GErman cross in gold 10 rivets

[Lionel H.]

Hi guys,

I think it is safe to say that this 10-rivet cross in question is NOT a Deschler, but could it be by another manufacturer then? It is not marked with a "1", so the only reason it is being compared with Deschler is that it happens to have 10 rivets. If it is not a Deschler-product, then comparing it to a Deschler cross and deeming it a fake based on that comparison doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So for sake of argument, lets say it is made by some unknown manufacturer. The quality of the cross itself looks pretty good, based on these crappy photos. The base metals look correct, the finishes look "wartime" and the entire cross has believable wear to it in my opinion. Why not post some very good pics of the cross (whoever owns it right now), and lets see if forensically it's hardware or rivetting style matches any other possible makers.

It may not be made by one of the 4 early makers as Dietrich points out, but the only reason we are thinking it is "early" at this point is that it has a vet story attached to it which dates it to 1941. So if we discount the vet story for a moment, is it possible this cross is from a later timeframe and made by a different manufacturer than the early 4 makers? Dietrich mentions 4 early makers, but we know that other makers were involved in DK production; Otto Klien for one. Also possibly Meybauer, and S&L are both possible makers of wartime crosses. We also have the "dotted" crosses which are likely wartime-produced based on a Schloss Klessheim find. Not to mention the Diamond-studded DKs, made by Rath. None of these are mentioned by Doehle or Patzwall in period documentation, but yet there is some level of evidence that these were wartime-produced.

I would want to see good quality pics of the cross, its rivets and hardware to see if it forensically matches anything wartime-produced. This would also be helpful to compared it to known-postwar produced items too.

Tom

Really a good Analysis, many thanks. As Jacques C., the photograf went Home 1999, he took many Pics for - he said - a "documentation to build". As "thank You", he send me a whole lot of it's Pics, some are very good, some are crappy. But one point is very important for the comprehension of our discussion : I N.E.V.E.R told him, "it is a Deschler § Sohn" I was at this time good informed about the classical Manufacturers, but not about more rare Items § time variants. So, HOW HE DECIDED TO CALL IT " DESCHLER§SOHN" EARLY TIME, IS NOT CLEAR FOR ME. And IMO, this not appropriate Denomination brought certain honest Collectors to say : it's wrong. Please note Brst29 in it's first msg said "it is not a Deschler", for sure !!

Thanks to Tom for opening interesting Pists of reflexion. Just closing Doors is too easy.

Just 2 last Wirds :
1) I have no problems with Jacques C. , he is a nice Guy and a passionated Collector. The Fact he forgot to ask me for permission publishing that or this is not so important to me.
2) The Cross, now property of Brst29 is not for sale, and will never be, this Guy NEVER sold any Item of its Collection !!

Lionel.

[Rich G]

There are photos of the recipient wearing the cross, why not make a scan of those areas and maybe it will help to see what cross he is wearing in the photos?

[Alex Bolotnikov]

We are talking about two different crosses here. Topicstarter wants to hear opinions regarding this cross:

[MasterBo]

Alex, thank you for posting the pictures for me.
This is the DK, pictures are posted right above by Alex, originality of which is under the question.
This cross is shown in WAF data base, second from the top.
And thank you all once more.

[Rich G]

This thread has been side-tracked...maybe it should be spilt out to discuss the 2 different DKiG that are being simultaneously discussed.

[MasterBo]

Gentelmen, the reason i opened this thread is, that I have been offered this cross and would like to make sure, that I am geting a real thing.
Once againe, your help is greatly apreciated.

[Lionel H.]

Hi Alex, Hi Masterbo, Hi you all Guys !

Then, if there is no more Problems with the Cross I get 1998 from Erich Olczyk, and if this Cross is, as I assume since the Begining, an original one, I would be grateful to you to admit that.
Kind regards. Lionel.

[MasterBo]

Hi Alex, Hi Masterbo, Hi you all Guys !

Then, if there is no more Problems with the Cross I get 1998 from Erich Olczyk, and if this Cross is, as I assume since the Begining, an original one, I would be grateful to you to admit that.
Kind regards. Lionel.

Hi, Lionel, from the begining i was talking about the cross, pictures of which, are posted by Alex, on this page.

[Dietrich Maerz]

We are talking about two different crosses here. Topicstarter wants to hear opinions regarding this cross:

That cross has also a wreath which is not Deschler. Alex is correct. So both 10-rivet crosses of the WAF data base are highly questionable.

Dietrich

[Panzercracker]

Dietrich. My hypothesis on that one: Possibly damaged Swas during wartime, resulting in it's replacement. During that repair, they took the entire Cross apart (which has a Zimmermann wreath and starbursts). When they put it back together (professionally done), they went with 10 rivets and added the Deschler style hardware seen here. I care nor dare speculate further.

--Ken

[Lionel H.]

Well.... Reading English is easier as writing.... Mr.Maerz wrote "Both 10-Rivets Cross of the WAF database are highly questionable". I don't care about the other one, and I am just talking about Olcyk's one. My question remained unanswered.... As Mr. Maertz came across a lot of original Items to write his Book, and probably also across a lot of fakes, I imagine he collected a wide picturial-database, especially when he prepared his Boook. So, one of my question was, if Olzcyk Cross is a Copy (LOL), that's probably not the only copy of this Type which has been produced.... nobody could imagine that seriously even one signe second.... Then, I repeat my question and would be honoured to get an Answer "COULD EVERYBODY HERE SHOW TO THE 1300 PEOPLE HAVING VISITED THIS POST AN EXACT SIMILAR EXEMPLARY ??"

