Ritterkreuz 21.9.40 Paepcke

[Brian S]

I am not trying to pick a fight and very much respect your opinion in these matters. I just think it is very hard to tell with these without some VERY detailed evaluation, as the above examples all show ADDED crosses to photos of still living recipients. Take a look below at the crosses pictured above- they both look pretty good.

Thanks Tom, but the quality of the two photos is not even close to make a point. I think it's the original and whatever it is in reality it is the original photo of Paepcke with 'a' Knight's Cross. It's THE original photo used by the Propaganda folks at Signal, etc. And, it's still a real RK.

As for Alwin Boerst, notice his photo is NOT included in the book "On the Field of Honor" under Oakleaves. Another photo of him is in the first volume under Swords.

[RoyA]

Congratulations Brian!
Nice addition to your grouping

Roy

[Brian S]

How about this?

Would like to see the whole picture but I believe a shadow is missing from this cross you posted.

[Brian S]

Congratulations Brian!
Nice addition to your grouping

Roy

Thanks Roy. I bought a few photos of RK winners. I want to make sure before I estand any of these that if anyone has the RK they get a chance to purchase these first from me. I am thrilled to have Paepcke's original photo with the info about his Oakleaves on the back. It really helps to make it a more complete grouping.

[tom hansen]

Again- great photo Brian! I am not bashing the photo and think this a a great photo.


However, the point I am making is that:

1. Many of these original studio photos have been altered originally at the studio

2. They are the original RK studio photos

3. They may not have the RK recipient's REAL cross in the picture

4. Becaue of the above, I think the "photo analysis" that we do to match a cross to a recipient is bunk using studio photos, but may be relevant with non "scripted" field photos.


Take a look again at the photo you posted. There is a shadow from the collar on the ribbon, but not on the cross. I would expect from the way the light is coming that there would be a shadow from the collar on the wearers right hand corner of the 12 oclock arm.

[Brian S]

Again- great photo Brian! I am not bashing the photo and think this a a great photo.


However, the point I am making is that:

1. Many of these original studio photos have been altered originally at the studio

2. They are the original RK studio photos

3. They may not have the RK recipient's REAL cross in the picture

4. Becaue of the above, I think the "photo analysis" that we do to match a cross to a recipient is bunk using studio photos, but may be relevant with non "scripted" field photos.


Take a look again at the photo you posted. There is a shadow from the collar on the ribbon, but not on the cross. I would expect from the way the light is coming that there would be a shadow from the collar on the wearers right hand corner of the 12 oclock arm.

Ummm, no. Photos NOT altered at the studio. They are altered by the propaganda ministry. The photographer in many of these is Unteroffizer so and so.

[tom hansen]

Whatever. Nonetheless, the official photos of the recipients with "their" cross appears many times to be altered. Therefore using this as a means of assigning a particular cross with a recipient using studio photos is tough as many of these have been doctored.

[Brian S]

Ummm no if the photo has not been altered and it's a good clear photo. Believe me some of these are absolutely clear.

Ummm yes if the photo is altered then of course it's impossible. Couldn't agree more except to say many of these photos ARE INDEED THE ORIGINAL crosses. Actually in most cases they are the originals. But yes, many are also altered by the propaganda folks.

You should see the photo of Gen Lt. Lorzer with his Pour le Merite and RK over it. It's so clear you can reach out and touch the man.

Now check out Jeckstat. Here is his original photo.

[Brian S]

Yikes, here's Jeckstat's cross closeer. Oh my, is that JUST like one of the ones currently on eBay?

[Dave Kane]

Where's Dietrich when we need his keen eye!!? Actually, Brian that looks a bit like a Rounder.....

[Brian S]

Where's Dietrich when we need his keen eye!!? Actually, Brian that looks a bit like a Rounder.....

Just wait you leeetle hob goblin. We're going to look very closely!

[tom hansen]

Brian- you have posted obviously bad alterations. From the three I have posted above, I would not be at all sure that MOST of the studio photos are of the recipient's actual award. I cannot say what percentage are the actual crosses as I have no knowledge of that. All I am saying is that many of these photos look damn good, and integral to the photo, but can only be discovered as altered through detailed photo analysis.


The main point I am making is that it is very difficult to tell if a cross has been added or not to a studio photo. Again, the three examples I posted show this pretty clearly. I think too much has been made of pairing a cross with a photo of a particularly recipient. In many instances in which these photos are altered, it is in a studio photo. Perhaps the identification of a cross to a recipient would be better made with non-studio photos.

[Dave Kane]

Just wait you leeetle hob goblin. We're going to look very closely!

Stop it...No don't....I love it when you talk like that!!


Tease....show me what you have....

[Brian S]

Just some guy named somthing like Kermit Brick?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

I'm here and I'm watching. My keen eye tells me that the last one might not be original ....not even a Rounder.
The interesting question however remains: How did they put crosses into a picture (other than crude paintings)? Did they use original pictures of real crosses and made a composite or was it just phantasie?
As earlier discussions have shown: If it serves the purpose its a good one, if not it's painted. How could we ever tell?

Dietrich