Knights Crosses and the Deumer connection

[Gordon Williamson]

Over the years there have on many occasions been suggestions of Deumer manufacturing the Knight’s Cross. One of my acquaintances, a fluent German speaker actually phoned them on one occasions and was able to speak to someone in senior management, who confirmed that the Knight’s Cross was not amongst the items they had manufactured.
The existence of an RK with a crude L/11 mark was explained as an RK which had probably been bought in from another manufacturer for use in a company display along with their own firms EKs and marked with their LDO mark as a kind of “property” stamp.<O
I’m pleased to say that thanks to new member Dave Bloor and I have been looking at some new evidence on the Deumer connection.The RK I am about to show is in a UK regimental museum, and its provenance has been logged in museum records.Museum records show that this piece was donated by a Major General WFH Kempster having been acquired at Bremen on the 16 April 45 from a General von Kramer who had the piece (exactly as it is here, mounted on this card ) amongst his belongings.Kempster certainly existed and his record is well documented


(KEMPSTER, Walter Francis Herbert (1909-1952), Major General
Service biography-Commissioned, King's Shropshire Light Infantry 1929; North West Europe and Palestine, World War II 1939-1945 )


There is no suggestion that this mystery German General was a Ritterkreuzträger or why he would have this in his baggage. The name may also have been mis-spelled, or he may have been General-Staff rather than an actual General.
Okay, here is a teaser shot to get things started. Note the Deumer mark on this display card, and the typical shortened and folded piece of ribbon. Compare with the photo of the Brit soldier posing with a chest-full of looted medals including the RK with Steinhauer “big” Swords, and the way the ribbon is cut and folded for display

[Dave-B]

Ah yes,I forgot to mention Gordon that the curator said that Kramer might be spelt a different way!


Dave

[Gordon Williamson]

Here's the Cross. Anybody recognise it?

[Rich G]

Here's the Cross. Anybody recognise it?

Gordon

I'd say that looks like an Otto Schickle Rk, and the Oaks look like S&L

Anyone agree/disagree?

Rich

[Biro]

With that eye..looks 'Schickle'y to me too...

Marshall

[Tom M]

Gordon

I'd say that looks like an Otto Schickle Rk, and the Oaks look like S&L

Anyone agree/disagree?

Rich

I have no idea but that is one Gorgeous RK

[tom hansen]

Gordon-


Is that ring really flat? It is hard to tell from the photo. The "9"s in the "1939" look like the oval is a little fatter than the photos of the schickle in Gordon's book. There is only the reverse pictured of a deschler. Does anyone have any photos of a deschler RK (the cross section on the reference area is closed and I cannot find one on searches).

[Biro]

Good eye Tom!

[tom hansen]

Good eye Tom!

Thanks. Given those dates, I cannot see it being a schickle. Let's see. The way that is displayed also makes it look like, well, a display piece. Was there not an odd oaks and swords posted recently that were described as a display piece as well? Why would there be a deumer stamp on the card unless that company was using it as a "window" display? Why would they give a damn about a window display unless it was pre-1941 when one could privately purchase such pieces?

[Gordon Williamson]

Gordon

I'd say that looks like an Otto Schickle Rk, and the Oaks look like S&L

Anyone agree/disagree?

Rich

The eye is definitely flat. Allowing for the fact that the conditions under which it was photographed weren't perfect (hand held camera - no tripod - being rushed by the busy curator who for very good reasons, didn't want the display case open for too long - it contains at least one other item of almost inestimable value, certainly high six-figures), I'd prefer crisp scans to be 100% sure about the dates but they certainly don't match any other manufacturer other than being, to my eye at least, close to Schickle.

My first guess was Steinhauer for the Oaks, but I don't think so. Check out the shapes and curvatures at top right with the same section of this definite Steinhauer piece. Definitely not the same.

[Gordon Williamson]

Re markings, because of the way that the cross is attached to the card, it is impossible to see the reverse, but Dave has examined the piece and feels it has a plated frame. It is however possible to see the reverse of the Oakleaves and they are unmarked, which does all point to an early display piece.

The fact that it appears to be a Schickle type and that Deumer have confirmed they never made the RK supports the statement of the Deumer manager who said they may have bought in pieces from another firm to use as display pieces.

[Ludwig]

-

A super-interesting thread!!! This clearly shows that there still are white spots on the map of this hobby!

I think that Gordon´s latest post sounds most logic.

To me it seems very logic, that if you didn´t produce KCs, OLs etc, you bought some just for display. And yes, it looks plated, which speaks for display only. I guess that silver was more expensive then than today?

Remember that Zimmermann and Godet KCs look EXACTLY the same (their EKs, too) and still we don´t know for sure why. What kind of partnership did they have?

[tom hansen]

But if this is a schickle, why is the "1939" different from other schickle crosses?
--see the post above where Marshall has enlarged this date compared to a schickle cross.

[Gordon Williamson]

But if this is a schickle, why is the "1939" different from other schickle crosses?
--see the post above where Marshall has enlarged this date compared to a schickle cross.

Taking into account the widely differing qualities of both pics, I don't think there is any real difference between them. If it's not Schickle it means there is another previously unidentified maker of the RK out there who also used the flat flush eyelet.

[tom hansen]

Gordon-


You are the expert on these and I am a bush leaguer. But even from a distance, the "9"s look a little fat compared to other schickle crosses that are posted in your book as well as those currently available on dealer sites. There also appears to be a downsloping componant from the horizontal stroke of the "3" that looks too long. I am really not trying to be irritating at all- they just look different. You have seen that cross up close- any thoughts? Thanks