Manufacturers of the Grand Cross

[Dave Kane]

What's really "unfortunately" is that too many such unfounded rumors have been introduced into the hobby! And they survive! Most likely because it is somehow 'interesting' to quote them since it gives one the 'air of being in the know...'

The simple other questions this: if "there is no real way to tell the wartime and postwar strikes apart"... how would one know anyway? Think about it!

Same BS as the always nice to tell 'Godet restrike" and "Post war Klein diamonds".

Dietrich

Yes, it's UNFORTUNATE that so many collectors hang their hat and trust a lot of what has been written.....

Willy nilly, unfounded and un-tested statements continue to cost unwary and novice collectors lots of $$!

[Tiger 1]

Dave,

You're constant 'reminders' at others who made mistakes about what was accepted at the time are tiresome. This issue has been adequately resolved. The hobby grows and advances with the passing of time.

Tony

[Dave Kane]

Dave,

You're constant 'reminders' ( aka gleeful digs) at others who made mistakes about what was accepted at the time are tiresome. This issue has been adequately resolved. The hobby grows and advances with the passing of time.

Tony

Tony, you need to relax and realize that all I have done is compare two different approaches to producing a a text.....one scientific and the other a self proclaimed 'expert', whom in the end couldn't stand the heat.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentleman,

this is completely unnecessary!

It is clear w/o any doubt that Gordon Williamson based his publication of the Rounder at that point in time on what a lot of people thought (including Mr. Detlev Niemann - considered the ultimate authority on the subject of the orders and medals of the 3rd Reich) to be the real deal.

It is not correct to say he included a proven fake! It was not proven at that point in time.

Just let it go and look at the positive side: the collector community was able to prove beyond any doubt that it is a fake.

Living is learning!

Dietrich


PS: I edited some of the last posts...

[Tiger 1]

Gentlemen,

Apparently with Dave bringing up this point on a regular basis and out of context with the ongoing discussion at hand it is necessary.

I've been relaxed about this issue once it has been resolved in the collector community. Dave has not. But, as the young ones are fond of saying...Whatevah!

Now about science..............

Science is indeed wonderful as is the scienticfic approach. But science by itself is also not the last word nor is it in itself completely infalible.

Proof?

Look to the humble bumble bee. When solely using the scientific approach, has been 'scientifically' proven inadequately areodynamic and thus impossible for it to fly. In this case the 'scientific' facts couldn't stand the heat.

Time for Dave to relax and let this issue go. Doing this will in no way diminish his 'expertise' in this case.

Tony

[Bob Hritz]

We all agree that learning is an evolution from the gathering of data and application to the knowledge base. None of us have all the answers, but collectors have spent countless hours studying the minutae of their special interests.

There is much to say about those who rush to publication, for the egotistical accolades, but I do not believe Gordon Williamson is of that genre.

Gordon has learned, as have we all, and has accepted scientific critisism and has had his books greatly improve as his knowledge base was expanded. it is up to each of us to contribute what we can to the greater knowledge. I am glad that participation, in further learning, is ongoing with each passing day.

My congratulations to those who have the dicipline to publish and continue publishing as learning continues.

When I started collecting, my frined Tiger 1 (Tony) and I had to rely on line drawings and the misinterpretation of the few existing authors, of that era. We studied, learned, collected, made great buys, and made devastating mistakes. Neither quit or gave up, because we believed that pooled knowledge, of collectors sharing common interest, would one day shine the light on a cloudy subject. Well Tony, the clouds are parting and we can study in better light that we had, when we began. Much of these thanks are due to those who took the job of publishing that answered questions, asked more questions, and stimulated debate which brought us to our current level of knowledge.

Bob Hritz

[Tiger 1]

[AlikN]

That other maker of the Grand Cross also made 1914GC,
...post #6 http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ad.php?t=55496
and 1813GC, beautiful display pieces, here is the 800 mark that is used on those,
...anyone seen it on anything else?

[Leroy]

Is this the same mark? (Probably not now that I see them posted above each other!)

[U-Boot Kapitan]

Grand Cross 1939

Does anyone have any further ideas as to who the maker of these GKs in blue cases may have been, and indeed their period of manufacture?

Up to now I have only ever seen two cased; one being the piece at the beginning of this thread posted by Gordon Williamson, the other being this one that I found, which came out of the woodwork.

As Gordon stated, they differ from the Souval pieces in many ways.

The case shown below is exactly as the RK KVK cases except for the GK shaped recess.

Positive comments welcome.

[U-Boot Kapitan]

Cased 1939 Grand Cross

Just thought I'd revive this thread to see if there's any new information out there on the possible maker/origin of this cross.

I cannot find a trace of any other matching cross/case sets anywhere.

Any help greatly appreciated.

