Spanienkreuz without swords- Last purchase

[Jeff V]

I was just rereading Tom's post about the finish on Brian's cross which get me thinking. Do we know how these silver pieces were finished? Is is a for sure thing that an award made out of silver in the silver grade would not have a finish over it? As we all know silver tarnishes quickly. Were the crosses blasted or burnished to remove scorch marks from soldering? Maybe someone who knew how they did it back then could help me.
Jeff

[Norm F]

Well, like any debate, there's a common middle ground here which we need to hone in on.

We're interweaving two separate topics in this thread:

1) The legitimacy of some "4"-marked Spain Crosses.

Without doubt S&L had wartime leftovers of various sorts for post-war assembly and/or eventual restriking as early as the 1950's, which makes it impossible to make a categorical statement covering all S&L awards bearing "4"-marked pin stock.

Only ironclad provenance of wartime pieces and forensic comparison of subsequent examples to those verified pieces can determine a standard for authenticity -- a level of proof we usually lack. Dietrich is convinced by the number and quality of his research sources that there exist legitimate "4"-marked Spanish Crosses, and if that were laid out in detail in his book or in a discussion thread, perhaps we would all agree. Even then we need close study of such an example to compare with other contenders for authenticity. In the meantime, we're left with less robust methods of study to identify some "4"-marked awards as post-war based upon crudity or severe anomalies in construction.

2) The description of Brian's "two-of-a-kind" cross marked L/16 and "800" -- a totally separate topic.

No one here has suggested this cross wasn't actual silver, although Tom did muse aloud in one post it would be interesting if one could verify this (there was a typo of saying "900" vs. "800" silver). The base metal was not the main sticking point in the appearance, but rather the hinge/pin assembly which (as far we collectively know on this forum) has never appeared on a known wartime S&L product (images from Brian's previous posting attached). This, combined with S&L's track record, raises the legitimate question about post-war assembly with leftover wartime stock, even if we can't yet answer that question definitively. It's tantalizing that Jacques saw another example, but unfortunately with only small images available.

A lesser point was the question of finish. On the photos provided it does indeed look like a finish has been applied to the reverse of the badge; whether true or just an artifact of the photos, that's still the observation based upon the images provided. Jeff asks some good questions about what is known of usual wartime practise for the finishing of "echt" silver awards. Even so, that's a lesser point compared to the hardware question. The catch is indisputably the type used by S&L but, as noted the soldering job is uncharacteristically sloppy, and we can only muse as to why.

Tom's juxtaposition of Brian's cross next to one marked "fake" is a point that does indeed require further clarification. We need better detailed images of that one (obverse and reverse) and closer comparisons to Brian's to draw any conclusions from that.

Hopefully, dispassionate analysis can proceed on what is (as always) an interesting topic.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Just to clarify, my main focus is Brian's cross. I am not saying it is a fake. I don't know what it is.

But I know what it isn't. It isn't a textbook S&L product! My main issue is that it has been held up by Brian as what a "textbook wartime S&L Spain Cross from S&L should look like". That is not correct based on everything we know about wartime S&L production. I laid out several points of why it doesn't conform to wartime S&L production. That is it. I am not making a judgement on his cross one way or the other.

I am curious about the 800 silver mark. I am not saying its not silver, but no one can say it is silver for sure without testing it. The mark is weakly struck IMO, which is typically a bad sign. It may look good in hand but without testing it no one can say for certain what the metal is. Pointing that fact out shouldn't be an issue! If someone didn't take the time to test the Rounder RKs, we would still be discussing those as wartime.

And yes, I still think there is finish on the reverse. Maybe it is the pictures, but Norm apparently sees it too (thanks for your opinion on this Norm).

Catch is still very odd. I admit that I am no expert on SKs, but I do know reverse hardware setups and all I can say is that something is odd with Brian's cross. Maybe it is excess solder as some of you suggest. Maybe it is something else.

As far as the Fake comparison, my point with that is to show that S&L was making high quality items in the 1950s and 1960s, on par with wartime production. To me, the crosses look similar in finish and appearance. I will post the reverse tonight, but it is typical 1957er production from S&L.

Again, my main issue is that Brian's cross cannot be held up as the "textbook wartime S&L example". That doesn't make it fake! Only that it does not conform to S&L production in several areas.

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

... Dietrich is convinced by the number and quality of his research sources that there exist legitimate "4"-marked Spanish Crosses, and if that were laid out in detail in his book or in a discussion thread, perhaps we would all agree. ...

NO! Dietrich is NOT convinced that there exist legitimate "4"-marked Spain Crosses! And he is non unconvinced either!

