Dr. Karl Mauss grouping, diamonds holder.

[Sepp45]

Further more interesting is that the "Armed Forces History Museum" claims they have Karl Mauss' uniform and decorations (including the RK)

Source: http://armedforcesmuseum.com/world-w...llage-exhibit/

[Sepp45]

.

[beufighter]

thats interesting so perhaps 2 groupings one containing medals/uniform goes to muesum then the second contains just paper work and has had medals added

[beufighter]

full picture

[Tony T-S]

So in the end we don't really know whose medals are being sold, but I guess that means they're worth the sum of their totals rather than the sum of their attribution.

[Sepp45]

So in the end we don't really know whose medals are being sold, but I guess that means they're worth the sum of their totals rather than the sum of their attribution.

I've always been fascinated for the history of those 27 diamonds set during WW2. Mauss' pieces have never been showed (officially) on any book or website that I know of.

Maybe Dietrich knows better about this?

[Sepp45]

But... according to a great website (www.ritterkreuz.us) the set of Mauss was never produced, because of it being awarded so late in the war (April 19th, 1945).

[beufighter]

But... according to a great website (www.ritterkreuz.us) the set of Mauss was never produced, because of it being awarded so late in the war (April 19th, 1945).

i got it as the 15th not 19th? but can find no other evidence that he didn't get them

also found that apparently he did apply to join the bundeswehr but was denied on heath grounds

[Sepp45]

i got it as the 15th not 19th? but can find no other evidence that he didn't get them

also found that apparently he did apply to join the bundeswehr but was denied on heath grounds

Yes, you are right.. it was the 15th.

According to the book "Knights Cross with Diamonds Recipients 1941-45", by Gordon Williamson, Mauss was indeed awarded the Diamonds.

Although, it doesn't states if the pieces ever reached him..

[streptile]

done a bit of research and as he died in 1959 that rk is not his as thats a mid 60s/70s one......

Interesting, a second pattern core RK...

But the so-called 2. Pattern core was used right from the very beginning alongside the so-called 1. Pattern, right? So how can you say it's a '60s or '70s RK? Just curious, not disagreeing.

[Leroy]

But the so-called 2. Pattern core was used right from the very beginning alongside the so-called 1. Pattern, right? So how can you say it's a '60s or '70s RK? Just curious, not disagreeing.

I think reference is being made more to the frame than to the core. The 2nd pattern core was indeed used alongside the 1st pattern, although the 1st pattern was probably first in time by a few months. The frame, however, appears to be a "C" type (most likely first introduced in the 60's) with a ring which intrudes into the frame with no effort being made to file it. Personally, before definitely saying it is a "C" frame, I would like to see the 6-9 o'clock corner to confirm that the "bridge flaw" is no longer present. Also, it must be noted that no one is really sure about the introduction date of the "C" frame, so this is all just guesswork.

[streptile]

Thanks Gentry.

...it must be noted that no one is really sure about the introduction date of the "C" frame

...or about the introduction of the core types

[Leroy]

...or about the introduction of the core types

When it comes to RK's, the longer you look, the more questions you have.

[Bob Hritz]

I am not crazy about the 'diamonds' either.

Bob Hritz