Announcement

**Leroy** · 08-03-2018, 07:24 AM

This is not a Juncker core, nor is it a standard S&L core. The arms of the swastika are simply too thin. The '800' mark (stamped before assembly) is also not a standard S&L mark. The closest match I can find is the mark used on the "Rounder", as shown below. I don't believe anyone has definitively identified the maker of that cross which is now commonly thought to be postwar (because of the paint used).

The frame does appear appear to the "'B' type" with flawing. It is my opinion (only) that S&L dies, which uniquely incorporated slight upward curvatures of the frame on both the left and right sides at the end of each arm (as clearly visible when you look at an S&L cross from the side) were prone to raised beading flaws resulting from cracks in the die. The "A" has them, as does the "B", very similar in appearance but in different locations.

It is not a joke to think that S&L (the "workplace of the Iron Cross") may have supplied dies for both crosses and cores to other companies in pre-LDO days. Also below is shown a photo of a group of Deumer material brought back together by a vet (including a rarely seen early version of the Deumer FJ badge). Did Deumer make the RK shown in the picture (which is a 'B' type)? It likely made the 3/4 ring and also crosses with the "Godet/Zimmerman" frame. What else?

In full disclosure, I was one of those who commented on the "other forum". I think this cross is very interesting, if only for the core. Assembled postwar? Could easily be. It is a mistake, however, in my view, to believe everything about crosses is now "cut and dry". Would I advise a collector to buy this cross? Sure, but not for a lot of money and only as a part of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle in which we are missing enough parts to know we don't know it all yet.

As an aside, the loop and ribbon appear from these photos to be original.

Attached Files

**Ludwig** · 08-03-2018, 07:38 AM

IMO nothing unique with this cross. Guess the swastika is restored.

**Tony T-S** · 08-03-2018, 07:44 AM

Interesting thread. This B frame has even more flawing than my later example. It looks on my computer screen that the 1 in 1939 sits higher than the 939. Is that the case?

**Leroy** · 08-03-2018, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Ludwig View Post

...Guess the swastika is restored.

Would you like an "in hand" examination of this cross? I would.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-03-2018, 09:43 AM

I'd like to explain why I don't like the term "pre-LDO" as a categoization for a Knights Cross (or even some Oakleaves) that would not fit otherwise. To shift something unknown (or a simple fake!) into a period that seemingly has the flair of a nebulous and terra incognita period of the Knights Cross. In my opinion that is not so. Here is why:

- the early makers a known. Going by the known awardees it was mainly Juncker and the 3/4 Ring. Even S&L was not one of the early makers, they show up mid 1940. S&L was the developer of the EK1 and EK2, but not of the Knights Cross. That company was Juncker.

- at the time of the introduction of the LDO in March 1941 a total 500 Knights Crosses were awarded.

- for the "pre-LDO" to work one would need to assume that most of the awardees went out and bought one or two "replacement" crosses. We know from original documentation that after October 1941 (when the private sale was forbitten) and until October 1944 approximately 600 (!) Knights Crosses were obtained from the PKZ as replacement or as a second piece. That was at a point in time when already 5613 Knights Crosses were awarded. The number of replacements is extremely low (10.6%) and it can be assumed with reason that it was not higher for the first awardees (among them Fieldmarschalls who would not run around a shop for another cross!). Staying with the percentage we look at 50 crosses possibly bought.

- sure, every shop wanted to have one as a display. But why not buy from Juncker and later on from S&L? What drove "unknown maker" to invest in tooling to sell crosses only to shops (since these "pre-LDO" crosses don't show up as awarded crosses after October 1941).

- one theory says that S&L had models just for display, meaning a different core (zinc) and a low material frame (Neusilber). That might hold water if the theory would not also talk about a different die. That makes no sense at all!

Now, coming to this type of cross. It is a B-Type with heavy flaws. As my dear friend Gentry pointed out this is a typical sign of late stampings by S&L. As I showed in my book in 2007 the flaw pattern is different between the A and B-Types. The photo in post no.4 shows that B-Type pattern on the 3 o'clock arm. The cross also has the 6-9 o'clock flaw as well as the beading row. This is clearly a late B-Type frame, way beyond the pre May 1945 types (935-4 and 800-4) and even way beyond the post war "935".

How can this be a "pre-LDO" type? For a die, any die, to look like this it has to be worked quite some time. Surely not to produce replacements for 500 possible customers! Apart from the fact, that nobody would buy such a cross from a private seller as a replacement! Not in 1939 or 1940, and also not later!

