New book: "Das Eiserne Kreuz 1. Klasse von 1939" by Frank Thater

[Dietrich Maerz]

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

[Leroy]

Indeed, every year we peel away more layers of the onion, and that is a wonderful thing. In 2007 (over 60 years after the war ended!) it was believed by very many that PKZ numbers came into effect in 1944. Now that date has been pushed back to 1942 (not yet 1941, as Thater says without explanation), yet we STILL do not have the definitive "smoking gun" document (from either government files or from the paperwork of manufacturers) which would tell us for sure. Similarly, we know that Doehle was very keen on the proposition that crosses had to have iron cores, yet we see the continuing award, without any apparent objection or blocking, through the government entity which he oversaw, of crosses (including RK's) which violated that rule well after its adoption. We also see the acquisition and wear by well-known people (i.e. well-photographed people) of pieces which, technically, they should not have. An interesting case is, of course, Hartmann, who privately purchased from a shop a K&Q cross later in the war. The question is not so much how Hartmann was able to do that (he was, after all, a famous person, and that carried "perks"), but rather (and more importantly): how did the shopkeeper even HAVE such a cross available to sell??? We are missing something and that "something" is far from inconsequential. We can "pat ourselves on the back" all we want, and sometimes deservedly so, but there are still many "basic" things where we remain in the dark.

This does not excuse errors of omission or the careless or even intentional ignoring of recent research in a book which (as has been argued) may be regarded as "gospel" by the innocent purchaser.

I stand by my statement: " My great fear for this hobby is that we are starting to believe that we know more than we do..."

[Darrell]

......

I stand by my statement: " My great fear for this hobby is that we are starting to believe that we know more than we do...

"

Which seems to be the attitude of some that decide to put pen to paper. I've seen this in many books recently on a variety of subjects. Its in the book so it's true. Heaven help us if some of these people actually do write books, we'll have 1000 makers of every badge and cross known. And since its in print, he's the expert on the subject, it's true no questions asked.

[StefanK.]

Of course i dont want to diminish the effort the authors of any of these books put into their work. As said before, a serious collector of EKs needs all of them.

But....

the things we are discussing here is not wether a cross is a Klein und Quenzer or a Steinhauer und Lueck. The things that are topic of our discussion are very complex, hardly proven and little examined, eg. "was the PKZ introduced in 1944 or even i 1941", "is 24 F.Zimmermann or not", is the Spange made by Schmidhaeussler or by someone else"....

Of COURSE most of these different statements base on a very high experience and something every colector must have: gut-feeling and common sense. Unfortnately these two things are anything but academically, but sometimes serve more than 10.000 pages from any state-records. But as people are different, also these two virtues are different from people to people like fingerprints. Thats the reason why discussions come up and why some people like a medal and some dont like it. What is really true we hardly can figure out.
Its very similar with these books i think. Dietrich for sure started a new era with his book on the knights cross where he also discussed the S&L topic regarding the B-frame. Everything very plausible, at least for Dietrich but must this theory be true? No, because it is just a theory. The same is with the above mentioned theories by Frank. They sound as thrilling and interesting as the B-frame theory but must they be true? No! But at least i think Frank has a good reason to believe that and he was courageous enough to write that (The same for Dietrich with his B-frame)!

A theory is good but must not resemble the truth, otherwise it would be a fact. And unfortunately most of the things that happend behind the walls of the hundreds of manufacturers will STAY a theory, just because the production of medals was for sure one of the most unimportant branches in this war.
Nevertheless the courage of these authors bringing up these theories should really be apprechiated as they do bring us further. But they all need to be reflected and should be seen with attention unless they are really proven (because there will always exist other views).

As much i can advise: BUY this book. Read this book. And use it to extend your horizon. If you are experienced enough you will know yourself what you should account for it.


As far as i can speak i consider it as the best book ever written on EKs. And i also coincide with many (but not all) things written in this book based on my gut feeling.
But that is just my 50 cents.

[streptile]

Hi Stefan,

Of course i dont want to diminish the effort the authors of any of these books put into their work. As said before, a serious collector of EKs needs all of them... If you are experienced enough you will know yourself what you should account for it.

