Announcement

**Thomas Durante** · 08-29-2017, 07:04 PM

Indeed, thanks to Norm for linking those threads.

Brian, I really don't understand your hostility in defense of this cross. Yes, I know you own it and maybe I can understand a little that finding out something in your collection may not be correct. But if you can step back and look forensically at this cross, then I think you can see that there are certainly some inconsistencies here that we are trying to get to the bottom of.

Do you have any provenance for this cross?

S&L is not known to have used a pin like is on your cross. The EK you show does not have a pin like yours.

The catch on yours is not typical of S&L. There is something underneath it that we don't find on any other S&L wartime product. This could signify a repair and/or refinished cross.

The hollow hinge is also not typical of S&L. I have every reference book available that shows closeups of hinges for S&L, I cannot find a single example of S&L using a hollow hinge like this. They just didn't use it, it is undocumented as being something used by S&L!

You say it has no finish on it, yet there is clearly finish on the reverse. Look closely at where the eagles are soldered to the cross arms. We don't see any scorch marks, this is because there is a finish on it.

The 800 mark does not match other known S&L wartime stamps. Sure its possible that they had more than one 800 stamp, but at a minimum your stamp is unique. Certainly cannot be considered "textbook S&L".

This is not a personal attack on you. I just don't understand how you can say unequivically that this is a "textbook S&L wartime cross" when nothing on it matches S&L production. It has good detail, and is polished. I grant you that. But we know S&L's postwar products also have excellent detail and are highly polished....

Tom

Attached Files

Compare.jpg (108.9 KB, 121 views)

**Thomas Durante** · 08-29-2017, 07:08 PM

There is a finish on this cross Brian, believe it or not!

Atleast on the reverse.

Tom

Attached Files

Untitled.jpg (37.1 KB, 123 views)

**Brian S** · 08-29-2017, 07:31 PM

delusional

you pick one spot w solder and stick to your tragic story

like i said tom i do not cate what you think

write a book charge 100e and you define reality for some but not me

**Thomas Durante** · 08-29-2017, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

The time of introduction of the PKZ numbers is really not a question of suspicion. The purpose is clear (tracing shipments to the maker for orders and medals handled by the PKZ), the group of orders and medals handled by the PKZ is also known and undisputed.
If one takes the time and lists all these orders and medals and goes through the available documentation (like dates of institution) then there cannot even be the slightest doubt that the PKZ numbers were introdcued late 1942/early 1943. (The Awards of the Heer, Vol. II, page 417 ff)

Existence of the PKZ numbers during the initial award period of the Spain Cross is absolutely inconveivable. It is also known that the award process was officially closed down in early 1940. There was no reason to order any crosses by the PKZ since replacement could be bought privately. However, there are absolutely believable reports that "4"-marked Spain Crosses were found in Schloss Klessheim. They could have only come to that place via the PKZ in Berlin when the stock was moved down there.

That is what is known as of this date. As always, S&L is a murky topic!

Thanks Dietrich, I agree completely.

Interesting about the "4"-marked crosses being found at Klessheim. I have your Awards of the Heer book where you mentioned this, but didn't catch that until your post above. That is very interesting to me. Also the fact that the crosses found on the postwar S&L souvenier boards were also marked "4", that is further decent evidence to suggest these are the types that were around at the end of the war (or soon after).

Tom

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-29-2017, 08:25 PM

Tom,

what speaks against the use of "4" after the war are the non-4 marked RKs and DKs (there might be more examples). S&L might have realized that they give the source away. However, already marked pieces as leftover were surely not de-marked.
Sure is that everything marked with a PKZ number is past late 42/early 43.

**Thomas Durante** · 08-30-2017, 06:43 AM

Dietrich, would you mind expanding on the Klessheim-found SKs? How many do you know of that can be directly linked to Klessheim? What type of SKs were found (were they marked just "4" or did they also have "L/16" on them?

Thanks

Tom

**Brian S** · 08-30-2017, 07:02 AM

Yeah let's all hear about the hearsay on that from a "trusted source".

"Unnamed sources say..."

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-30-2017, 07:38 AM

Brian,

if you are starting to doubt the sources I have and the Klessheim story just because it doesn't fit your view of things you are not better than any of the stupid blogs from some people.

If you would have my book you would know what I wrote:

"However, "4"-marked examples have been reportedly been found in genuine groups and also as part of the remaining stock of the Präsidialkanzlei in Schloss Klessheim"

As the "However" indicates, this fact (for me at least) is contrary to what I said earlier, namely that the awarding had been finished and that therefore no "4"-marked pieces should exist. If I would have acted like some (actually most) of the previous authors (and some members here ....) I could have supressed that information and just leaving it out of the book. But that is not how I operate. Just because I have no convenient explanation or I don't like it, I do not censor myself.
So, you can make whatever you want out of it: I am only reporting and I am reporting from what I heard from very reliable and proven sources. Deal with it!

Tom, I have no idea how many and whether only "4". I only learned about "4"-marked pieces since that was the interesting part. It started when I realized there should not be any (due to the documented awarding stop and the introduction of the PKZ-numbers after that stop). Doing the required due diligence I investigated and came to the conclusion that there is enough believable evidence to include the above mentioned sentence in the book. I knew that some people would not like it but as you know me, I certainly do not care. What is known needs to be mentioned.

**Brian S** · 08-30-2017, 08:37 AM

Yes and it's the "reportedly" that everyone jumps on because it came from you and people process words to fit their own narrative. The last thing I want is a fake anything in my possession. And you said reportedly for a reason, it is not proven fact it is a narrative. Officers were stuffing awards in their pockets I can imagine and what got mixed up later with other trades could easily have been postwar S&L's. I simply don't believe stories but take reportedly for exactly what it is, a maybe, for me a far fetched maybe because you, Dietrich, have shown us postwar S&L purchases which include SK's. And those do not have L/16 on them, they have '4's on them, reportedly...

And I do not take any of Tom's junk above personally. It's annoying but I couldn't care less what people believe or not unless they fly in the face of "what is". I have nothing to gain with my cross other than I am completely and utterly satisfied with what it is. But when someone has to chime in with "not silver", etc. etc. it's just annoying, but based on a small photo. Oversized photos won't change his mind now that he's made his "moderator" pronouncement. Just sad. Too many people read this forum who have no experience, much like the above statements, and take the written words of moderators like gospel. I find that annoying. Why do you think advanced collectors post less and less and offer less and less on this forum? It's obvious, that was rhetorical.

If Norm were to do one of his exhaustive detective analysis on just about anything we would be closer to many truths. I've followed his KM work and found much of it to be very instructive. But a moderator who makes a quick "judgement" for whatever perjorative purposes is just plain annoying and worse, misleading. When ego supercedes fact...

So again, don't care what anyone thinks unless it's just plain out of touch with reality. That's misleading. My cross is silver. I don't need a SEM analysis. In hand it is what it is. Silver plating invariably has signs of peeling at least somewhere on a cross as many faceted as the SK.

I am not the one and done final word on the SK. Don't claim to be. But I am not an overnight sensation making 5 second nonsensical pronouncements. This kind of words exchange is a distraction I sure don't need. Having to defend fact from the fiction of self proclaimed experts.

Many S&L objects are open to debate but the very substance of an object is not. With that I can only say "whatever". I know what I have and what you or anyone else thinks is entirely irrelevant to how I judge my own cross at this point.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-30-2017, 09:23 AM

Again, all I can say is that I trust my sources, I am proven to be a person not to talk lightly about something. I also venture to say that I have no interest whatsoever in a specific piece and don't need to defend it with words, innuendos, or any other reasoning, well founded or not.

I don'y know why you are getting so out of shape? The facts are clear and named as such. The non-facts are labeled as such and are also reported for the sake of being honest and complete. I will not be caught later on with having known something and having supressed it knowingly.

Remember the "935-4"? "Reportedly" found in Klessheim for a long time, now proven to be awarded. That is how it works.

And there is something I just don't understand. Why are you so bend out of shape because of the "4"? Your cross is marked "L/16", isn't it? What am I missing?

**Brian S** · 08-30-2017, 09:44 AM

Nothing you have said has bent me out of shape. Yes the 935-4 was awarded. But we have yet to see a '4' S&L SK that was awarded. Until then it's a story. My continuing comments to you are, "without a name can you tell us more please?" "Unnamed sources say..." Well what exactly did unnamed sources say? Maybe a hint as to "he was there", "he knew someone who was", "he heard it said..." I know for a fact people have taken fake pilots badges to pilot vets and said "is this real" and the pilot says "yes". Why because it looks just like a pilots badge. Wonder really how much time those guys spent waiting for their next mission comparing GWL to Juncker to Deumer and discussing the manufacturing differences of badges - most likely, none... So unless you produce a little more verbage it's really just a murky story from "reliable sources". I know you aren't used to being questioned but there you have it.