PS: Just seen this thread which shows a 1939 GK on display at S&L:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...39+grand+cross

Regards,
Jay

[spinnin4s]

A few years ago I aquired an interesting GC from an old collection:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=493404

The iron core appears to be an original Juncker GC core but the silver frame with ribbon loop is marked L/13 for Paul Meybauer. Speculation suggests it was made by Meybauer for shop/ museum display? I believe Juncker and Meybauer were both locatad near one another in Berlin, so perhaps Meybauer found it cheaper to use an existing available Juncker GC core for their display piece?

[RKC]

Jay:

You might want to ask around England about that possible 3rd maker of the Grand Cross! I remember that exact pattern showing up here at one of our 'CSMMI' shows in Niagara Falls, Ontario at the Fox Head Hotel back around 1982. 2 '1939' Grand Crosses came into the show along with a copy of the 'Blutcher Star' & under close inspection all 3 had a buggered-up bottom beading section whereby the left-side portion along the bottom was stamped quite a bit smaller in height than the right-side portion of the same bottom beaded section.

All 3 of these items came in with the same guy....a dealer/member from England & after he fessed-up to these being "copies" he said they were being "manufactured in England". The Crosses were good looking until you caught the bottom beading....then you knew what you had. The 'Star' was beautifully convexed & nicely plated but the 'beading' along the bottom of the cross was it's downfall. At the end of the 2-day show all 3 pieces went back to England & I don't recall ever seeing that dealer/member at any further shows & none of these pieces ever showed up in our part of Canada after that.

Ron

[U-Boot Kapitan]

1939 Grand Cross

Thanks for the replies guys... Any input is much appreciated.

Ron,
With regard to your comment on the lower row of beading:
What looks like a narrowing of the left side is actually patination/darkening of the frame which the camera has picked up. The metal itself is quite even.
I'll take some better pics soon.

What continues to intrigue me is how the case is identical in every way to the wartime RK KVK cases, except for the recess for the GK.
These two have always been together and this makes me almost certain that both are wartime made items.
(I did say almost certain!).

Please keep any info. coming

Regards,
Jay

[Dietrich Maerz]

The topic of the Grand Cross is very interesting and always attracts attention - up to the point of spreading the most unfounded and badly researched "theories" around.

Fact is this:

- Juncker was the only authorized maker of the Grand Cross
- the award piece to Goering was a Juncker Grand Cross marked "800"
- Juncker made more than just one Grand Cross and most of them are marked "800" "L/12" and were produced for the private retail market as display pieces.
- they were recalled in October 1941 to the PKZ and at the end of the war these crosses were stored in Schloss Klessheim from where they were "liberated" by soldiers of the 10th Engineer Combat Battalion/3rd US Infantry Division

It is possible that during the time frame between the founding of the order and the prohibition of the private sale other companies tried their luck in producing the Grand Cross. There is, however, no evidence.

That Grand Crosses were available and on display before the one and only award to Göring is a matter of period documents. That the PKZ had examples to send out to museums and sell to collectors is also documented.

All this makes it very hard to justify another maker (or - just for the fun of it - a different one) - maker of the Grand Cross. IF there was one it was before the founding of the LDO in mid 1940. After that point in time DR. Doehle had the controll over the manufacturers and had to approve any production.

A "L/13" maked Grand Cross is possible IMHO, whereas the cross itself was or is most likely a Juncker (just as the "L/13" marked Juncker RK). There was a Grand Cross on display at the booth of Steinhauer & Lück at the Leipzif fair. Nobody can tell whether it was a genuine S&L product or a Juncker.

Now what Göring himself wore or had made and how many and in what materials is pure speculation and has nothing to do with the foundation of the order, the production, the producing company and/or the distribution of the officially licensed and produced pieces. To spin all kinds of theories out of the flamboyand personallity of Göring might be nice story telling, but real research has to be based on facts. The platinum-framed and onyx-cored set is testament to that. For me, that set is at most an interesting piece of history, if real. But they are not a genuine and authorized order of the Third Reich.

By the way: the next auction of Andreas Thies has a Grand Cross with gilded frame.

Dietrich


PS: The bold notion in post #1 made by G. Williamson that the Juncker dies for the Grand Cross resurfaced in the 60s and that restrikes were made which are undistinguishable from the original is not supported by any evidence at all. I personally believe it to be untrue based on the reality of the hobby. Williamson had not identified the features of the Grand Cross made by Juncker and was therefore not in a position to determine the maker of a cross with certainty. Nowadays we know the features of real Grand Crosses down to microscopic detai (literally) and based on this knowledege I find the re-strike theories (there are others, equally unfounded) - as flashy and lurid they might be for some - very far fetched. At least Williamson should have told us how they are marked .... and finished .... and cased .... and what about the ribbon ... and the loop ..... And where are they all? I honestly think he mixed them up with some normal British-made fake.