3.) (lower right) & 4.) (Reverse)
-
-
Interesting board. The "4", wouldn't want to start up a conversation there but have no faith in that souvenir. A year of manufacture would be very interesting but suspect late 40's to very early 50's during occupation.
To my knowledge, the SKmS, SKoS, no known examples from vet group with droop tail. Impossible, maybe not? The "unknown" SK was a nice looking cross that didn't appeal until proof. It's the digging that turns up the unexpected.
The tail up, tail down, an interesting early drawing but it looks a little unbalanced. Perhaps a prototype made its way for approval somewhere. A hoard of prototypes would be a great discovery and throw us all into a panic on "possibilities".
It's all what the individual collector/historian considers acceptable. Plenty swim against the tide and prefer not to argue what they consider "OK". Value much more dependent on general consensus, rarity, condition, etc.Comment
-
This board was one of several (six, I believe), all clearly originating at the same time, with multiple different awards, supposedly obtained by a British officer "shortly after the end of the war". On one of the others, there were 3 RK's. The RK's were all "micro 800" unflawed "A" types, a subject which, all by itself, could be discussed for a long time.Originally posted by Brian S View Post
Until there is ironclad proof, the "consensus" will likely remain that this type SK was not actually produced during the war. That's just the way it is.
As to the PKZ number, that has been talked to death, but I have a feeling (in other words, IMO) that one day the "PKZ number" argument will cause heartburn to a number of people who believe in it.Comment
-
So this is about "remaining stock". Not the minting of new SK's.Comment
-
I doubt very seriously if new SK's were struck before the very early 1950's. As a sidenote, there's a 1957 EKII still using a ring marked "4" on the eStand right now.Comment
-
I'm referring to your 1942 Letter above. "Remaining stock"Comment
-
I understand, from the original posting a few days ago in the thread "Did Deumer make the Godet DK?" (http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...861715&page=11) that the letter concerns the purchase of material from the PKZ, but BassD and/or Andreas Klein could give you more background.Comment
-
That letter is interesting. It states that the Co. Boerger wants to buy some Spain Crosses (among others) from the Präsidialkanzlei now that the award process was finished (which it clearly was per the records of the PKZ).
Firstly, it has not been talked to death. I might have phantazied by some to fit an agenda (The introduction in 1936 comes to mind to fit some English fakes of the Eagle Order), misunterpreted, and juggled around to fit one little part of the collecting world, and even misused to peddle fakes.As to the PKZ number, that has been talked to death, but I have a feeling (in other words, IMO) that one day the "PKZ number" argument will cause heartburn to a number of people who believe in it.
Secondly, I really would not know what is there to "believe in." The system exists, the numbers are correctly assigned and acknowledged by everybody as the system of the PKZ to track orders. Just because there is no written record yet about the numbers from the PKZ itself (but lots of other evidence!) does not mean they didn't exist or that they are something one has to "believe in."
What is not yet proven is the actual date of the introduction, but lots of evidence points to end of 1942. For the researchers that have looked into this topic from all available angles there is not the slightest doubt about the system and the date.Comment
-
The letter back from the PKZ would have been interesting. "We have lots of SK's in stock..." "We are out, make your own." "Call/write such and such..."Comment
-
Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
Of course the system and numbers exist! How is that questioned???
You have pointed out the quandry. There are no documents discovered yet that tell us, with the certainty we would all like to have, when they came into being. For you to say there "is not the slightest doubt about the system" is true, but to join in the same sentence so it is read together "there is not the slightest doubt about.....the date" is wishful thinking. It used to be 1944, then pushed back to 1943, then pushed back again to "late 1942". The simple fact is that no one knows what will be found tomorrow or next month or next year. So the truth is that the statement should read "there is not the slightest doubt about the system, but the true institution date is not yet established with certainty. Based on lots of evidence we didn't have before, the date now appears very likely to be late 1942." That's all, that's it. Yes, I know you don't want to participate in speculation about documentation which has not been found yet, but there needs to be, IMO, a "running" disclaimer that the date, as research goes on, has already been moved backwards several times from what it was firmly pronounced to be in the past, and there is a possibility, however minor you may believe it to be, that it may be again. "Well, we've been wrong several times already, but this time there's no doubt" is not very convincing.