But the core is different, so it seems. Is that what it makes "pre-LDO"? As Gentry (who is NOT saying it is pre-LDO and I certainly did not mean him with my remark!) the "800" is also different. Does that make it "pre-LDO"? They (meaning S&L in thsi case) came up with all kinds of combinations. Who knows where they got this core from?

I am certainly not against any new discovery, I remind the readers of the L/12 Oakleaves. In the coming issue of the International Medal Collector another unorthodox discovery is shared with the readers. But everything has to fit what is already known and well documented.

And that is why I think it is not in the spirit of the hobby to declare this as a "pre-LDO" Knights Cross - it is a post war fake with a very late B-Type frame, a "different" core, and a strange "800" stamping.

**Ludwig** · 08-03-2018, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Would you like an "in hand" examination of this cross? I would.

An "in hand" inspection is always better than an "on line inspection", but I don´t think that would make me change my opinion about this very cross. I don´t think it´s "an unique combination" just a fake.

**Ludwig** · 08-03-2018, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

I'd like to explain why I don't like the term "pre-LDO" as a categoization for a Knights Cross (or even some Oakleaves) that would not fit otherwise. To shift something unknown (or a simple fake!) into a period that seemingly has the flair of a nebulous and terra incognita period of the Knights Cross. In my opinion that is not so. Here is why:

- the early makers a known. Going by the known awardees it was mainly Juncker and the 3/4 Ring. Even S&L was not one of the early makers, they show up mid 1940. S&L was the developer of the EK1 and EK2, but not of the Knights Cross. That company was Juncker.

- at the time of the introduction of the LDO in March 1941 a total 500 Knights Crosses were awarded.

- for the "pre-LDO" to work one would need to assume that most of the awardees went out and bought one or two "replacement" crosses. We know from original documentation that after October 1941 (when the private sale was forbitten) and until October 1944 approximately 600 (!) Knights Crosses were obtained from the PKZ as replacement or as a second piece. That was at a point in time when already 5613 Knights Crosses were awarded. The number of replacements is extremely low (10.6%) and it can be assumed with reason that it was not higher for the first awardees (among them Fieldmarschalls who would not run around a shop for another cross!). Staying with the percentage we look at 50 crosses possibly bought.

- sure, every shop wanted to have one as a display. But why not buy from Juncker and later on from S&L? What drove "unknown maker" to invest in tooling to sell crosses only to shops (since these "pre-LDO" crosses don't show up as awarded crosses after October 1941).

- one theory says that S&L had models just for display, meaning a different core (zinc) and a low material frame (Neusilber). That might hold water if the theory would not also talk about a different die. That makes no sense at all!

Now, coming to this type of cross. It is a B-Type with heavy flaws. As my dear friend Gentry pointed out this is a typical sign of late stampings by S&L. As I showed in my book in 2007 the flaw pattern is different between the A and B-Types. The photo in post no.4 shows that B-Type pattern on the 3 o'clock arm. The cross also has the 6-9 o'clock flaw as well as the beading row. This is clearly a late B-Type frame, way beyond the pre May 1945 types (935-4 and 800-4) and even way beyond the post war "935".

How can this be a "pre-LDO" type? For a die, any die, to look like this it has to be worked quite some time. Surely not to produce replacements for 500 possible customers! Apart from the fact, that nobody would buy such a cross from a private seller as a replacement! Not in 1939 or 1940, and also not later!

But the core is different, so it seems. Is that what it makes "pre-LDO"? As Gentry (who is NOT saying it is pre-LDO and I certainly did not mean him with my remark!) the "800" is also different. Does that make it "pre-LDO"? They (meaning S&L in thsi case) came up with all kinds of combinations. Who knows where they got this core from?

I am certainly not against any new discovery, I remind the readers of the L/12 Oakleaves. In the coming issue of the International Medal Collector another unorthodox discovery is shared with the readers. But everything has to fit what is already known and well documented.

And that is why I think it is not in the spirit of the hobby to declare this as a "pre-LDO" Knights Cross - it is a post war fake with a very late B-Type frame, a "different" core, and a strange "800" stamping.

Agree 100%!

**Leroy** · 08-03-2018, 11:56 AM

There is much I agree with (and some that I don't) in what my friend Dietrich has written.