As usual I agree with you and I consider you one of the few collectors whose opinion must never be ignored when it comes to Iron Crosses. But one problem comes when someone is not experienced enough to know for himself "what to account for it," and he spends his money on an EK1 (for example an L15 or a "333" Mayer) that may turn out in the future to be proven a postwar fake. Of course books in the past have shown crosses that were later revealed to be controversial or even fake, but it is known now that these are of debatable authenticity, and it was known when the book went to print. I think it would have been responsible to mention it. We have to wonder why so much new research was omitted from this book.

I was even more surprised to see that the book by George Stimson and myself was not even mentioned in the bibliography of Thater's book.

...it is just ego to intentionally, or foolishly, ignore the contributions of others...

If it is true that the author has permitted some personal animosity or professional rivalry with Maerz/Stimson and WAF to cripple his work, it is a devastating shame considering how much labor clearly went into compiling these volumes.

[streptile]

Consequently this stubborn need to find a maker to every cross is not very useful nor it is scientific.

This issue I don't see exactly the same way. To me, by far the most interesting thing about collecting the Iron Cross is the fact that not everything is known, and we can still do important research. For me, this is mostly focused on determining makers for unattributed crosses. The more we study and try to name makers, the more we understand about the production process and timeline, parts-sharing, marks, materials, etc. I have learned the most about Iron Crosses when trying to crack the mystery of an unknown maker. Yes, these must all remain theories until proven. But I find this the most important avenue of research in the hobby, along with archival research.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Consequently this stubborn need to find a maker to every cross is not very useful nor it is scientific.

Every cross has a maker, that much is sure! The essential question of this hobby is this: "Is it real?" and "Was it made before May 1945?"

That these two basic questions are clearly connected to the maker itself should be evident for everybody. The search for the maker is a searchg for the time and place and ultimately for the answer regarding originality. What else could it be?

Example: finding out whether a maker is Juncker in Berlin or a post-war Austrian gentleman is for me of fundamental importance and it is a quest which can't be solved with "gut feel" but with - as Trevor stated - work, detailled comparison, cross-checking with documents, verification with the history. That is very scientific!

If we would not do this but rather rely on "common sense" and "gut feel", every fake could be "felt good" by somebody and therefore be deemed an original. Based on the "gut feel"-theory that "the Germans would never have done this", you can throw out the Schickle and P&L badges as well as the Schickle Knights Cross (and that was the case once!). I have at least 20 books at home, that are filled with "gut feel" badges and theories. You want Juncker to be a fake? I have a "gut feel- book for that, too!

It is certainly useful as one determination factor - it is no substitute for research and hard work to gain knowledge. If you really think about it you will realize this: "gut feel" is just another word for "I don't know!" And that the greater part of "L 15"- marked EK1s is made post-war is not a question of gut-feel or opinion it is a fact. It is also a fact that the first German Crosses of all early makers have no PKZ numbers. And it is also a fact that this order was introduced post mid-1941. Not theory - fact!

Yes, sometimes, and even sometimes more than often, we don't know. And there is still a lot we don't know. But this is no reason to substitute not-knowing with "gut feel!" or to stop looking. And a lot more is known than 10 years ago!

I was just supplied with actual award numbers of the majority of orders handled by HPA/PA/P5. An actual set of documents of the time, original as it can be. This will now answer the so far speculated question of "How many EK1, EK2, Spange 1 and Spange 2 were awarded by the Heer?" and a lot more! No more theory, fact! After nearly 70 years. It is possible and one has to be patience, look and have luck.

But for the collector who only like to buy and to know, how much something is worth, it is irrlevant information. Maybe you were talking about that aspect of the hobby.

[Leroy]

I was just supplied with actual award numbers of the majority of orders handled by HPA/PA/P5. An actual set of documents of the time, original as it can be. This will now answer the so far speculated question of "How many EK1, EK2, Spange 1 and Spange 2 were awarded by the Heer?" and a lot more!

Any makers or orders correspondence?

