Knights Cross opinion

[Leroy]

I thought I was being clear, Trevor. I'll try again:

1.) All "large 800" marked "A" frames that I have personally seen have the "dipping 3" core exclusively;

2.) A very few "micro 800" marked "A" frames that I have personally seen have the "dipping 3" core;

3.) Most "micro 800" marked "A" frames that I have personally seen have the "normal core";

4.) All the "B" framed crosses I have personally seen appear to use the "normal core".

Of the (likely) several thousand crosses which we believe S&L produced, none of us have seen but a small fraction. Years ago, I suggested here that we should undertake studies of not only all S&L frames encountered (frames being the "hot topic" at the time), but also all cores encountered. I suggested this not because I was prescient in any way, but rather because Detlev Niemann had mentioned in passing in a post that a cross under discussion here (what we now call a "B" type) had "a different core" and I could never figure out what he meant.* I never followed through and nothing came of it.

* I have tried to find the post tonight, but can't seem to find any of his posts anymore under 'Detlev Niemann' but did find some
(13) under 'D. Niemann' (none was the right one). I must be looking incorrectly.

[streptile]

I thought I was being clear, Trevor. I'll try again

Thanks Gentry. The problem for me in the first post was this sentence:

My personal observation is that crosses with the large stamped "800" mark seem to always have the "dipping 3" core, while some "micro 800" crosses will (rarely) have it (but usually have the "normal" core)

It wasn't clear if the "large 800 marked" RKs were A or B frames, and if those rare "micro 800 marked" RKs with the "dipping 3" core were A or B frames, and if those "micro 800 marked" RKs with the "normal core" were A or B frames. But from what I can gather from your second post -- and this is the crux of it -- all "large 800 marked" RKs have the A frame (regardless of the core), and all "micro 800 marked" RKs have the A frame (regardless of the core).

Is that actually correct?

[Robert T.]

It wasn't clear if the "large 800 marked" RKs were A or B frames, and if those rare "micro 800 marked" RKs with the "dipping 3" core were A or B frames, and if those "micro 800 marked" RKs with the "normal core" were A or B frames. But from what I can gather from your second post -- and this is the crux of it -- all "large 800 marked" RKs have the A frame (regardless of the core), and all "micro 800 marked" RKs have the A frame (regardless of the core).

Is that actually correct?

The timeline would be from left to right. (non-dipping 3 = normal core)

Robert

[streptile]

The timeline would be from left to right.

Thanks Robert.

So are there any RKs that fit this description:

• A frame
• Dipping 3 core
• Micro 800 mark
• Flawed frame

...or did the flaws develop after the cores were swapped?

[Robert T.]

Thanks Robert.

So are there any RKs that fit this description:

• A frame
• Dipping 3 core
• Micro 800 mark
• Flawed frame

...or did the flaws develop after the cores were swapped?

[*]A frame[*]Dipping 3 core[*]Micro 800 mark[*]Flawed frame

Yes, I believe that I have seen some here on WAF.

[Leroy]

My apologies, Trevor. I thought it was understood that the terms "large 800" and "micro 800" were commonly used in describing the silver marks on "A" framed crosses, not "B" framed crosses.*

As to Robert's "timeline" chart in Post 18, it appears unfortunately to incorporate an assumption for a "time of creation" for the "B" framed crosses which is after the "A" frame die failed. While this may be the case, that timeline is NOT accepted by all (nor is the "one-repaired die" theory which fuels it) and I, for one, simply don't feel it appropriate to adopt such a "timeline" as a basis in any new cross discussion without first seeing considerably more proof for those theories than has ever before been adduced here. It may indeed be possible to establish a "timeline" for the use in "A" framed crosses of the "dipping 3" core, but such a timeline will not reveal the source of the "normal core", nor will it tell you necessarily accurately when the "normal core" came into existence. Speculation would be piled upon speculation to accomplish that and I think we should steer clear of that and instead see if more hard information comes to hand. I have already seen enough friendships damaged, and enough knowledgeable collectors abandon this Forum in disgust, to go down that road again.