That is just my opinion. Have a nice evening.
Comment
-
Well said Leroy. The date makes a huge difference. Further back it is pushed, the more we thought is "out of date" becomes possible.Comment
-
Sorry, I obvously misunderstood the meaning of that sentence....... that one day the "PKZ number" argument will cause heartburn to a number of people who believe in it.
It is certainly true that once it was thought that the date was mid 1944 (Gordon Williamson) and I also thought so when I started to look into the topic nine years ago based on the evidence of the Knights Cross alone. Even before that time it was thought that LDO- and PKZ-numbers are the same. Knowledge evolves!
The moment one starts to look into all the other medals handled by the PKZ the picture forms and a date of end of 1942 clearly emerges (as already stated in 2009). One has to look at the German Cross, the East Medal, the KVKs, the WBs and so on. One also should look at the evolution of the PKZ list and the alphabetical blocks.
I know it would be convenient for some to have it be very late and convenient for some to have it very early (I remember the notion that the 935-4 was an early RK specially introduced by Hitler for special occasions ....). But that is not how it works, one has to be in tune with at least some facts. Here is a quote from the always beloved and frequently cited Mr. Bowen:
"I have been told by an eminently relaible and knowledgeable authority in Germany that crosses manufactured before the year 1942 did not have the makers stamp on the rings! I would add, however, that is should not be assumed all crosses without ring stamps are of pre-1942 construction as, no doubt, due to staffing and allied problems, crosses produced after 1942 could also have been dispached from the factories minus ring stamps."
Sure, the date can still can moved! Maybe from end of 1942 to beginning of 1943 (as the former VP of S&L Mr. Preuss claimed it to be). But I really doubt it will be moved back to a time before end of July 1942 (first delivery of East Medals w/o PKZ numbers). Thanks to the research done we are more in a fine-tuning phase compared to the rougher early phase of the investigation. And that is just how it goes when one sets one's mind to it.
I would say "wrong" is a very harsh word. Rather the assumptions made earlier were either based only on a very selective group of medals (like the RK with mid 1944 or the WB with early 1942) or just pure theory (like March 1941). It is convincing, at least for me, to have the case of the German Cross and the East Medal as well as the word of Bowen and Preuss to state the current date of "end of 1942" with a high level of confidence. (and "no doubt" for me personally)."Well, we've been wrong several times already, but this time there's no doubt" is not very convincing.
And that is just my opinion and a nice evening to you, too!
Comment
-
We had a row on these water already....on May 1942 already has been existed PKZ numbered EK&WB. In the consciousness of this the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 is absolutely out of the question!Comment
-
I would just like to know with certainty when the PKZ number system was created and how it was implemented. Up or down, good or bad for some people's beliefs (including my own), makes no difference. It will be what it will be.
Even though the vast bulk of the records of the LDO were apparently stored in an unknown location and have not yet been found in the Bundesarchiv, we seem to know more about the timing and actual implementation of the LDO numbering system than we know about the PKZ numbering system. Perhaps that's because the LDO system dealt with private sales and so was disseminated more publicly than the PKZ system, which was an internal system between the PKZ and actual manufacturing suppliers to the government. Still, it must have been a "big deal" at the time and I would think, perhaps naively, that something like that would be better documented.
This is NOT a criticism at all of the people who research these things. It takes someone who is both fluent in the German language and who understands historical events, to even begin to explore this material. Worse, there are tens of thousands of documents, most of which have not been adequately cross-indexed or ever reviewed by the Archiv for specific content which might benefit collectors. (Face it, we are not a major "lobby" group.) The final blow is that the people who do this for our community are totally self-funded, have "other" jobs, and sacrifice greatly to give us even the "tip of the iceberg". To compound matters, most of the companies who were "players" at the time, and which are "still around" have little or no desire to help by granting access to their records (if they still exist) or even talking. Who wants to be publicized in today's political climate as a willing partipant "with those Nazis"? It is amazing to me that we "know" anything.
