If one sits down and writes abook, one has several intentions. These are different with different people, that is for sure. Some want to show a collection of nice pictures as a catalog and some are more into the intrinsic details of the history or manufacturing surrounding the topic.
Thater's book is an exelent example of a catalog and that is also what he wrote in his foreword as what he wanted to do. He is not, and one can see and read that, into the finer details, and obviously he didn't want to. This is by far no error or an omission.
However, personally I think that every author who wants to be taken serious beyond the description of "that is a nice collection of pictures" should also put some effort into the description and research side (if it is to be mentioned at all).
Here is why: we all can say mantra-like "We don't know all", "We are describing an Elephant in the dark", "The more we think the less we know" and so on. This is all nice and dandy, but it is only true up to a certain point. And in the case of the Iron Cross only in the more esotheric areas, which are of no concern to the "How much does it cost?" and "Is it real?"-collector.
If a collector or researcher gives the impression, that the LDO or PKZ list or numbering system is conjecture (as an example), or that it is just a theory that Zimmermann supplied parts to Godet or Klein, that it is not proven that Schickle used "L/15" and not "L 15", he should look for a different hobby. Or, like I have personally experienced, such a "collector" belongs to that that group of shady dealers who spreads things like that to instill uncertainty into the hobby and sell his wares.
There is at any give point in time a state of the knowledge and research. This state of the knowledeg of research is reflected in some (not all!) of the books, but mainly in the important and leading fora such as WAF, SDA and others and in the more frequent publications. With our hobby this research is done worldwide and cannot be ignored. If it is not mentioned, the impression is that it was not used and that is just flat out wrong and not in the spirit of the hobby.
Every new book, which touches on this subject, must IMHO refelect this research, even if only critical. In no shape or form should it ignore it or state things that are proven to be wrong long ago. This throws the hobby back. There is also a difference between a hypothesis, which can be explained and reasoned, or a flat out statements, that give no explanation, source or other reasoning.
We here as a group might be able to spot such mistakes/omissions/errors and ignore them as what they are. The above statements are all testament to that. Or some have a different hypothesis than the writer. But the "normal" guy will take it as "researched knowledge in a new book" and will believe every word of it. He will buy the "L 15" since nobody told him any better. If the author gives no sources, no explanation or other help, there is no way to double-check. And that is exactly why we here in the fora - after more than 10 years - still battle the notions of Nimmergut and Geissler. If they would have worked honest and with sources and not with dogmatic statements under pictures of fakes, the hobby would be far, far more advance.
We all, here and in other fora, and starting with Williamson, have worked hard to clean all this up to a great extend and have discovered (in the area of the Order of the Iron Cross) 90% of the "elephant." Whoever says it is less, has not paid attention.
Thater's book is by far the best collection of pictures of original EK1s and Spangen. That is true and that is a very good thing. As StefanK mentioned, one doesnt't need to read it and every non-German speaking collector can buy it since the value is in the pictures alone! Every serious collector should have it. Here is another great collection of EKs and for the people who don't want to read, don't need to read, don't need any connection, back ground information and such, it is even more diversified than Thaters book: http://www.ek1-dna.de
Thater's book is an exelent example of a catalog and that is also what he wrote in his foreword as what he wanted to do. He is not, and one can see and read that, into the finer details, and obviously he didn't want to. This is by far no error or an omission.
However, personally I think that every author who wants to be taken serious beyond the description of "that is a nice collection of pictures" should also put some effort into the description and research side (if it is to be mentioned at all).
Here is why: we all can say mantra-like "We don't know all", "We are describing an Elephant in the dark", "The more we think the less we know" and so on. This is all nice and dandy, but it is only true up to a certain point. And in the case of the Iron Cross only in the more esotheric areas, which are of no concern to the "How much does it cost?" and "Is it real?"-collector.
If a collector or researcher gives the impression, that the LDO or PKZ list or numbering system is conjecture (as an example), or that it is just a theory that Zimmermann supplied parts to Godet or Klein, that it is not proven that Schickle used "L/15" and not "L 15", he should look for a different hobby. Or, like I have personally experienced, such a "collector" belongs to that that group of shady dealers who spreads things like that to instill uncertainty into the hobby and sell his wares.
There is at any give point in time a state of the knowledge and research. This state of the knowledeg of research is reflected in some (not all!) of the books, but mainly in the important and leading fora such as WAF, SDA and others and in the more frequent publications. With our hobby this research is done worldwide and cannot be ignored. If it is not mentioned, the impression is that it was not used and that is just flat out wrong and not in the spirit of the hobby.
Every new book, which touches on this subject, must IMHO refelect this research, even if only critical. In no shape or form should it ignore it or state things that are proven to be wrong long ago. This throws the hobby back. There is also a difference between a hypothesis, which can be explained and reasoned, or a flat out statements, that give no explanation, source or other reasoning.
We here as a group might be able to spot such mistakes/omissions/errors and ignore them as what they are. The above statements are all testament to that. Or some have a different hypothesis than the writer. But the "normal" guy will take it as "researched knowledge in a new book" and will believe every word of it. He will buy the "L 15" since nobody told him any better. If the author gives no sources, no explanation or other help, there is no way to double-check. And that is exactly why we here in the fora - after more than 10 years - still battle the notions of Nimmergut and Geissler. If they would have worked honest and with sources and not with dogmatic statements under pictures of fakes, the hobby would be far, far more advance.
We all, here and in other fora, and starting with Williamson, have worked hard to clean all this up to a great extend and have discovered (in the area of the Order of the Iron Cross) 90% of the "elephant." Whoever says it is less, has not paid attention.
Thater's book is by far the best collection of pictures of original EK1s and Spangen. That is true and that is a very good thing. As StefanK mentioned, one doesnt't need to read it and every non-German speaking collector can buy it since the value is in the pictures alone! Every serious collector should have it. Here is another great collection of EKs and for the people who don't want to read, don't need to read, don't need any connection, back ground information and such, it is even more diversified than Thaters book: http://www.ek1-dna.de
Comment