All I did is to lay out the case for the Spain Cross in my book "The Awards of the Heer", informing the reader about the time frame of awarding, the existence of LDO-marked pieces AND the reportedly found "4"-marked pieces in Klessheim groupings (based on for me believable sources). That is all there is at this point. Further resarch might confirm either way. I can certainly wait for hard proof as I have done many times before.

In this thread I have presented a possible scenario how 4-marked pieces could be possible. I have no conviction either way. I am just reporting what I learned during my research.

You people can fight out the forensic details, if that is ever possible.

[Rich G]

The 800 mark looks like those found on early S&L RK http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...13&postcount=8

and it is not unknown for silver items to have an addional finish such as Godet oakleaves.

[Norm F]

NO! Dietrich is NOT convinced that there exist legitimate "4"-marked Spain Crosses! And he is non unconvinced either!

All I did is to lay out the case for the Spain Cross in my book "The Awards of the Heer", informing the reader about the time frame of awarding, the existence of LDO-marked pieces AND the reportedly found "4"-marked pieces in Klessheim groupings (based on for me believable sources).

Sorry Dietrich. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

So more accurately, you find the claims of "4-"marked pieces from Klessheim believable based on current sources, which falls just short of conviction.

So as mentioned before, we still lack a "gold standard" as to what constitutes a wartime "4"-marked S&L Spain Cross, if there is one.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

[Brian S]

Again, my main issue is that Brian's cross cannot be held up as the "textbook wartime S&L example". That doesn't make it fake! Only that it does not conform to S&L production in several areas.

Tom

And you are an expert on what IS wartime SK S&L production? Please produce your evidence.

Other than this once again worthless post I see a lot of good info added after my last post.

What I read from Norm's post was that from that first reverse photo it looked like additional finish.

Take a little time to look at the L/16 and 800 marks. I did and I was able to find other S&L products with those exact marks. And THAT is why I said textbook. Unless of course you Tom have the definitive textbook on S&L SK's which I have somehow missed...

I have never seen an award with a silver finish that didn't show signs of flaking somewhere.

Again, and read my lips, I don't care what any of you think of the photos or what 'think' you see. If you want to do an analysis I will support it but trashing this cross I will not support and will continue to remark on. If I read bad "observations" I will respond.

You question if it is 800 but you fail to look at the details. If it were not pure silver you see tombak or something else showing through.

[Brian S]

Sorry Dietrich. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

So more accurately, you find the claims of "4-"marked pieces from Klessheim believable based on current sources, which falls just short of conviction.

So as mentioned before, we still lack a "gold standard" as to what constitutes a wartime "4"-marked S&L Spain Cross, if there is one.

Best regards,
---Norm

Agree, 3 thumbs up.

[Leroy]

I have posted this piece before. All I can say is that is has all the features I would personally look for in a wartime S&L.

[Thomas Durante]

And you are an expert on what IS wartime SK S&L production? Please produce your evidence.

Brian, you are the one claiming that your cross is what a true wartime S&L SK should look like. You are the one making the claim, with absolutely no evidence to support it. I am merely correcting the record by saying that there are some incosistencies with typical S&L production. I lay out several points of why I think this. In reply, all you can do is hurl insults, and offer no evidence to back up your side. You being so heated only underscores your weak arguement.

Take a little time to look at the L/16 and 800 marks. I did and I was able to find other S&L products with those exact marks. And THAT is why I said textbook.

I agree that the L/16 mark on your cross looks good, and correct. Not so sure about the 800 mark because all the pics I have on file are too small to make a valid comparison. Maybe they are idential, but I cannot tell.

Again, and read my lips, I don't care what any of you think of the photos or what 'think' you see.

Yes, we know you don't care. You have said that enough in this thread. Noted

You question if it is 800 but you fail to look at the details. If it were not pure silver you see tombak or something else showing through.

No Brian! If it were Nickel Silver, you would not see any tombak showing through! It would look silver and yet not be 800 silver!

At least we can agree on one thing, Norm does an excellent job! We are lucky to have him in our hobby and I respect his opinion highly. Same with Jeff V, Dietrich, Rich and Leroy, etc. Even though we don't always agree on things, they are passionate about the hobby and its enjoyable discussing with them in a professional and civil manner.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Here is the reverse of the cross I have labeled "Fake" above.

Tom

[Jeff V]

The 800 mark looks like those found on early S&L RK http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...13&postcount=8

and it is not unknown for silver items to have an addional finish such as Godet oakleaves.

Thanks for that Rich. If I had some Godet oakleaves I might have known that!
I had suspected that some silver pieces had an additional silver finish.

[Jeff V]

Tom, does that post war piece have the formed sheet metal hinge like the close up pics that Norm showed or is it a machined block?

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Jeff,

Sorry, those are the only two pics have of this cross, impossible to see what type of hinge it is.

Tom