As collectors, we spend collectively huge sums of money. I would propose that there be a mechanism where members of WAF (and other forums) help fund necessary research in our respective areas of interest. I would personally pledge $1000 right now to help fund research in the Archiv in my field of interest (RK's). I'd like to see what the PKZ, Juncker, S&L, K&Q, Godet, etc., etc. actually said to each other about what was done, when it was done, and why.
Naive, I'm sure.Comment
-
We had a "row on these waters" already long before you even found your paper you are no basing your very premature and wrong thesis on. So let me clarify for the benefit of the readers who do not know why you state what you state. It always helps to show where an argument, even if wrong, comes from.Originally posted by kraut72 View Post
In May 1942 the PKZ sent a bunch (total of 25 items) of medals to the Hungarian Honved Museum. The list starts with the EK2 2. Class and ends with the German Merit Medal with Swords. Each item was supplied twice, including the Grand Cross, the Diamonds to the Knights Cross (with the remark that the Diamonds are not real), both grades of the German Cross and even a German Cross in Gold with Diamonds (also not real stones). The whole setup of the KVK including the Knights Crosses was also on the list. Basically all the important orders and medals handled by the PKZ.
Kraut now found that the one remaining EK2 is marked with "132" (and evidently some other badges are also stamped with a PKZ number, such as the WB ). I established contact with the museum and was advised by an official that there is no solid chain of posession of the medals, that the second EK2 is missing and - after explaining the reason for my inquiry - that there is no way that this EK2 can be used to fix a date for the introduction of the PKZ because of the uncertainty between 1942 and 2016. A solid statement from the source which Kraut refuses to accept.
Apart from this there is a ton of other evidence excluding a date of May 1942 as a date when the PKZ numbers were already in existence, the East Medal and the Medal for Eastern People being the most convincing regarding a date past July 1942.
Also, the PKZ number 132 is one of the very last ones and Franz Reischauer is only known as a maker of the EK2. If one would believe that this EK2 was initially part of the shipment (as Kraut does) one also has to believe that some time before that the PKZ list was nearly complete or complete. Considering the time to produce the medal after receiving the contract and all the other delays would put the date in maybe late 1941/early 1942 for the nearly full development of the list.
However, at that time big companies like Deschler, Deumer, Juncker, ... did not mark their products with the number, but Franz Reischauer did?
Here is what most likely happened: the whole set of medals did not make it untouched through the last days of the war and also not through the Communist era (I really would like to know where the Knights Crosses are, the two Grand Crosses, the German Crosses , ...the Oaks, the Swords, ...). After the fall of the SU the museum was rebuild or restocked or whatever and a "132" EK2 was aquired to fill one of the gaps. The same with the WB and maybe other items.
To use this one EK2 as a solid argument for this topic is not very scientific, the more so when even the gentleman of the museum says so. Not even considering all the other facts.
I am 100% with my friend Gentry on this. It does not matter when it was as long as it is (fairly) accurate. At this point in time we have only cirumstantial evidence in form of the actual medals and the introduction dates of some of them (plus the word of Bowen and Preuss). For me it is logical that if these medals were not marked in the beginning but later on that the numbering system was not in place at the time of introduction.
If one starts to look really deep into the list a certain picture of an evolution evolves and it becomes clear that the list grew as a resonse to the demand of medals, especially the KVK 2. Class and the EK 2.Class. That demand was not in existence by the end of 1941 and there was no need to have at least 132 companies. The more so when a list of suppliers to the PKZ, dated end of September 41, shows only 88 companies - Reischauer not being on the list.
Research is a holistic process and for a correct picture all pieces must fit the puzzle. If one piece doesn't fit it is adviseable to ask why and not - as Kraut does for whatever reason - throw all the previously assembled pieces of facts out of the window.Comment
Comment