Is there some new documentation to show that Juncker designed the Knights Cross and not Herr Escher at S&L? Vern Bowen (and, yes, I am aware of the criticism of him) reported that S&L told him directly that Escher did the preliminary design work for the RK and that patterns, samples, etc. were circulated by S&L to other companies. I am very curious to know if there has been discovered some new and revealing evidence.

I agree that "B" frames with beading flaws should represent later strikings from a die. (I have, by the way, seen "B" framed crosses with significantly more flaws than this cross (and my friend may recall that I showed him one in mint and beautiful condition with correct paint and frosting at the last MAX.) What did the last frame struck during the war look like? Flaws can develop quickly and grow quickly, even within a single run of the presses.

Our knowledge of private sales, "display copies", etc. is extremely limited. There is virtually no documentation, although Deumer, S&L and a couple others produced catalogs. The S&L catalog was produced after the formation of the LDO (and announces the code "L 16"). I am unaware of catalogues produced after 1941 by anyone. Where is the production record for the "Sedlatzek" (Souval) cross?

It is all great fun (if you have the time and energy to do the work)!

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-03-2018, 03:11 PM

I really do not want to enter into a debate of principles. Sure, we don't know everything and most likely we will never know everything. However, that is not excuse to ignore what we know! So far, nobody has ever produced any tangible and believeable evidence that there is any pre-May 1945 S&L B-Type other than the two accepted - for which there is tangible evidence. That is my measuring stick.
Here is an example of what one "expert" tries to do (translated from German):

"The core is for me 100% pre 45 - the frame is a different question since it is a B-Type. Main question is when was it assembled!?!? Why only look at the frames, but here the key is the core."

(I might have translated not 100% correctly since the German is very bad). Okay, but the main thing is still evident: "The core is for me 100% pre 45." Why not share the knowledge? 100% should be easy to explain. I mean, there is no wickle room with 100%! He also acknowledges that the frame is a B-Type and he also realizes that the main question is the time of assembly. He stays very wage but gives the impressdion that he knows more than he would like to tell. Like the 100% core.

Fact, however, is this: A Knights Cross consists of three parts. If one of the three parts is not original (like the late B-Frame), a "100% pre 45 core" will not make it genuine. Same goes the other way around. We all have seen cores from different makers, I show one in my book, blank, no paint. Assembly period is the key!

It might be a curious piece, sure. Might even be worth something to some, considering that a post-war B-Type already goes for over $ 1,000.-. But, really, there is no need to mystify this with a "100% pre 45 core" - it is a post-war production, move on!

**mwl** · 08-04-2018, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

I really do not want to enter into a debate of principles. Sure, we don't know everything and most likely we will never know everything. However, that is not excuse to ignore what we know! So far, nobody has ever produced any tangible and believeable evidence that there is any pre-May 1945 S&L B-Type other than the two accepted - for which there is tangible evidence. That is my measuring stick.
Here is an example of what one "expert" tries to do (translated from German):

"The core is for me 100% pre 45 - the frame is a different question since it is a B-Type. Main question is when was it assembled!?!? Why only look at the frames, but here the key is the core."

(I might have translated not 100% correctly since the German is very bad). Okay, but the main thing is still evident: "The core is for me 100% pre 45." Why not share the knowledge? 100% should be easy to explain. I mean, there is no wickle room with 100%! He also acknowledges that the frame is a B-Type and he also realizes that the main question is the time of assembly. He stays very wage but gives the impressdion that he knows more than he would like to tell. Like the 100% core.

Fact, however, is this: A Knights Cross consists of three parts. If one of the three parts is not original (like the late B-Frame), a "100% pre 45 core" will not make it genuine. Same goes the other way around. We all have seen cores from different makers, I show one in my book, blank, no paint. Assembly period is the key!

It might be a curious piece, sure. Might even be worth something to some, considering that a post-war B-Type already goes for over $ 1,000.-. But, really, there is no need to mystify this with a "100% pre 45 core" - it is a post-war production, move on!

I agree 100%

**Leroy** · 08-04-2018, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

So far, nobody has ever produced any tangible and believeable evidence that there is any pre-May 1945 S&L B-Type other than the two accepted - for which there is tangible evidence.

What to make of these?:

The wartime-owned decorations of Dietrich Peltz, obtained directly from him (including his awarded and worn Juncker RK with Godet OLS), included a worn "B" type. The explanation: A crooked dealer added the "B" to the grouping. The response from Pieter Verbruggen: he was familiar with the grouping before it went through any dealer and the "B" cross had always been with it.