Tom, seriously, you put my cross next to one you label "fake", what a load of krap. You have reached new lows in my already degraded opinion of your abilities. And BTW, I am fully aware you baiting me, hoping for a reason to get me banned.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-30-2017, 10:08 AM

What good would it be to you when I say that the "4"-marked Spain Crosses have been found in believable Klessheim groups? You can question everything, you can go even back to "you were not be there when this RK was awarded, how would you know it is real?" This type of "discussion" is useless.
Some of us (not all!) ar working on the big puzzle and take every piece found into consideration. Remember the "dotted DK"? Rumpors, repordetly, lauged at, ... but for me all important pieces of the puzzle. And now: proven to be real. Here is a scenario you can't dispute and it is absolutely possible and fits to all that is known:

Awardees of the Spain Cross damaged or lost the cross during combat. They contacted the PKZ and asked for replacement. Replacement in such cases at no charge are documented with the DK. Dr. Doehle could not have said: go and buy an "L/16" at your own cost so he decided to order a small amount of each grade with S&L and that is how he got the "4" marked pieces. As a legitimate replacement form the official awarding office.

Absolutely believable, 100% in accordance with other documented cases and also in agreement with the Klessheim groups that contained "4"-marked crosses. Far more believable then just a "story" about a single decoration that was switched or one was old it was awarded at such and such a place or time. You always have to look at the whole picture!

**Brian S** · 08-30-2017, 10:31 AM

I do not doubt the possibility one iota. As you are well aware there are S&L's and there are S&L's. Some of the 4's I have seen just look junky. Some on the other hand have fit and finish and hardware setup that looks entirely wartime. Like the dotted DK. What a nice and well constructed piece. And that's how I came to my own personal conclusion regarding my cross. My only "bent out of shape" was Tom's nonsense and his desperation to maintain a badly conceived conclusion of a complete lack of evidence. If he did a little homework and worked half as hard as Norm to arrive at a conclusion or supposition I would listen and take it seriously but his seat of the pants rant through his passive agressive posts are entirely annoying.

**Jeff V** · 08-30-2017, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

What good would it be to you when I say that the "4"-marked Spain Crosses have been found in believable Klessheim groups? You can question everything, you can go even back to "you were not be there when this RK was awarded, how would you know it is real?" This type of "discussion" is useless.
Some of us (not all!) ar working on the big puzzle and take every piece found into consideration. Remember the "dotted DK"? Rumpors, repordetly, lauged at, ... but for me all important pieces of the puzzle. And now: proven to be real. Here is a scenario you can't dispute and it is absolutely possible and fits to all that is known:

Awardees of the Spain Cross damaged or lost the cross during combat. They contacted the PKZ and asked for replacement. Replacement in such cases at no charge are documented with the DK. Dr. Doehle could not have said: go and buy an "L/16" at your own cost so he decided to order a small amount of each grade with S&L and that is how he got the "4" marked pieces. As a legitimate replacement form the official awarding office.

Absolutely believable, 100% in accordance with other documented cases and also in agreement with the Klessheim groups that contained "4"-marked crosses. Far more believable then just a "story" about a single decoration that was switched or one was old it was awarded at such and such a place or time. You always have to look at the whole picture!

This is a scenario I completely agree with.

**Jeff V** · 08-30-2017, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Brian S View Post

I do not doubt the possibility one iota. As you are well aware there are S&L's and there are S&L's. Some of the 4's I have seen just look junky. Some on the other hand have fit and finish and hardware setup that looks entirely wartime. Like the dotted DK. What a nice and well constructed piece. And that's how I came to my own personal conclusion regarding my cross. My only "bent out of shape" was Tom's nonsense and his desperation to maintain a badly conceived conclusion of a complete lack of evidence. If he did a little homework and worked half as hard as Norm to arrive at a conclusion or supposition I would listen and take it seriously but his seat of the pants rant through his passive agressive posts are entirely annoying.

I have to disagree with this Brian. Tom laid out the reasons he felt there were some questions about your cross. I do not see any seat of the pants rants or passive aggressive posts by Tom. No reason to get upset.

I like your cross btw. I have seen some poorly soldered eagles before so that is no big deal for me. The eagles and details are completely different than the fake that Tom compared it with. The non standard hinge I can't explain but does not seem like that big of a deal. As far as the catch, it looks like it is resting on a big pile of solder. Again, does not seem like a big deal. Anyway, that is my take on it. I have found over the years it is OK to have differing opinions on this stuff. It usually sorts itself out over time.
Jeff

Announcement

Spanienkreuz without swords- Last purchase

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread