Rk with Oak and Swords

[Unfront]

hello Kfs,

The OLS are made by S&L and sold with the 57er ("New Form") RK's. While I have no doubt that they are not pre-1945, they are technically not "copies" but rather 57 appropriate Oaks. Those OLS's would be well received in the 57er forum. The tell tail sign is the small "o" mark on the lower left of the back side of the oaks. They look very nice.

I do not know enough about the cross though, so I will reserve comment on that. The Oaks are text "57er's" though.

[Tony T-S]

It's a very nice Souval which would also be welcome in the 57er forum. It's also welcome here as many are interested in them as post war constructs by Souval, but it's proper place is in the 57er area

[speedytop]

Hi,

knowing, that several of these OLS had been made before the law from 1957, and knowing, that the makers had nothing to change in the design after the law from 1957, it is absolutely wrong, to call such pieces "57 appropriate Oaks", "57's" or something like that.

They had not been original in 1953, in 1957, 1958 or later.
And especially they could not be a 1957 version.

"post war constructs" is a nice paraphrase for not original pieces, but it doesn't change the reality.

You could order in 1953 for example 20 OLS (or many more) in genuine silver, for 12,70 DM each (6,35 €/8.70 $), the OLS silvered for 7,50 DM each.
In 1956 you had to pay for an OLS in genuine silver 14,50 DM, for an OLS silvered 9,50 DM.

Where is there the contact/connection with the 1957 versions, the TR decorations with a changed design?

It's proper place is in a "not originals = copies" section.

Uwe

[Tom B]

They are post war made Oaks & Swords, but not fakes

[Leroy]

What was the average weekly wage in Germany in 1953 and in 1956? Anyone know?

P.S. This is the S&L O&S sent to the widow of fighter pilot Leopold Steinbatz in 1955 by a squadron mate. To me, it is a POS, not nearly as nice as what came later.

[speedytop]

Hi Tom B,

"They are post war made Oaks & Swords, but not fakes"

I don't write and I don't mean fakes (to fool someone), I mean not original pieces (with visible differences, not made to fool someone).

Uwe

[Unfront]

Sure, S&L had made these oaks pre-57, but these OLS are "57 appropriate" because they are the style and type of Oaks that were made and sold at a time if say a Knights Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords winner would have purchased a new form "1957 law compliant" knights cross along with a set of oaks. These are the type of oaks that would have come in the mail along with the 57er knights cross. That is why collectors of 57er's refer to them as "57er OLS".

They are not war time oaks, but they are not some cheap Pakistani knock off (i.e copy) either. These have some value to [most] 57er collectors.

[Nigel N]

These Oaks aren't wartime originals, no one should think that, but neither are they copies!
Anyone with a fair knowledge of Oaks can usually tell a postwar made set of the 57 production period, from a wartime one, they are different! And as they are different to wartime Oaks, they are not copies, also, as we have discussed many time in the 57 section, copy, in English means the same as fake, something that has been made to fool, something trying to be what it is not, clearly nothing applicable to S&L's postwar produced Oaks! I am sure S&L were making Oaks, postwar, prior to 57, but probably only in small numbers, it was only with the coming of the 57 RK, that Oaks production really took off!
And while we are on a roll, the decorations listed in the Ordensgesetz (medal law) of 1957, refers to the new style medals and badges as "changed form decorations" not "57ers", that term is not used at all!!
So, if you want to say "these Oaks are not changed form decorations" then that is correct, but if you say "these Oaks are not 57ers" that is just a personal view, and one we are free to disagree with, without going against anything in the Ordensgesetz!!
For me, Oaks of this period from S&L, stand alone, they are originals in their own right, not wartime originals, but postwar, or 57 period originals!!
-Nigel

[speedytop]

Hi Nigel,

"... they are originals in their own right ..."

That is my often used definition for "57ers", identical is the definition for the "changed form decorations", because 57ers are decorations in a changed form.

The terms "57er" and "changed form decorations" are not two terms with different meanings, it is only the for decades accepted short form and the longer version.
It is not important, whether the term "57er" is used in the law from 1957.
It is important, that a majority of German and foreign collectors accepted the use of the short form instead of the longer version. There is no real reason, to change that.

Not original decorations like post war made Oaks or OLS can therefore never be "changed form decorations" or "57ers".

Only you and a few other collectors try to enhance the status and the value of some not original pieces like OL and OLS.

That can only be good for dealers, but not for us collectors. We must prevent that, and if that is my last fight here in the forum (it is not the only one I had here and in other forums ).

"... Oaks of this period from S&L ... are ... 57 period originals!!"

With such an opinion we can now declare all not original post war pieces to originals, and we can include all foreign decorations, they are all "57 period originals!!".
A horror vision!

This is my very personal opinion, based on facts, not on wishful thinking.

Uwe

[juoneen]

The top one seems to be a casting and not 3 pc construction....at least thats what the photos look like to me.

[Nigel N]

Hi Uwe!
It is not my intention to enhance the status of postwar Oaks, they are not my area of collecting, so I have no dog in this fight!
But the terms "changed form decorations" and "57ers" are not identical, the first is the official term, used in the Ordensgesetz of 1957, the other is a non official term used by collectors!
To be honest, I don't normally refer to these as 57er Oaks, I usually call them 57 period Oaks, but I know even this is not acceptable to you. There should be some compromise possible, some middle ground, but as I know all too well, you will not give a centimetre on anything, so continual argument is a complete waste of time!!
I will say no more on this!
-Nigel

[Leroy]

Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords produced postwar by S&L are "copies" of the wartime decorations. Although they physically have differences (i.e. flaws) not present on wartime pieces, they are not "changed form" pieces in the same sense that other pieces are by having to have the objectionable swastika removed.

I see Uwe's point that we should not be so sloppy as to refer to them, in a legal or even collector's sense, as being "57ers". They are not. They just happen to be pieces which (mostly) were manufactured and used with the "57er" RK's.

To me, it's not a big deal as everyone seems to know what is meant.

[Nigel N]

Sorry Gentry, but IMO 57 period Oaks are not copies, here in England a copy is a fake, and they are not fakes! They are not wartime original's, but originals in their own right, a copy is made yesterday in Latvia or China!
This is where 57 collectors may have differing opinion's from wartime collectors!
-Nigel

[Tony T-S]

No it is a big deals. They are not copies they are more of the same. The word copies may work in other languages, but not in English. And I cant believe yet another thread has been hijacked yet again with this silly side argument.

[Leroy]

Nigel, I also see what you are saying, but, to me, the only Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords which are "originals" are the ones made during the period of the existence of the government which could award them. (Some might even regard that definition as too loose, since there were certainly sets made during the period 1939-45 which the government did not order for use for award purposes. To me, that is a "Dietrich argument" - - and I am happy with my definition.)


P.S. Sorry to offend anyone! I will shut up now.