Attributed RK

[fknorr]

Obviously with the cost of something such as a RK, let alone an attributed RK "group", one has to make sure of authenticity. A RK is expensive enough as is, but one that has a name to it the cost must increase dramatically. I did not ask this question to point a questioning eye toward anyone's cross only wondering how "sure" you must be, and indeed how you get "sure" that the piece did indeed come from whom it has claimed to be from before you shell out a premium for the piece/group.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Obviously with the cost of something such as a RK, let alone an attributed RK "group", one has to make sure of authenticity. A RK is expensive enough as is, but one that has a name to it the cost must increase dramatically. I did not ask this question to point a questioning eye toward anyone's cross only wondering how "sure" you must be, and indeed how you get "sure" that the piece did indeed come from whom it has claimed to be from before you shell out a premium for the piece/group.

Well, first of all that's not always the case. It wasn't in mine. In fact, in most cases I find that it doesn't really increase it THAT much.... probably because of the "proof" factor. I know in my case it was a sum of all items in the group, and no more, in most of the groups (even the ones with great documentation).

[fknorr]

Well, first of all that's not always the case. It wasn't in mine. In fact, in most cases I find that it doesn't really increase it THAT much.... probably because of the "proof" factor. I know in my case it was a sum of all items in the group, and no more, in most of the groups (even the ones with great documentation).

I guess it depends on where you get the "group" from. I am kind of creaming over the RK/DKiG grouping over on Tom Johnson's site:

http://www.johnsonreferencebooks.com...orms/22645.htm

I could do the math for the individual items and come up with a total but "Price on Request" scares a brotha off.

[George Stimson]

Ditto to what Sebastian said. I have three attributed groups, two with docs and one without. In all instances I didn't pay any more for the group than I would have had to pay to buy the items individually.

[Craig Gottlieb]

I would say that family member contact even comes second to photographic evidence. There is always the remote chance that the family might not have "the" RK that their hero relative actually wore. There are also not-so-well-known cases of actual RK recipients who, for money, sold off "their" RK - and did so several times! Not at all a common occurance, but in a nutshell, original period photos (not copies) don't lie.

[Bob Hritz]

I have to agree with attribution adding not one cent to the value of an item or group. Proof that is acceptable in a court, ie; beyond a shadow of a doubt, is the only thing worth a premium. Tom's 3/4 ring RK with the clear photo of THAT cross being worn would be enough for a court, and certainly for me.

How many 90 year old widows will sign a document in order to facilitate a sale of a group of items? I would think Grandma Tillie would have signed a document attesting to her decendancy from Cleopatra, when she was in her 90's.

Bob Hritz

[Craig Gottlieb]

Bob, I agree, especially since some don't even speak English, and therefore don't know what they are signing. Here, by the way, are photos of the Schmidt Cross and a close-up of the photo revealing what I believe to be pretty solid evidence that the cross presented to me in the group was the same one pictured being worn. Also, the integrity of the rest of the group, along with a letter from Schmidt to the first collector who owned the group, was a further testament to the veracity of the attribution. Even though I considered this group to be very "tight" I did not charge a significant premium. Had he been an Oakleaves winner, or someody very famous, that would have changed things. I think Steve Wolfe has the Skorzeney cross, which is clearly pictured in some of the accompanying photos. In the photos, you can clearly see that the wear to the cross, and the age to the black finish - the same on the cross in the group. Of course, the group comes with a mountain of other documentation, and a superb lineage, but it sure is nice to be able to see in the pictures the same cross. As for my cross (now sold), you can see the same little "flaw" in the finish to the left of the suspension ring - both in the photo and in the frame of the cross. That, and the ring itself is pretty firmly identifiable. Though the cross in the photo is sort of shot at an angle, which obscures somewhat the cross itself, the details to the D-ring and the "finish flaw" are pretty visible.

[Bob Hritz]

Hello Craig,


Yes, that is what I call provenance. There is a compelling line of documentation and photographic evidence.

What I am takling about is the letter from a dealer stating the cross is thhe former property of 'whomever' and no other actual documentation.

You have seen photos of my group of 3 with the photos of the pilots surrendering ( Kennel, Lau and yet i other unidentified). Even though these are directly from the American Lieutenant that brought them back, he did not know who's cross was who's. Of course Rudel surrendered the same place and day. Too bad my Lieutenant didn't get his Golden Oak Leaves Swords and Diamonds. THAT would have been a bit easier to complete real provenance.

Bob Hritz

[Craig Gottlieb]

Bob, yeah - I would say that would have been nice!

[Ralph A]

RK in Post #1

That's a S&L? Is it just me or does it look almost identical to this K&Q: The patina's match, anyway, and the loops are reversed so that the "800" shows on both. The cross pictured here has a provenance.

[Rick Research]

.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Rick: I bought my set from a friend. The group originally came out through a very interesting chain of events. Basically, a collector found the RK document out of the woodwork, and discovered that the recipient was still living. He wrote the recipient, who replied with a letter which described how he had lost the RK document at the end of the war (I had the letter, which I kept with the group when it sold)! In subsequent dealings, the recipient sold the collector his visor (with eagle removed, but still with the visor), his other medals, his pilots badge, his dagger (which was totally unmarked and unpersonalized), and other odds and ends. The visor was the only other named item - it had two of those "circle initial" devices with the winner's initials - WS (Winfried Schmidt). Only after I bought the grouping did I notice that the autographed picture showed Schmidt wearing the same cross as included in the group. The cross was rather salty, but the details as shown in the pictures sufficiently proved for me that it was Schmidt's cross. I have also owned other RK groupings, but I was never able to conclusively say, based upon courtroom-type evidence, that the cross in the group had belonged to the actual Ritterkreustrager himself. Such occurences are rare indeed. I look forward to hearing other stories as time permits.

[Russellh]

K&Q RK

As a fairly new member and having just paid my fees to post pics thought I would post my first here. K&Q RK attributed to Luftwaffe Oberleutnant Erhard Nippa 26th of March 1944.
No solid provenence but it came with some original and signed photo's plus a typed military history of Herr Nippa headed up with what appears to be his address in Germany.

Russell

[Marc Garlasco]

Russell,

Welcome to the forum! Yes, I remember when that RK was up for sale. Very nice! What else is in your collection???

Regards,
Marc

[Russellh]

Nippa RK

It also came in the K&Q stamped case.

Russell