, and many of the old participants have withdrawn, knowing that these discussions lead, many times, to confrontational situations and no real solutions. Witness Pieter's comment about Peltz's material in the other thread (the one about the Pilot/Observer badges with Brilliants):

Pieter is not here in this discussion. Bob Hritz is not here. Andreas Klein is not here. They have stated their positions enough (and God bless them for doing so).

The only reason I continue to participate is because I sincerely believe that it is critical that we do not become so passive that one day we wake up to a hobby that in many ways is greatly improved, but at a price that was too high to pay.

P.S. The "Andreas Thies unissued one still in its wrapping paper" is actually part of the entire set of an RK with Oakleaves & Swords (not in wrapping paper, but just photographed against the normally seen brown paper Thies background) owned by a friend of Herr Thies who obtained it directly from the family and estate of Oskar-Heinz (Heinrich) "Pritzl" Bär (25 May 1913 – 28 April 1957), together with his originally awarded Juncker cross with Godet marked Oakleaves & Swords. It is shown here for the first time publicly.

Hello Leroy,

whoops I typed the wrong name. I had meant to say,

"Andreas Klein unissued one still in its wrapping paper" I could also be wrong about Andreas being wrapped in paper with the receipt ?

Based on this exciting news that you have just told us about Andreas Thies example then the mistake on my part was probably worth is. Thus Andrea's one is another to emerge from the woodwork with a direct German pre May 1945 purchase connection.

So we have;

1/ Bob Hritz Kitzingen US vet bring back
2/ Andreas Klein unissued one period purchased as a gift for a U-Boot officer
3/ Dietrich Peltz example with Oaks & Swords
4/ Andreas Thies one from the estate of Oskar-Heinz (Heinrich) "Pritzl" Bär

Dietrich Maerz always said that if they were real then we would see more of them directly from the German servicemen who had got them during the war.

I know a lot of what I have stated has been said before by others more than once. Regardles however, of how any collector feels about the Type B's they are an unanswered question begging an answer. Even though many no longer post on WAF, several still follow it with interest and note carefully what is being said. What gets posted here often leads the charge and has a major impact on what is believed or not believed in the collecting of this these items.

May be the answer has now finally been found thanks to the endeavours of collectors like you Leroy and the others who have kept seeking answers on this and all the other threads about these RK's.

Knowlege is power and power is information. The search for knowledge should always be ongoing in all fields. No one in todays worlds can afford the luxury of resting on their laurels,

Chris

Chris

**90th Light** · 12-09-2012, 06:15 PM

Double post,

Chris

**Leroy** · 12-09-2012, 07:16 PM

Chris - I don't know about what other things (receipt, etc.) might be with the one from Andreas Klein, only that the piece was bought by a well-known U-Boat RK winner as a gift for a friend (another U-Boat officer) who was out on patrol at the time and who was expected to be awarded the RK upon his return. The RK winner then himself went out on patrol and left the piece with an officer on Doenitz' staff to give to the other officer. The officer was not awarded the RK and the staff member ended up keeping the piece at home. Andreas acquired it directly from that staff officer and could provide more details if he wishes.

I have also been told that Werner Baumbach (who famously removed the paint from the swastika on his awarded piece) also had a spare zinc-cored S&L, but I have never seen it, nor do I know who owns it now.

The search for knowledge is always on-going and I have no doubt that Dietrich continues to look very hard, as well, but he has a lot on his plate and his standards for acceptance may be, IMO, sometimes unachievable given the type of documentation he insists upon. "Stories" play no part (or at least very little) in what he does, and for that he gets my respect, if not always my agreement.

**90th Light** · 12-09-2012, 07:42 PM

Thanks Leroy,

I may have got the wrong end of the stick regarding the paper and receipt. Thus I have amended my list in post number 122 to come into line with what you are telling me.

Yes I agree that Dietrich's standards are high but have no problem with that. At the end of the day a lot of money can rest on what one is told or knows to be good or bad. Dietrich has always been correct with the cautious proof beyond doubt approach that he takes.

His ground breaking work in the study of these crosses turned the RK world up side down and is the bench mark by which all must be judged. Rightly so and with full respect from me on what he has achieved.

Two Type B's with zinc centers attributed to known RK holders verses stories, is both a find and break through in the study of these but I agree we still have a long way to go. It is looking better however, for the highly finished examples than it was when Dietrich first launched his study of the Type A & Type B,

**Leroy** · 12-09-2012, 07:50 PM

It took years to elevate the 800-4 to "official" status, although for many of us with our own personal "stories" (which we believed), we were (although frustrated) always confident and supportive of the on-going research. I feel the same way about these zinc-cored, extremely well-made and finished S&L crosses.

**AlikN** · 12-09-2012, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

......
I remain convinced that "B" crosses (except for the "4" marked series and, perhaps, a VERY few others - including a magnificent frosted and cased "micro 800" marked "B" type Bob Hritz and I both saw at the last SOS show) were not originally intended as award crosses, but were commercial "second pieces" (which remained available in some fashion, I truly believe, to entitled recipients after the "ban"). NOT many, and certainly not worth (except when direct provenance to a known recipient can be established - perhaps as in the case of Dietrich Peltz) anything close to the value of an "award" piece.

Here we go again with a commercial line, the thing we have to remember about A and B frames that the differences that we found are very minor and can be seen with magnifying glass and a dipping three was not even discovered until later on. How would workers at S&L would be able to tell them a part - looking for dent row?, running two separate lines of RKs one awards one for sale doesn't make any sense, ....they are the same. And if they would want to differentiate some for retail, just mark them different don't have to run whole separate production line - just need to get one extra punch-mark tool, just like other company did before the sales were prohibited, but in case of the S&L their A type frame 800 marked crosses were good enough for early retails and for supplying PKZ.