Regarding Robert's response in Post 20, I would be very interested, just out of curiosity, to see the "dipping 3" core in "A" framed crosses with beading flaws and I hope he can show some to us. I personally haven't seen that (which mean nothing, of course) and would love to learn more about their use.

* Without getting too obtuse, I should be anal retentive enough to still at least mention that Bob Hritz and I did actually both see at the SOS a couple of years ago a beautiful "B" framed cross with the same "micro 800" stamp normally seen on "A" framed crosses, certainly a "first" for me (although I had heard of them). Also, there are "C" framed postwar S&L crosses which use a "large 800" stamp, but it is NOT the same as the wartime "large 800" stamp.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

I think what Robert means in his timeline is that the B-Type appears after the A-Type in the sense that (as of today) there is no evidence of any appearance of any B-Types before or amongst A-Types. The first B-Types are (as of today) the 800-4 and the 935-4 and they clearly surfaced after the A-Type.

I doubt that we will ever find out at what point in time a frame or a core was stamped, marked, soldered, or polished. The time distance allows us only to arrange the types as they show up with recipients or at time-wise known occurances such as Klessheim. Sure, it is possible that the B-frame was the first one, that hundreds or thousands were stamped but not used (or only partially used) and that for whatever reason the A-frame was created and used up until (approximately) end of 1944. The tough thing here is to prove that hypothesis with several and consistent (not just one!) actual, firm and undisputable appearances which can be fixed in time.

It mighjt very well be that the current theory is not the 100% correct picture of what really happened. But this theory has one big thing going for it: it fits with the known facts of awardees and award dates.

But the research always goes on.

[Leroy]

I think what Robert means in his timeline is that the B-Type appears after the A-Type in the sense that (as of today) there is no evidence of any appearance of any B-Types before or amongst A-Types.

Dietrich - It is not that there is "no evidence", but rather that the evidence which does exist (over and beyond the base observations that 1.) 935 silver for use in frames - and loops - would seem more appropriate earlier in the war than later; 2.) the "800" mark used on the 800-4 was not a carry-over from either the "large 800" or the "micro 800" seen used by S&L on supposed earlier RK's; and 3.) the "B" crosses resemble much more closely the cross in the 1940 S&L catalog than the "A" crosses) is pretty much "oral" in nature: i.e. the "B" type "Kitzingen" cross of Bob Hritz, obtained by a U.S. officer from a pilot of Immelmann Geschwader when he surrendered, the "B" type cross given to Andreas Klein by a member of Doenitz' staff, and said by him to have been purchased very early (pre-LDO) in the war, the '935' (only) marked cross with unmarked loop (which is very likely a "B" type) reported by Bowen in the hands of a German veteran and said by that veteran (not yet old and senile) to be his wartime cross, the zinc-cored S&L cross confirmed by Pieter Verbruggen to have been the wartime property of Dietrich Pelz, the "B" type S&L RK with Oakleaves and Swords which came from the Estate of Heinz Baer, who died in 1957 without being either a member of the Bundesluftwaffe or the OdR, together with his Juncker RK with Godet Oakleves and Swords..... The evidence is there, but brushed away as irrelevant or the result of mistakes of memory or outright intentional deception (and the naivete' of those deceived). It is hard to prove something regarding crosses not originally intended for award and not documented in the same way award pieces would be.

In any case, I am re-visiting an area which leads to the "Heart of Darkness" for many people, and I will NOT break my commitment to myself not to do so. By all means, the research will continue and I am 100% in favor of seeing as many combinations of frames and cores as possible in the hope of learning something. I, for one, would love to know where the "dipping 3" came from and where it went and why.

[Dietrich Maerz]

To dispute any of the "oral" evidence is impossible, just as it is impossible to dispute the far more numerous "oral" evidence that the later B-Types are all post-war productions from S&L (supported by edicence going into the hundreds). In both case one has to go down a road that I am not willing to go.

The notion, that "935" silver is more appropriate early in the war than later on is not supported by other evidence. The first Knights Crosses had Neusilber frames, not even silver. But the later S&L Knights Crosses of the War Merit Cross were stamped "935" and "4", which fits perfectly with the "935" and "4" of the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross. I personally mean that such evidence is far more convincing (paired with a lot of other circumstantial evidence) than "oral" evidence.

