Daniel,
I think it should be far better if you would stick to your field of expertise which clearly is not orders and medals and for sure not the regulations, time line, and procedure of such. I openly admit that I have no idea about photos and I am sure that I could find a lot of post from you were some people disagreed with you. Would I therefore dismiss your opinion because I think you made one or two mistakes somehwhere? No, because that would be extremely stupid and childish.
This question alone:
shows a basic lack of understanding of the matter at hand, since it is not a person (me, you, or anybody else) you decides so, but rather the piece itself (and also not the story that comes with it!).
What is deemed original (made with a die!) is a process based on historical provenance, documents, time line, finger prints of the die, and the materials used. By comparing to known originals (not just one, several! Because you need several to determine certain characteristics) originality can be determined. It is fairly straight forward. Companies have certain hardware they used, such as pins, rivets, catches and so on. That also enters into it.
Now in this case we have the following:
- some pictures of a piece never presented here before.
- 10 rivets which is considered early (meaning before the Herstellervorschrift for DK was issued by Dr. Doehle between Jan. and June 1942)
- strange rivets
- unusual pin for a DK
- your word (and ONLY your word) that it came from E. Olczyk and that is was his awarded piece
Since we cannot compare to a known original (this is NOT a know original), all one can do is voice OPINION, based on certain facts, which are:
- very, very few 10 rivet crosses were awarded
- the early quality was high
- it is documented that four named and known companies made the first crosses
- it is documented that Deschler was the very first manufacturer of 10 rivet crosses
- it is NOT sure at all that Olczyk was awarded a 10 rivet piece
- it is a fact that Olzcyk was in American captivity and most likely was relieved of his medals
- your word (or assumption) that he did not wear the cross when he was captured.
If one takes away the "story" and assumptions and looks just at the pictures we have right now it is very hard - if not impossible - to make a strong case which would incorporate all the known facts about the very early award time of this order.
And that is all that can be said. If you, however, think that by degrading my person, work or my opinion by mentioning alleged fakes in one of my books and that this is the way to make this piece a "proven original," you better think twice. Since that is NOT how research and science works.
If I would chose to steer the discussion in such a direction, the first thing I would ask you is to prove that you got this cross from Olzcyk. Who's to say that you did not add it to the group? Why should we believe you? I don't know you and your credentials. But I do, however, chose to believe you because I do not resort to such argumentation. I don't need to and I don't want to. I only look at the piece, not the person voicing an opinion.
Dietrich
I think it should be far better if you would stick to your field of expertise which clearly is not orders and medals and for sure not the regulations, time line, and procedure of such. I openly admit that I have no idea about photos and I am sure that I could find a lot of post from you were some people disagreed with you. Would I therefore dismiss your opinion because I think you made one or two mistakes somehwhere? No, because that would be extremely stupid and childish.
This question alone:
"Who decides which are the know and accepted Types ??"
What is deemed original (made with a die!) is a process based on historical provenance, documents, time line, finger prints of the die, and the materials used. By comparing to known originals (not just one, several! Because you need several to determine certain characteristics) originality can be determined. It is fairly straight forward. Companies have certain hardware they used, such as pins, rivets, catches and so on. That also enters into it.
Now in this case we have the following:
- some pictures of a piece never presented here before.
- 10 rivets which is considered early (meaning before the Herstellervorschrift for DK was issued by Dr. Doehle between Jan. and June 1942)
- strange rivets
- unusual pin for a DK
- your word (and ONLY your word) that it came from E. Olczyk and that is was his awarded piece
Since we cannot compare to a known original (this is NOT a know original), all one can do is voice OPINION, based on certain facts, which are:
- very, very few 10 rivet crosses were awarded
- the early quality was high
- it is documented that four named and known companies made the first crosses
- it is documented that Deschler was the very first manufacturer of 10 rivet crosses
- it is NOT sure at all that Olczyk was awarded a 10 rivet piece
- it is a fact that Olzcyk was in American captivity and most likely was relieved of his medals
- your word (or assumption) that he did not wear the cross when he was captured.
If one takes away the "story" and assumptions and looks just at the pictures we have right now it is very hard - if not impossible - to make a strong case which would incorporate all the known facts about the very early award time of this order.
And that is all that can be said. If you, however, think that by degrading my person, work or my opinion by mentioning alleged fakes in one of my books and that this is the way to make this piece a "proven original," you better think twice. Since that is NOT how research and science works.
If I would chose to steer the discussion in such a direction, the first thing I would ask you is to prove that you got this cross from Olzcyk. Who's to say that you did not add it to the group? Why should we believe you? I don't know you and your credentials. But I do, however, chose to believe you because I do not resort to such argumentation. I don't need to and I don't want to. I only look at the piece, not the person voicing an opinion.
Dietrich
Comment