The collection of awards, including an awarded worn Juncker RK with Godet Oaks and a worn "B" type S&L RK, obtained by Bob Hritz directly from a U.S. officer who was provably present and told Bob that he obtained the pieces from pilots of Geschwader Immelmann when they flew in and surrendered at Kitzengen airfield. The retired officer was a "walk-in" to a local show many, many years ago and when he told Bob he had photos taken that day, Bob actually offered to pay him to drive back home, find the photos and bring them back. He did. The explanation: the officer either had a defective memory or was intentionally misleading Bob. The response by Bob: anyone is welcome to come over at any show and talk to him about how the acquisition took place. (The pieces are not for sale and remain in Bob's private collection.) He has no doubt whatsoever that the officer was telling the truth (and having heard the complete story directly from Bob, neither do I).

Heinz Baer's decorations, obtained directly from the family by a close friend of Andreas Thies for his collection, and not being offered for sale, included his awarded and worn RK with Godet OLS and a "B" Cross with S&L OLS (which match
the type on display in the IWM). Baer died in a flying accident in 1957 and was not a member of any veterans groups. The explanation: Baer must have acquired the set after the war. The response: why?

Andreas Klein's mint "B" type, obtained directly by him from an officer on Doenitz' staff. The cross had been privately purchased by a well-know U-boat commander in Berlin as a gift for a friend who was widely expected to receive the RK soon, and left with the officer for safekeeping as the commander was departing for a patrol.
The commander did not return from the patrol, his friend was not awarded the RK and the staff officer kept the piece until he gave it to Andreas (who can confirm the background if you care to ask him) all those years later . The explanation: the staff officer was either lying or forgetful.

It can go on and on and there are other vets who brought back "B" types who just remember that they took them from prisoners, with no exciting story.

What documentation is expected for pieces which were not made for official award by the government? Please tell me.

If the "A" die was repaired to produce the "B", when did that supposedly occur? The argument was initially made that it must have been late in 1944, as award pieces were marked with the PKZ number "4" and such numbers were only put into use in 1944. Now we know that the the PKZ numbers were in use by at least 1942. What to make of the rarely-seen "800-4" loops? The argument was made that the 935-4 was the "first B" as it had 13 "dents" in the lower 3 o'clock arm. What, then, to make of the "B" types, which most assuredly exist, with 14, 15 or more "dents"? What to make of the 800-4 series, which has a much smaller "bridge flaw" at the intersection of the 6 and 9 o'clock arms than the 935-4 and all other "B" types observed? There are 935-4's awarded posthumously - if you choose to believe the families (and why not?) that these are the crosses they received - but so far no awarded 800-4's. (Neither the 935-4's nor the 800-4's were believed at all until links to Klessheim were established through veteran acquisitions.)

It is all interesting. I'm sick of the arguing and the "back-biting", the snide comments and the agendas. I don't sell RK's, I study them. I've collected seriously since 1958 and by now have heard and seen just about every story, every opinion, and every scam out there.

I believe in the wartime manufacture of some "B" crosses which are not marked "4" and which have non-ferrous cores. Exactly why they were made or for what purpose is pure speculation without period written documentation, but they were, IMO, made. You don't have to believe and I don't care one way or the other if you do or don't.

Below: Peltz, Hritz, Andreas, Baer.

Attached Files

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-04-2018, 11:42 AM

Gentry,

you are right, it is not very helpfull to go back and forth. People who will buy a Knights Cross will be meanwhile educated enough to know what they are buying. And that is all I am concerned with.

Just one final note to my "tangible" comment. I had enough evidence like the ones you list above - which are all what is commonly called "stories" - for the so-called Rounder. None was true ... and for every story above there are at least ten more for the same B-types that are at least that good, maybe even better. From times when the story tellers didn't even knew that there was a B-Type! In this hobby we don't have the luxury to believe the stories we want to believe and discard those who we don't like. That is why I like to rely on tangible evidence, as has been shown with the "4"-marked pieces. And maybe there will be some for the shown B-Types in the future. As you know, I am certainly open to it. I don't argue with you to make you feel bad or to insult you - it is to show "the other side of the coin" to the readers.

But we both friendly agree to disagree on this topic and maybe (hopefully!) one day we will know more. I am looking forward to the MAX show to discuss with you, which is always a great pleasure.

**Leroy** · 08-04-2018, 01:22 PM

**tankkiller** · 11-25-2018, 06:21 AM

Looks like a K&Q core

Announcement

Ritterkreuz S&L unique combination "juncker core"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread