The early unm 26 I have .
Douglas
Douglas
-
-
You have proof of this? So a division engaged in combat on the Eastern Front send a requisition to BH Mayer, for instance? I highly doubt that. Crosses were ordered by OKH (likely PA/P5) from various manufactures and funneled through a standard system of supply. Even if inventory issues were encountered and changes had to be made - like the Gablonz process - there surely were build-ups or overlaps of supply in the pipeline (again, FIFO was likely not always executed). We see this with EK award documents as the First Type was used later in the war despite the two main changes in format done around 1942/43.Originally posted by Douglas 5 View Post
So, I would not rule out these "sets" as not feasible, the same way we would when comparing an early award document with a later war cross. In my opinion, many of these sets are legitimate. I think we as collectors are so skeptical of "married" sets when many of them are likely ok. In this day and age, it is far more lucrative to sell an EK1 and EK1 document separately than together. So, when they are sold together, we should surely question them as an original pair. But we should not rule them out based on a false perception of a strict supply and demand process.Comment
-
Oh my goodness ....
I had gone over to correct spelling errors and see now I forgot a very important word in one sentence .
It should read .... " manufacturers did not send orders directly ... " the word not was left out .
My mistake Brian !
OK ... I got the award and award document combination association .
DouglasComment
-
Fair enough.Originally posted by Douglas 5 View Post
Great crosses in this thread.
Thanks, Douglas!
BrianComment
Comment