I am not brushing the evidence away, I am just not brave enough to draw any substantial conclusion out of it. Based on 5 or 6 stories I would not say that this or that B-Type is a proven wartime cross, and now worth far more than the current price.

But I am sure that owners of such crosses will always find the evidence they need to get in order to support whatever they think. And they might even be right. I am open minded, but extremely sceptical and a boogeyman.

[Robert T.]

Regarding Robert's response in Post 20, I would be very interested, just out of curiosity, to see the "dipping 3" core in "A" framed crosses with beading flaws and I hope he can show some to us. I personally haven't seen that (which mean nothing, of course) and would love to learn more about their use.

You are right, it is the other way around. "A" type, "non-dipping 3", "micro 800" with no flaws.

Robert

[Rolfi]

Thanks Robert.

So are there any RKs that fit this description:

• A frame
• Dipping 3 core
• Micro 800 mark
• Flawed frame

...or did the flaws develop after the cores were swapped?

Hello,

sometimes you can not see everything 100% in pics.

I have every St&L A KC examined in recent years which I
was accessible. Whether on pictures, in the net or in my hand.

I think there's no KC with dipping3 and flaved frame.
I did not find one. Please, please show me one.

We can find:

- St&L dipping 3 A frame Micro 800 and 800 no flaws
- St&L non dipping A frame Micro 800 and 800 no flaws
- St&L non dipping A frame Micro 800 and 800 flaws

etc.
But not a dipping3 with flaws.

KR

Rolfi

[Leroy]

Many years ago, I was involved in the testing with the military of a new fire-fighting chemical agent, to hopefully replace the old AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). The product worked very well and was environmentally much safer than AFFF. Know what? It failed the military's tests. Why? Because it was being tested, and had to perform, according to the only written testing protocol existing, by the exact same mechanism which made AFFF work (film-forming which "smothered" a fire by depriving it of oxygen). This other product, however, did not work like that. Instead it killed a fire by lowering the temperature to the point where combustion was no longer possible. Made no difference if it actually worked...

I see a similarity here. "B" crosses are evaluated, and data accumulated, by the same criteria applied to "A" crosses. That's a major reason why the 935-4 and 800-4 finally passed (presence at Klessheim) and the others left by the wayside. The others were not meant for award, finished in the same way or generally use the exact same materials as award crosses, or marked for award. They do not show up in groups as award pieces (even though some have come from vets together with their award pieces). They are the "invisible" pieces.

And, yes, everyone needs a boogeyman and S&L is such an attractive target.


P.S. Rolfi's observations are very interesting and match what little I have seen.

[Leroy]

P.S. Rolfi's observations are very interesting and match what little I have seen.

I should have said "match what little I've seen concerning "dipping 3" cores not showing up on "A" frames with flaws."

Also, I've never seen a "large 800" marked "A" frame with a "normal" (i.e. non-dipping 3) core, so this is something new for me.

[kraut72]

Hi Rolfi

this picture 2 micro 800 there are below a "long 3/dipping a tiered one sits up/not "long 3/dipping


I put a circle round the flaws in the identical position 3 clock arm.

because of this if he is with an initial flaws then exists,at the later pieces already with a bigger flaws....


http://kepfeltoltes.hu/view/140130/P...toltes.hu_.jpg

Hello,

sometimes you can not see everything 100% in pics.

I have every St&L A KC examined in recent years which I
was accessible. Whether on pictures, in the net or in my hand.

I think there's no KC with dipping3 and flaved frame.
I did not find one. Please, please show me one.

We can find:

- St&L dipping 3 A frame Micro 800 and 800 no flaws
- St&L non dipping A frame Micro 800 and 800 no flaws
- St&L non dipping A frame Micro 800 and 800 flaws

etc.
But not a dipping3 with flaws.

KR

Rolfi

[Leroy]

this picture 2 micro 800 there are below a "long 3/dipping a tiered one sits up/not "long 3/dipping

Great photo! But I am afraid I do not understand what you are saying. Do you have a photo of either cross showing the "1813"?