Klein & Quenzer A.G.

[Brian S]

You can see they are all from the same die, but that doesn't answer the question of when they were produced.

That's right Craig but the fakers are more than likely not to get the finishing and frosting correct.

[milsurp]

Do we have a mint 65 with provenance between us? Mine doesn't.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

It seems as if all of the evidence is posted and it is time to come up with a closing statement.

My Knights Cross is attributed, I have the entire group including the documents, and the one I owned previously was also attributed. It's not iron clad, but they are attributed.

I do know an iron clad K&Q owned by a friend and forum member, received directly from the veteran and with pictures that show it in wear (there are distinct characteristics on it). The recipient is still alive and so the owner is understandably hesitant to post it, but it is nevertheless there and will I'm sure eventually come out. That cross shares the characteristics of the ones posted here.

Let me approach this from a slightly different angle. What would be satisfactory to the skeptics here?

On one hand, I’ve personally had two Knights Crosses with provenance and know of one with iron clad provenance. These all share the same die characteristics as the three or four additional pieces posted here. There isn't a unusual die flaw, or differences that would raise concern .... in fact, there's not one iota of physical evidence on the 1939 crosses to suggest a fake run.

On the other hand, we have one 1957 piece made with K&Q frames. For all we know, one guy had the core swapped out, or may be K&Q made a few with left over frames, or sold the frames to firms that were. We simply don't know, but that and that alone isn't enough to draw any conclutions. We also have rumors and tales of tools changing hands, the kind of tale that captures the imagination of collectors and plays to their inner fears of perfect fakes. Some collectors tell them vividly, invoking visions of sunglassed, well dressed men boarding a plane with the master dies in a suitcase to rendezvous with jewelers and metallurgist that will secretly make limited runs of perfect Klein und Quenzer Knights Crosses in hills of California. Let’s get real here, folks, and stick to what is, and not what if.

What is is that this thread has only helped reinforce my feelings that what we have here are pre-1945 produced pieces. I always say those who own the pieces have to feel comfortable with them, and no one else. More comfy, I could not be.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Seba,

again I must say that your conclusion is about 80% correct but not completely.

- there is not even the slightest doubt that K&Q crosses were produced and awarded in maybe considerable numbers late in the war.
- there is the still to be prooven fact (so far from what Harry said is is so) that K&Q used the war time die or wartime left over frames to produce 57 crosses for some time

This leaves the door open for the suspicion that they also might have produced 45-style crosses after the war. This is what Gordon implied in several threads here and elsewhere, learning this from former employees. This cannot be discounted and is supported by the fact of 57 crosses with 45 frames.

Unfortunately (or fortunately??) the K&Q die -having numerous tell tale signs - has no clear progressive die flaw as the S&L die clearly had. Not having such an artificial time line, there is no way one could say when a cross was produced, if one even wants to believe in the theory that K&Q might have continued to produce crosses after the war.

So, where's the problem? Same die, same company, same cross appearance and finish, different time of production (maybe?). That's the save heaven you are in, not more and not less. Unless you have a cross with dead solid provenance. But even then it's the same K&Q. I wouldn't mind having one, knowing what I know today...

Dietrich

[Sebastian Bianchi]

We agree more than we disagree. I don't doubt Harry of course but again I point out that we only have one. Of all the people in all of the forums (and many have tracked the world) we have only seen one 57.

For me, the die flaws are most welcomed and fortunate. I don't mind having one either

[milsurp]

I think this thread has proven at least one point, that K&Q produced these mint cased 65 RK's. Since inspecting so many in this thread and all of them match in both flaws and finish, there is no doubt in my mind, that the conspiracy theory of the dies being sold and mint RK's being produced from them by fakers is a load of bolox. At least if you base this on the crosses we have inspected, the finish is too professional and precise in comparison to known war time crosses. I think that alone was an achievement and debunks the conspiracy theorists, which is what this thread set out to do.

The second hand accounts that K&Q produced RK's post May '45 is something everyone who owns one or wants to own one, will have to ponder if it really makes a difference to them. It doesn't to me either.

[tom hansen]

........... is a load of bolox. .

I love the way people talk in the UK. It sounds alot more dignified than BS.


Craig- As noted above, I have a K&Q as well, and agree that the finish on the crosses posted is very professional and the dies match perfectly with the flaws. However, I do not think that we can dismiss the possibility of post war crosses wimply by these comparisons. I WOULD think the following

1. These crosses are probably from the same time, as none show marked differences in muting of the flaws

2. These crosses all have professional finishing

3. The cores are the same

4. They have about the same weight


Now the thing we don't know is if ALL these crosses are restrikes. I would certainly think the odds of that are very low. I, again, really think a good clue would be analyzing the paint. The Iowa State guy has not called me back yet. This would at least tell if a piece is modern (from the 80s) or not. I agree also with Seba that Harry's cross is an aberration, as no one has ever seen one and is probably made from wartime frames.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Tom, you're forgetting about the one with the provenance. If they all match that one, we're seen ghosts in the shadows.

[tom hansen]

Provenance can be faked, but I agree with you that the liklihood of these ALL being retrikes is low. This thread sure makes me more cozy about the cross I have, which is comforting. I still am going to check the paint, as I think for nothing else it will be a good academic exercise and allow me to pay a visit to our less highly regarded intra-state rival- iowa state.

[milsurp]

I am still very interested in your test Tom, how accurate is their analysis?

Something I have trouble comprehending, is why we haven't seen progressive die flaws, I expected to see some, but at least we haven't found any on the crosses we have examined, well at least not yet. Surely you can only manufacture RK's using dies in one way.... Is it possible we don't have a varied enough cross section of crosses?

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Tom, I look forward to the results of your study as well. Why not? The more study, the better.

[tom hansen]

That is possible Craig. Perhaps there were not as many K&Qs made as juncker crosses, where you can see a "muting" of die flaws from early to late crosses. With fewer total crosses, perhaps there was not sufficient numbers produced to cause a muting of these flaws.

The technique to analyze paint is called x-ray spectrophography. It is used in the analysis of paint in paintings to determine trace metals composition which forms a "fingerprint" of paint from certain eras. Differences is metal content, such as cadmium, zinc, and lead in different pigments changed over time, and allows one to "ballpark" tell a period from which the pigment originates. It is really quite interesting stuff and I am suprised it has not been done before with medals. But then again, there may be very few people out there that are more paraniod than me.

Seba- the guys at Iowa State are mulling it over, so I am waiting to hear from them. They said if they would not do it, there is a commercial forensics lab in Kansas City that has one.

[milsurp]

Thanks Tom. Any idea how big the ball park is? Will it be able to pinpoint the decade? It would be nice to have a completely mint piece evaluated. That would surely put an end to all of this.

Well, frankly there should be IMO. We also know that K&Q RK's were prolific award pieces towards the end of the war and more RK's were issued in the second half of the war. So personally I would expect a similar pattern to the S&L die issue unless another manufacturing process was used.

[tom hansen]

Craig-


I really do not know without further research. I am sure I can find out by writing the Chicago Art Institute. Hey! I will do that right now. There is a site on the web that goes through history of pigment and characteristics of these pigments over the last few hundred years. I think that will be a start. I will email the Art Institute and ask.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,


but always remember: Old paint can be attached to new steel. I know it's done in the field of faking hunting decoys (ducks) by using old lead based paint. It will not be conclusive if the paint is old, but it will be exclusive if the paint is new.

Dietrich