K&Q was a prolific maker that's for sure ! Tom
-
-
Be very careful, as the Hartmann cross was allegedly privately purchased in 1944 in a shop (against the "rules" of course) and there is no history before that. Although the cross, according to the book, retains its "800 65" loop" (strange in itself when purchased by a person who already had the Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds "add-on"), we now know that PKZ numbers were NOT assigned in 1944 (as Dietrich believed when he wrote the book), but at some point in 1942 (if not earlier). In other words, there is NO proof that the "flaw" developed only after November, 1944.Originally posted by mwl View PostDietrich Maerz states in his splendid book "This likely happened after November 1944, since Hartmann cross does not have the flaw."
By the way a nice cross
Regards,
MatsComment
-
It is certainly true that the PKZ numbers were not assigned in mid 1944 as I wrote in my book. That statement was based on the observations in connection with the Knights Cross only and I should have made that clearer.
However, in the context of when the PKZ numbers showed up on Knights Crosses, the date mid-1944 still is (roughly) correct. The reason has nothing to do with the introduction of the numbers in late 1942, but rather with the use on a specific medal.
The K&Q cross Hartmann bought himself and which came directly from him (and there is no doubt about that) was for sure made before the date of November 1944. How long before that date is not known. Could be weeks, could be months.
Fact is that the flaw is a sign of a genuine late war K&Q and that is a good thing. IMHO there is no difference in originality between one with or one without flaw. I still have more data about the K&Q and will have to look at it in detail.Comment
-
There has been speculation that PKZ numbers were "late showing up" on RK's because the PKZ had such sufficient stocks of crosses that no new ones needed to be ordered until late in the war. There has also been speculation that PKZ numbers, although in existence and in use on other awards in 1942, were not mandated for use on RK's until later in the war. The truth is that, although these speculations may have some truth to them, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS and there is no documentation on the subject. Much of the speculation is fueled by RK's contained in supposedly "confirmed" award groupings to specific individuals, but this is dangerous territory indeed as very many recipients lost their original awards (mainly during the surrender or capture process) and acquired replacements postwar, many dealers "put together" groups, and, in the overall scheme of things, of the approximately 8000 crosses awarded, only a relatively small percentage have been truly "confirmed".Comment
-
how there is a logician why because of this more with 65" as unmarked..Comment
-
I would completely agree that the "flaw" shows up more on "800 65" crosses than on "800" crosses and that "800 65" crosses are likely later than "800" crosses, but we still can't prove the time frame for either with certainty. (Does the "flaw" show up on any "800" crosses??)
"The K&Q cross Hartmann bought himself and which came directly from him (and there is no doubt about that) was for sure made before the date of November 1944. How long before that date is not known. Could be weeks, could be months."
Could be a year or two years, too. What if the shopkeeper acquired it before October, 1941? (How would the shopkeeper get a PKZ-numbered cross - whenever he got it - anyway??)Comment
-
Every shop could keep one display piece after October 1941 and if a shop opened up past that date I would assume that the shop owner could aquire a cross for display purposes. That the cross is a "65" marked cross is completely correct since only PKZ-marked crosses could be aquired after the use of the PKZ-number since all the crosses bought by the PKZ had that number later on. Just like the late "2", the late"4" and the late "20" the same applies to the "65".
Regarding the time frame it is absolutely clear that the "800" only came before the "65", there is not the slightest doubt.
Yes November 1942 would also be within the possibility and is in line what other evidence indicates. Before October 1941 can't be since then it would not be marked "65".Could be a year or two years, too. What if the shopkeeper acquired it before October, 1941?Comment
-
Great discussion. I appreciate all the information you all have provided thus far, certainly an education for me.Comment
-
Yes, nice discussion and perhaps one day actual documentation will surface to bring everything together.Comment
-
-
..Comment
-
Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
We still don't know what "late" is, nor do we know the procedure for a shopkeeper obtaining a cross for display after October, 1941. Why would a cross bought "for display only" bear any mark at all? It's not being bought for re-sale, nor was it manufactured for the government (unless you want to say the PKZ sold crosses to shopkeepers).
Remember this photo?
P.S. "hkusp40": Nice cross!Comment
-
I so wish that was my display cabinet and not a 70 year old shop window.
Comment
-
-
In my book it´s on page 41Originally posted by Tom B View Post
Regards,
Mats
Ps. EKI by Maerz & Stimson Ds.Comment
Comment