Any Ideas on This Cross w/Swords (opinions appreciated) *

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Gentry,

to me a postwar production in the area 1945 - 1950 doesn't make any sense due to several reasons:

1.
Until 1948/1949 germany had no real money. And why should an award maker work to be paid with a chewing gum or some cigarettes.

2.
Shortly after the war germany wasn't the friend of anyone and it had been a plan to make germany to a land without military forces and industry (Morgenthau Plan), so why should anyone allow germans to go back to their military history and wear their awards.

3.
We can see a drastic politic change first around 1950 when the cold war starts and now the Russians became the bad boys ... suddenly we find publications like the mention REVUE with articles about the comeback of the german soldier.

If you look when certain magazines dealing with the german military tradition were published for the first time than you are always in the timeframe 1950 -1956 and not 1947.

To me the area beginning with 1950 is the area when existing law - which clearly was against any swaz related things - was more and more handeld with every eye closed but not earlier.

[Leroy]

Thank you, Andreas! That is a perfect summary!

[Dietrich Maerz]

The last few posts (before Andreas, 'kraut72" and "Legion Condor"), especially the recycling of the told-before Spiegel story and the confusing "amateur lawyer" attempt to negate (by reference to the "standard volume about the German order and medal laws") the Allied prohibition on manufacture and display of any material (read "swastika" as being high on the list) which tended to promote or glorify National Socialism, have convinced me that there is a real effort here to engage in revisionist history to suit the views of certain people. This prohibition, by the way, which was one of the first acts of the Allied Control Commission in 1945, was still in effect at the time of, and was (whatever its true enforcement status by 1953) the entire raison d'etre in the first place of the Revue article. (But I wish you luck in your endeavors to research this and understand the fine legal nuances of what you locate.)

Why is it that everytime something shows up that does not fit your viewpoint you start to attack me? I certainly might be an "amateur lawyer" in your eyes, but I can still read and understand German texts - something which you are lacking and try to make up by guess work. And don't you accuse me of revisionist history!
Instead of steering the discussion away from civil exchange to outburst of unfounded accusations use your inside track as a lawyer and locate law no. 7 and 8 of the Allied Controll Commission and show me were the manufacturing is prohibited. I did not find it and in this case I will not rely on your opinion. And even if it was prohibited, there are still the 90% of all B-Types which are made post-war, as you said.

And just to be clear: I only stated what is written in the German book I referrenced and I don't see anything wrong with mentioning solid and reputable sources. That is for sure more solid than free roaming speculations ....

There has yet to be any actual proof here of new production of anything other than sport and shooting badges - which necessarily involved re-design of some swastika-bearing dies (and which had the approval of Allied authorities as specifically noted, for valid reason, in the Revue article) - before, approximately, 1950. There is opinion, piled on top of conjecture and speculation, stated in such a way to make you believe it was fact, but no actual documented proof at all. It is embarassing and frustrating to see those who claim to be "sticklers for proof" engage in such activity. Worse, IMO, this further undermines collector confidence (what little is left of it), to the long-term detriment of this hobby.

I might be a "stickler for proof" (your choice of name, not mine) but I know a lot of people who thank me greatly for this, including those who won in court against dealers who sold them post-war B-Types made by S&L. You say that there is no proof of any new production of anything other than Sportsbages? What is with your statement that more than 90% of the RK B-Types are made post war and only some, maybe 10%, are not? What about the "935"-marked B-Type which all collectors, included the famed advanced and pre-eminent, consider post-war? They are surely of war-time quality! Not made post-war? What is with the badges Norm and Tom mentioned?

If "collector confidence" means that it involves to shove facts under the carpet and to hide the truth or discuss only matters which will not result in only 100 people coming to future shows (Wilmington was already below that ..), well, that is nothing for me. This was the modus operandi before Frank Heukemes, Tom Durante, deBock, Weber, and other "sticklers for truth" started to look deeper into some of the collector lores of those "in the know."
Your attempt to blow up the dicussion about the proven post-war production of S&L into an assumed greater and dangerous topic of destroying the hobby as a whole is wrong. This is an isolated topic and cannot and will not be transformed to all other companies nor does it have an effect on the huge majority of proven originals. It only affects a very small sector of collecting and it was an is time that this topic is looked at closely. And if mine and other people's statements make the collectors more aware of this specific danger than this thread has done what it is supposed to do.