[Dietrich Maerz]

No, actual documents and statistics of the order and medal department. First part of publication will be in the coming issue of the International Medal Collector. The reason for that is that I want to have a certain copyright on it (in case it will be mentioned in furture reference books). If it is "just" on a website some people think that it is "public domain" and "fair use" and just steal it. Just happened with a publication in Germany by a certain Mr. Behr. Just stole some of my pictures from the internet and labelled them as his own archive, and the Motorbuch Verlag printed it.

Lot's of starnge things are happening in the hobby......

[Leroy]

How do you copyright an historical document created by a government that no longer exists? (I agree that the source of the document should be stated.)

[Dietrich Maerz]

I meant the source, not the actual document. And it is not actually about copyright, it is about honesty of mentioning the first publication and discussion about the content. Knowing me you should know that I just not print the documents and leave it like that.

[StefanK.]

Obviously my collection methods are very trivial because they mostly are based on gut-feeling

Obviously this discussion has another bsckground. That book for sure wold not cause so much "whooos" and "ooohs" if it wouldnt such a big competitor to the one of Dietrich, who clearly has no good words left for Franks work. Anyway, is there a book you dont critizise (except your own)?
As far as i understand the most critique lies on the unprooven things Frank is writing. As i consequently belief that your book Dietrich is well researched, i want to kindly ask you to mention sources you found to name Sedlatzek a EK manufacturer.

Sorry dietrich, but the whole discussion seems to have a very strong taste of wounded pride because someone else was cheeky enough to write a book that is more comprehensive than yours....

[streptile]

Obviously this discussion has another bsckground.

Stefan,

To open an attack was not my intention in writing a review of the book, and I have tried to highlight the problems and benefits of the book, just as any book review in any journal would.

[Dietrich Maerz]

No need to be sorry!

Let me explain it for you again: Maybe you will write a book one day about something that has not been covered in some depth before. It is unavoidable and also good, that another book about the same subject will follow. If that author now stated that he wrote the first book about that subject and doesn't mention your work, you would be upset. At least I would thinks so. That is why I am upset. If you are not upset, there is only one explanation: you have no pride in your work and you are happy that it is not mentioned anymore.

This is not the case with the book from George and me!

Secondly: it should not escape your attention that factual critique of the book content - apart from the wrong date for the PKZ number - came from Trevor and not from me. Why don't you talk to Trevor about his audacity to point such mistakes? Is he also jealeous?

Thirdly: we do not say in our book that Sedlatzek is a EK manufacturer. Please read the text on page 406 again. We state that not much is known and he could have been a manufactuere or just a distributor. (By thew way, exactly the same what Thater also writes ....)

Fourthly: I think that the most brutal critique came from you in saying: So my advise is look at the nice pictures, and dont take the written Text too serious. That is pretty harsh and not what I would call a "comprehensive" book!

and finally: This attitude of "One author is not allowed to critize another author unless he wants to be called jealous" is exactly why in Germany the Geisslers and the NImmerguts are writing the same stuff all over again and nobody objects. And that is why most of the better literature about the topic was written in English (Williamson, Heukemes, Durante, Garlasco, deBock, ...). Think about it!

[Andreas Klein]

And that is why most of the better literature about the topic was written in English (Williamson, Heukemes, Durante, Garlasco, deBock, ...). Think about it!

With all respect Dietrich but that makes me smile .... simply judge them with the same standards you use know for Frank Thaters book and you will be surprised.

They are full of maker connections from unkown stuff which is adventurous from a researchers point of view but they wrote in most cases what the market wanted to hear and therefore they are "up to date and well researched" - think about it.

If Frank had written "all L15 marked badges are postwar fakes" for example and therefore repeated what is pushed again and again in the market until the last collectors has accepted this as "proven evidence" there would be no critical review on that subject - to bad that this statement is not that what the austrian source had really said about the L15 problem.

The true is sadly not that easy and much more complicated and we both know that because JF told us all the same. My personal conclusion as researcher is similar to that what Frank Thater wrote about that subject in his book (and he didn't adress them as authentic) but stupidly this is not the easy way the market wants to hear and would have been rewarded with a "well done" - so the true is counted as "error".