I answered all the questions you sent me regarding Olczyk, his Carreer, his Death.... I counterattacked some Assertions about his Cross with my own Questions who are actually unanswered, and as I said that everybody makes mistakes, even the better experts, designating Max Klinger FU (published in Ditrich Maerz's Book) as a Fake (and to be honest, not the better I have seen !), listing some Arguments.... No Answer.... The Owner get it from Vet ? Fine !! Let prove it !!

Excuse me to bother you, I do not want to perturb anybody, and I would be glad to get back in the WAF Part I do prefer (Papers and Photos), but earning the Expert-title means to be able to answer ALL Questions, including those who are not entering the Field of basic Knowledge.

[Alex Bolotnikov]

Hi Alex, Hi Masterbo, Hi you all Guys !

Then, if there is no more Problems with the Cross I get 1998 from Erich Olczyk, and if this Cross is, as I assume since the Begining, an original one, I would be grateful to you to admit that.
Kind regards. Lionel.

For me it's still the cross I wouldn't like to see in my collection. The only statement that it was received from Erich Olczyk isn't enough (for me) to accept it as original. It's very far from known and accepted types of DKiG. But why not to make high res photos of it and let us know weight and measures? I guess it's not a big problem nowadays.

[Dietrich Maerz]

It seems to me that you want to hear from me that your cross (or the cross you once owned and sold) is a genuine example made in 1941 and awarded to E. Olczyk.

You will never ever hear that from me, so give it up. Why? Because neither you nor I know that. However, it is my OPINION based on the pictures I have seen that this cross is not one made end of 1941 and awarded at that time.

I have stated that OPINION several times, I have backed it up with some valid arguments and that is all I can do and all I will do. If you think that opinion is a bad one because you think that one of the documents in my book is a fake in your opinion, then let me say that this is a very childish line of argumentation. It also would be very childish to think that I just voice my opinion to annoy you.

Just because there are no more of this cross around does not mean that it is a good piece, it could be exactly the opposite. It is far easier to produce one fake after the war to fool one collector than for a legitimate company in 1941 to produce all the dies and tools to produce just one piece.

I answered all the questions you sent me regarding Olczyk, his Carreer, his Death.... I counterattacked some Assertions about his Cross with my own Questions who are actually unanswered, and as I said that everybody makes mistakes, even the better experts, designating Max Klinger FU (published in Ditrich Maerz's Book) as a Fake (and to be honest, not the better I have seen !), listing some Arguments.... No Answer.... The Owner get it from Vet ? Fine !! Let prove it !!

Excuse me to bother you, I do not want to perturb anybody, and I would be glad to get back in the WAF Part I do prefer (Papers and Photos), but earning the Expert-title means to be able to answer ALL Questions, including those who are not entering the Field of basic Knowledge.

I have no idea why you are resorting to such strong, insulting, and unwarranted language? And if you think that I should be able to answer ALL questions, you are wrong and you have no idea about the complexities of our hobby. I could understand your (now) hostile attitude if I would have advised the current owner to ask for his money back, but I did not do that. If you are of the opinion or even convinced that my opinion is false, move on and live with it. It is just an opinion.

Here is a proposal: ask the other members here to take back their statements and leave me alone. And if you only want to hear a positive reflection of your postings, then say so in your post or go to a forum where the majority is only posting "great", "nice", "beautiful piece", ...

[Lionel H.]

Hi Alex. Brst29 is now the Owner, as you guessed. I agree with you, goods Pics would be great, and even more prove this Cross is a doubtless original, and one of the rarest one. Just called him and said he has to buy a good Camera mit sharp zoom, and made good pics !! It is not his "cup of Tea", but perhaps a good Opportunity to start to make fine Pics of his amazing Collection and to share more in the WAF in the Future .... you have decided this Cross is bad, just because" it is too far from your known and accepted types", as you wrote.... So long as my Questions will not be answered, I will just think "Who decides which are the know and accepted Types ??". I have problems to accept the fact that anyone judge about "bad or good" just with "feelings", and even if it's opinion is based on the FEW existing Books, moreover if these Books are themselves subject to Debate because of the error they contain.
If you were a crazy photo collector as I am, you will see a number of original tunics, Insignias, Headgear, not matching at all with régulations... "far from known and accepted types" , and perfect worn-originals !

[Alex Bolotnikov]

Hi Alex. Brst29 is now the Owner, as you guessed. I agree with you, goods Pics would be great, and even more prove this Cross is a doubtless original, and one of the rarest one. Just called him and said he has to buy a good Camera mit sharp zoom, and made good pics !! It is not his "cup of Tea", but perhaps a good Opportunity to start to make fine Pics of his amazing Collection and to share more in the WAF in the Future .... you have decided this Cross is bad, just because" it is too far from your known and accepted types", as you wrote.... So long as my Questions will not be answered, I will just think "Who decides which are the know and accepted Types ??". I have problems to accept the fact that anyone judge about "bad or good" just with "feelings", and even if it's opinion is based on the FEW existing Books, moreover if these Books are themselves subject to Debate because of the error they contain.
If you were a crazy photo collector as I am, you will see a number of original tunics, Insignias, Headgear, not matching at all with régulations... "far from known and accepted types" , and perfect worn-originals !

As previously said I don't like the overall quality of this badge also. Too crude for an early production. But if the owner is happy with it - it's ok. Otherwise I guess it's not a problem to pay a few bucks to a professional photographer and to get perfect macro photos.