Knight's Cross for Review

[Ed Hicks]

Knight's Cross for Review

[Ed Hicks]

Knight's Cross for Review 2

[Ed Hicks]

Another 800 Stamped Knight's Cross for Review

Another 800 Stamped Knight's Cross for Review

[Ed Hicks]

Another 800 Stamped Knight's Cross for Review 2

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Ed,
both are fakes!
Dietrich

[Ed Hicks]

Hi Ed,
both are fakes!
Dietrich

Dietrich, I understand that, but the replies earlier seemed to suggest one had period parts later used post war. Is that incorrect? Thanks. Ed

[Leroy]

Dietrich, I understand that, but the replies earlier seemed to suggest one had period parts later used post war. Is that incorrect? Thanks. Ed

Ed - That's a big MAYBE. No one really knows. I just find it curious that the same frame was used for a '57 cross and no one knows who made it. From Dietrich's book:

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich, I understand that, but the replies earlier seemed to suggest one had period parts later used post war. Is that incorrect? Thanks. Ed

When I say fake I mean “Not one of the seven known and proven maker”. Who knows what parts for what purpose was used after the war? It is not my current field of studies, sorry!

[Leroy]

Here is a comparison of the reverse date on the cross Ed shows and the date on another version.

[AndyC]

The word Fake is on those crosses made after WWII, even if they use some parts that was made before the war.

Just my two cents



Andy

[Leroy]

No one has said here anything to the contrary.