And this time I will not leave this thread just because you attacked me again in person - out of frustration it seems to me. I know what I can read, understand and - actually - I take this "stickler for thruth" as a badge of honor. Far better than to bury or twist the truth.
I trust in your ability to pull yourself together and to separate the person from the topic.

[Norm F]

The last few posts...have convinced me that there is a real effort here to engage in revisionist history to suit the views of certain people.

There has yet to be any actual proof here of new production of anything other than sport and shooting badges - which necessarily involved re-design of some swastika-bearing dies (and which had the approval of Allied authorities as specifically noted, for valid reason, in the Revue article) - before, approximately, 1950. There is opinion, piled on top of conjecture and speculation, stated in such a way to make you believe it was fact, but no actual documented proof at all. It is embarassing and frustrating to see those who claim to be "sticklers for proof" engage in such activity. Worse, IMO, this further undermines collector confidence (what little is left of it), to the long-term detriment of this hobby.

Gentry,

I'm sorry, but to equate this discussion on award production to "revisionist history" is alarmist rhetoric and untrue (although I see from your last sentence that you're more concerned with collector confidence).

I reiterate, most of us don't care whether the striking of new awards began in 1948 or 1950 or 1953 to fill the veteran replacement market and/or collector market. That's just an interesting side discussion to the central theme (which nobody really disputes) that there was a transition from trade in leftovers, to post-war assembly and finish of wartime leftover components, to hybrid assembly of leftover and new components and finally to fully post-war production.

The timeline of those transitions no doubt differs from award to award and can only be discussed in broad strokes or in the context of a specific award. Hans Günter started off this whole discussion in the context of the S&L Spanish cross but the topic widened to war badges and then the Ritterkreuz which seemed to heat the waters of dispute somewhat, but even so nobody denies that post-war assembly was going on and that by the early 1950's relatively open trade was going on in swastika-bearing military awards for veterans as confirmed by the Revue article.

Some collectors leave open the option that the re-striking of 3rd Reich awards could have occurred pre-1950 but no one suggests that is proven. That is not revisionist history, simply an observation that the tools, expertise and even the market existed, regardless of the lack of a German currency or the existence of an Allied regulation that would relegate it to a "black market".

Collector confidence in late war production awards should be affected by the knowledge that post-war assembly occurred and eventually new award stamping (regardless of the exact year). It's not right to propagate the myth that a common zincer with an atypical setup is an undisputed "fine wartime original" and has equal footing and value to a personalized early war Tombak award from a veteran grouping. And not all minty hoard finds should be accepted on face value in the name of "consumer confidence". The community questions and discusses, hopefully dispassionately, and generally some good comes out of it in the end.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dear Andreas,

is there in your opinion a difference between let's say 1947-1949 S&L produced prodcuts (and producing is not necessarily running big machines day and night, but also means finishing products with left-over parts form earlier times) and those products made in 1950 - 1957?

What is so important and revealing if the post-war prodcution was not in 1946-1949, but started in 1950? Aren't all those product post-war fakes? Or is it that by 1950 the workers at S&L lost all their ability and skills to produce wartime quality? I don't think so!

To make it clear: for me a post-war product is already a fake, even if only the time of soldering is past May 8 1945. The reason is that this product was not made for the government of the Third Reich but rather in order to sell it as a replacement or souvenir.

To acknowledge that a lot was made post-war by S&L (and we ALL do!), but to make a difference between the time of 1945-1949 and 1950 onwards seems somewhat strange to me! And to believe that nothing was sold, completed, traded, handled, or whatever between 1945 and 1949 seems very blue-eyed to me and neglects the barter boards for instance.

So, can somebody enlighten me what is the difference between fakes made in 1945-1949 and those made between 1950 - 1957?

And thank you, Norm! That is a perfect summary!

[Brian S]

OK, now I've read everything...

Conclusion: S&L made some postwar awards sometime after May 1945, with/without original parts, available in large quantities time permitting.

Did I miss a new revelation in all this?

[Leroy]

Well that was certainly a personal attack. Who is over-reacting now?

I am talking about the period May, 1945 to @1950, yet you wish to turn my request for documentation of new die-striking activity during that time period into a denial by me of such activity after that time period, which is NOT TRUE. I am quite confident that pieces were newly produced in the 50's, 60's and beyond. This why I have said repeatedly that probably 90% or more of "B" type crosses on the market are postwar. Please prove to us all when S&L made the first postwar "B" cross. I am not the only one to believe there are "B" crosses (other than the "4" series) which are wartime, nor am I the only one to believe that the talk of new die-striking of military awards in the immediate postwar time by S&L is simply wrong. Assembly from existing parts, yes. New die-striking, no.

The history of the Allied Control Commission has been thoroughly discussed on this Forum before. There are numerous references and serious writings about it available online and elsewhere, as well. I have read very many of them and can only suggest that you do, too. I'm sorry you find so much fault with my German translations (which are admittedly very, very basic).

I am happy that you helped expose improper practices by certain dealers. That was a service to this community. I don't know what legal cases you were involved in, what type of "B" crosses were involved or what you said, but since you made the statement here publicly the other day that you would never write an expertise about a "B" other than a "4" series because you "just didn't know" I would expect that your testimony conformed to that.

I'm not leaving this thread, either, so have a nice day.



Norm - Inaccurately stated history IS revisionist history. I believe time of new production can affect materials used, finishes used, supplies available, etc., etc., so it IS important to be as precise as possible. If there is going to be an effort (and there should be) to get it right, then try to get it all right.

[Andreas Klein]

Dear Andreas,

is there in your opinion a difference between let's say 1947-1949 S&L produced prodcuts (and producing is not necessarily running big machines day and night, but also means finishing products with left-over parts form earlier times) and those products made in 1950 - 1957?

What is so important and revealing if the post-war prodcution was not in 1946-1949, but started in 1950? Aren't all those product post-war fakes? Or is it that by 1950 the workers at S&L lost all their ability and skills to produce wartime quality? I don't think so!

Hello Dietrich,

there is no definitive YES or NO answer possible to that question and the question has to be examined for every maker and every award standing for it's own.

To make the perfect postwar award you need much more than the worker and the die. It's my opinion that for that a maker would have needed the 100% wartime supply line consists of:

1. the die
2. the machines
3. the workers
4. the chemistry for the finish
5. the setup

If a maker was able to get all this together postwar i say that he was able to have the perfect postwar award and we would identify it as wartime because it shows everything we look for. If one of the five parts was missing we would spot differences and have a chance to identify a postwar product.

Example:
I had a talk in 2003 or 2006 (can't remember the exact year) with S&L when the B-Frame discussion popped up and got a clear statement from them:

- The cross itself wasn't a problem because that this is/was simple metal forming for them

- The problem was the frosted finish because the supplier for that chemistry wasn't avaiable anymore

so their summary was: striking in wartime quality yes but finishing it in wartime quality no

So i'm not focused only on the award itself and search for a certain flaw because a die flaw of 1942 would be still there in 1952 .. i look for the overall look and feel of the award:

1. cross
2. ribbon
3. case

The cross itself may show me the correct wartime flaw but it has to come with the correct ribbon and case too to have imo a chance. So for me a B-Frame with correct finish, correct quality and correct ribbon has in my eyes the chance to be a rare good one because i knew that the finish and the ribbon had be the postwar problem of S&L.

Perhaps the starting year is from the first view not important but i think we should be as correct as we can be otherwiese such discussions are senseless. May i remind you of the Klein & Quenzer crosses which were sold as early wartime pices .... if you hadn't been correct in researching the timeline no one had ever seen that he bought a story and not an early cross.

Btw i have not that much fear about the perfect postwar KC in wartime quality flooding the collections. There is an interesting part in the Revue article saying that Knoth - similiar to wartime LDO shops - was selling his stuff only to people which could prove that they were allowed to wear the award. Imo the market for knight crosses was limited .... and i fear that collectors of common stuff like combat badges are in more danger to have a black sheep in their mob.

Please see the attached picture what we were able to buy in 2012 and how it fits on a wartime made badge. Is there anyone who is able to detect differences between the 2012 setup and the 19?? one.

[Brian S]

To make the perfect postwar award you need much more than the worker and the die. It's my opinion that for that a maker would have needed the 100% wartime supply line consists of:

1. the die
2. the machines
3. the workers
4. the chemistry for the finish
5. the setup

If a maker was able to get all this together postwar i say that he was able to have the perfect postwar award and we would identify it as wartime because it shows everything we look for. If one of the five parts was missing we would spot differences and have a chance to identify a postwar product.

Exactly! Now solder it correctly and finish it correctly. Thank goodness for Juncker...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andreas,

all you say is correct but it doesn't take all this to solder a hinge or a pin to a badge or to solder frames of an Iron Cross together. As I said earlier, even the soldering and only the soldering post May 8 1945 is already creating a fake.

It does not necessarily mean that machines are running, acid baths are fired up and all the skilled labor was recalled. It could have even happened - as you pointed out several times already - at a home of a former employee.

I am always asked for definite proof. Let me do the same trick here: Are you 100% sure or are you in any posession of any documentation that cleary indicates without any doubt that there was no post-war production (even just soldering) in the time between 8. May 1945 and 31. December 1949?

[Andreas Klein]

Andreas,

all you say is correct but it doesn't take all this to solder a hinge or a pin to a badge or to solder frames of an Iron Cross together. As I said earlier, even the soldering and only the soldering post May 8 1945 is already creating a fake.

Agreed ... but creating the fake isn't the problem - it's about detecting the fake.

And no i haven't the so called definitive proof. The earliest document about a postwar start i know is dated 01.11.1951 and labeled as 2nd edition. That's all ...

I have written above why i would accept 1949 to 1950 as possible start date aswell and why i do not believe in any date before ... but this is my very own conclusion and everyone has to decide by it's own if he follows my conclusion or not. I can't give a definitive proof.

But fore sure i have no personal problem with anyone about the subject.

[Norm F]

I am always asked for definite proof. Let me do the same trick here: Are you 100% sure or are you in any posession of any documentation that cleary indicates without any doubt that there was no post-war production (even just soldering) in the time between 8. May 1945 and 31. December 1949?

Hi Dietrich,

As far as I can tell, everyone accepts that a heck of a lot of soldering of wartime leftovers probably went on between 8. May 1945 and 31. December 1949. And like you say, that also constitutes post-war production even if using all wartime leftover parts.

The only point upon which Gentry becomes so impassioned is the suggestion that new striking of planchets (or frames or cores) may have occurred prior to 31. December 1949, a time period for which we have conjecture but no proof either way, and in the interest of world peace maybe it's time to leave it at that...

Best regards,
---Norm

P.S. Thanks, Andreas, for the excellent illustration of the dilemma regarding zinc war badges and post-war assembly -- certainly a grey area.

[Leroy]

As far as I can tell, everyone accepts that a heck of a lot of soldering of wartime leftovers probably went on between 8. May 1945 and 31. December 1949. And like you say, that also constitutes post-war production even if using all wartime leftover parts.

The only point upon which Gentry becomes so impassioned is the suggestion that new striking of planchets (or frames or cores) may have occurred prior to 31. December 1949, a time period for which we have conjecture but no proof either way, and in the interest of world peace maybe it's time to leave it at that...

I am in favor of world peace...

[Brian S]

To the average collector arguing about the exact date is not meaningful. The bottom line here is can we detect fake S&L and I have to say no. No because it is so subjective which is just sad. I can't show an S&L cross I know to 100% in my subjective mind to be a wartime example and the shouts start coming in for zinc, postwar, not a pin I recognize, etc. So when I as an average collector take the collective subjective noise from moderators and members, it is more than a little bit troubling. To the new collector, I say stay away from S&L until you are very sure of yourself and what you are buying. Yes I know there are obvious wartime pieces like A Frame RK's.... But the noise here is deafening with no accurate conclusion. I think Norm has done a lot of work on the KM pieces which is not in my knowledge bank but so much more needs to be done on the other awards. And somehow it has to ascend above the subjective "I have one in my collection therefore it is good..." This thread started on the Spain Cross and nothing so far in this thread has moved that bar forward.

[Brian S]

Pin has been shown on a typical postwar S&L that I am seeing reproduced on postwar S&L Spain Crosses.

That is a step in the direction of ID'ing a postwar S&L Spain Cross. Look closely at the examples Hans posted in the beginning of this thread.