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

[Leroy]

The true is sadly not that easy and much more complicated and we both know that because JF told us all the same.

I also have been wondering about this. It is not, IMO, so "open and shut" for everything on the L15 issue. Based on what I have seen (and "been told") no one can say either "all are good' or "all are bad".

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andreas,

you can have your opinions about the English language writers I named, I have mine. I was not talking about Frank, I was talking about others in Germany who are repeating the same nonsense since 20 years and evidently never have seen a library or archive from the inside.

It is not correct to state what you just did. Nobody ever said that Thater or anybody else should say that all L 15 are fake. In our book, George and myself, describe what we have heard and we do consider certain types, based on exactly the same what have been told and Frank by JF, are post-war made. Just because JF said that he did not make the pins himself, does not negate the fact that he told at least George and me how he came to the Orth/Souval hybrids with L 15 mark. In the late 1970s! Since neither you, JF, nor anybody else knows when the pins were made (JF got them in the 70s - 30 years after the war!) one cannot deduct that that they were war-made and sold to the LDO during the war. Nobody knows that.

There are a ton of arguments for the not war-time (including the own admission of the use of the L 15 on 100% fake by JF). Orth delivered "15" marked crosses and also "L/14" ones. What would have driven them to distribute a bunch of L 15 , some of them even with Souval frame? Just because "we don't know", it is not automatically "good"! Not for me, at least! It is also a fact that there are clear JF-made EK1s with the same L 15 pin. I personally think that this is something worth mentioning, or not?

If all that is known, and all that has been discussed several times at several places, including the last time at SDA (were you completely agreed with me!), why not mention it as a support for the collector? If he then buys knowingly L 15 of all variations, it is his informed decission. It is George's and my opionion, based on personal talks with JF, and we wrote in the book:

".... makes the authors believe that such types are most likely post-war productions, using left over parts in a more or less random way. The progression Orth -Souval - Orth/Souval - "Austrian", the common use of the same stamp, and all of the involved parties having their place of business or home in Vienna is too neat to be coincidence."

If somebody reads that as "fact", he doesn't understand the language. This is not about truth or error, this is about informing the reader and naming reasons for doing so.

By the way, why are you addressing me? I didn't bring that L 15 topic up. My big beef with Frank is not the content of the book (which - I say it again - everybody should buy for the pictures! I am extremely happy that I have it and don't want to miss it. I said so here and at SDA and I will say it again!). My beef is with his non-mentioning sources in the foreword and in the bibliography. Not only George and me, also WAF, SDA, and GCA. I find this unacceptable! If this is ok with other people, I don't mind. But I can still have my opinion!

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Dietrich,

sorry if i didn't understand your post correctly. Because of the fact that we are here on a thread about a german book i got a bad feeling with reading:

And that is why most of the better literature about the topic was written in English

To me it sounded that german books in general and the one discussed here aren't good compared to english speaking books.

My statement about the L15 problem - where we still agree - wasn't adressed to you, it was a general statment of me and i should have quoted Streptile with the following:

I will, however, mention one more problem: the L15 controversy. Thater identifies these controversial crosses as authentic. And yet, in their English-language Iron Cross book published a couple short years ago, Maerz/Stimson revealed that these crosses were of postwar manufacture. It is well-known within our community that this information was acquired indirectly from the source. Thus it is difficult to refute. Thater doesn't even try. Like other important research conducted over the past three or four years, he has completely ignored it.

To me this sounds in harsh words that Frank Thater hasn't handeld the L15 problem in a proper way, but that's not true. Frank didn't show a a single copy in the book and the same goes for the L15 subject. I think we all agree that the L15 crosses he pictured are not crosses we all would call a clear copy.

These crosses are "we can't say it for sure" crosses or in your words:

Just because "we don't know", it is not automatically "bad"! Not for me, at least!

Frank's statement on L15 fits the informations you, George, Frank, Bastian and i got from Austria. What George and you wrote about it was as correct as the statment from Frank but it seems that alot of collectors haven't understood it wheter or not it was written in english or german.

If someone buys a L15 cross and believes it is textbook without question marks than he hasn't understood what you, George and Frank wrote in the books but that can't be reproched to someone of you.

Even the best book can't prevent a collector of thinking.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Even the best book can't prevent a collector of thinking.

Andreas,

thank you for that post which hit the nail exactly on the head!

I 100% agree that Frank T. wrote basically the same as George and I did in our book. All I am saying is that it is important to record the current knowledge and - yes - the collector has to decide and to think on his own. But he should have all the informations. Frank is not mentioning the full scope and that was what he decided to do. So nobody is allowed to comment on that?

I think that is all what Trevor also meant when he mentioned the L 15 topic.

Here is a general thought: Why is it that some people go completely nuts when a new book is put up for discussion? Why is it - like StefanK does - that this immediately has to be turned around and the presumed critizizer (in this case even the WRONG one!) is put on the spot and accused of all kinds of lower motives: money making, jaleousy, competition, destruction, infiltration, brain washing, ....

I don't give a flying rat's ass whether people think Frank's book is the best ever made and will life unsurpassed for the next 50 years. I do not measure me personally on the achievements of other people.

But I certainly reserve the right, as a member of this forum and as a serious researcher and fairly knowledgeable collector, to question certain things. If that is no longer allowed - and regarding to StefanK I don't seem to have the right doing so - we better accept everything that was written and will be written in the future without any discussion.

And if somebody writes in a book, that the PKZ numbers were introduced in mid-1941 I have the same right to ask "Where is the reserach supporting it?" just as anybody else. The fact, that I have written some books (which for sure has tought some people a thing or two ....) , does not take the right away to ask.

It was refreshing to realize that the discussion at SDA, where Frank Thater participated, did not go down that ugly road it is driven here and that it was deemed helpful for a lot of people. If is even more astonishing that here, where critique is factually mentioned, the thread degenerates into a personal attack on me - the one who did not even start the thread or mentioned the wrong contents.

If that stupidity continues, I will cleanse the thread after Trevors posting and close it.

Dietrich