In my opinion A dies were used to some point where the flaw got very noticeable and the new B dies were cut from already slightly damaged with a dent row the mother hub.

I don't believe the A dies got repaired , B is a completely different dies made later, that is why we see some very minor knee flaws difference - flaw wouldn't move by itself from one place to another, it is a cutting die grinding tool left those marks in different place.

So in my opinion the theory that B type crosses are an early commercial production is a fantasy, they would sell more the one or two and we would see a number of those crosses in vets groups from early award dates.

**Brian S** · 12-09-2012, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Alikn View Post

Here we go again with a commercial line, the thing we have to remember about A and B frames that the differences that we found are very minor and can be seen with magnifying glass and a dipping three was not even discovered until later on. How would workers at S&L would be able to tell them a part - looking for dent row?, running two separate lines of RKs one awards one for sale doesn't make any sense, ....they are the same. And if they would want to differentiate some for retail, just mark them different don't have to run whole separate production line - just need to get one extra punch-mark tool, just like other company did before the sales were prohibited, but in case of the S&L their A type frame 800 marked crosses were good enough for early retails and for supplying PKZ.

In my opinion A dies were used to some point where the flaw got very noticeable and the new B dies were cut from already slightly damaged with a dent row the mother hub.

I don't believe the A dies got repaired , B is a completely different dies made later, that is why we see some very minor knee flaws difference - flaw wouldn't move by itself from one place to another, it is a cutting die grinding tool left those marks in different place.

So in my opinion the theory that B type crosses are an early commercial production is a fantasy, they would sell more the one or two and we would see a number of those crosses in vets groups from early award dates.

Huh... Never thought I'd agree with... Mostly... But the flaw looks like die repair splatter. Die repair material was extremely hard. But, would have worn down with polishing/cleaning.

**AlikN** · 12-09-2012, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Brian S View Post

Huh... Never thought I'd agree with... Mostly... But the flaw looks like die repair splatter. Die repair material was extremely hard. But, would have worn down with polishing/cleaning.

There was nothing to repair in the area where the dent row is, but if the mother hub was dropped or something was dropped on it or whatever hit it .
It doesn't look like repair, mother hub is positive surface like the stamped out frame not like the die is a negative and it looks like the high points of the bidding in that area were knocked off - something just scratched the mother hub.

Attached Files

Dent%20row.jpg (141.5 KB, 171 views)

**Brian S** · 12-09-2012, 10:18 PM

I think it was just careless almost microscopic splatter from the repair of the original die. It's the knee that throws the repair of the original die off balance and makes me think the second die was repaired and that's when the careless splatter occurred.

**Thomas Durante** · 12-09-2012, 10:33 PM

Hi guys,

Can anyone explain how a big, heavy, hardened, solid steel die can be "repaired" without leaving any traces at all? I just cannot see how this is feasible, without leaving any traces of a repair. I apologize if this has already been covered in previous threads, but as a relative newcomer to the RK discussions I just don't see how this was done from a technical standpoint.

The use of a "master hub" to create multiple dies that are nearly identical to each seems a much more plausible scenario to me. I think this explains S&L's Paratrooper badge eagles, where we can see two nearly identical eagle designs that are 99.9% identical, but off just enough to see that they were two distinct, separate dies.

Thanks in advance.

Tom

**Leroy** · 12-09-2012, 10:59 PM

And it goes on and on. Sometimes far too speculative (and even regarded as dangerous by many, who believe discussions like this are misleading to many collectors, who will be led to forego their own study and accept them as established fact - which they are not yet). Please take this advice, which I offer for free (not being a dealer in Knights Crosses

) : DO NOT BUY ONE OF THESE CROSSES WITHOUT DOING YOUR OWN HOMEWORK AND KNOWING THAT YOU, AND YOU ALONE, MUST LIVE WITH YOUR DECISION.

The "bottom" line (to me): Extremely well-made, finished and frosted nonferrous-cored crosses, bearing no real comparison, IMO, to the crosses which appeared as the postwar productions from S&L, are now more and more associated with known recipients. Not many at all and still just "stories", and the community remains divided. That is perfectly understandable to me. You may laugh at me, but I won't laugh at you.

Two years ago, I offered $1500 for a cross like the ones illustrated here (which I personally think are legitimate "second pieces" - not award pieces) from Bob Hritz, Andreas Thies and Andreas Klein (and now Chris, too). There was not a rush to my door. Maybe people wanted to spare me the pain or maybe I was just a cheapskate. I guess I'm still trying to figure it out....but the offer is still out there.

Good night (work early tomorrow).

**Pieter Verbruggen** · 12-09-2012, 11:35 PM

...what a long post just to say they are wartime crosses, which IMO they are

and always have been.
Pieter.

**Brian S** · 12-09-2012, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Pieter Verbruggen View Post

...what a long post just to say they are wartime crosses, which IMO they are

and always have been.
Pieter.

**AlikN** · 12-10-2012, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Brian S View Post

I think it was just careless almost microscopic splatter from the repair of the original die. It's the knee that throws the repair of the original die off balance and makes me think the second die was repaired and that's when the careless splatter occurred.

Here are couple another points why the dent row not a splatter from the repair, first of all it is a brand new set of dies that was just made - what does it need to have repaired?
Second if the dent row is a splatter from the repair of the B dies - how did it get transferred in exactly the same spot to the C dies ? ....only from the mother hub.
And mother hub doesn't need repairs, there is no stress to it, it is only gets traced to cut a new dies, and a scratch(dent row) on mother hub got traced to a B & C dies.

Announcement

RK Timeline

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread