deutscher adlerorden « 935 »

[Panzertruppen]

I do not understand what you mean by this statement.....Are you referring to me?...

Oh no ! Only reference to where this cross was for sale

[marisca lrommel]

What is so difficult to comprehend? Asking for opinions and then offer the item as a garanteed original, that is in your world a normal procedure? Instead of analyzing my personality, perhaps you could a present some plausible arguments as to why you've come up with your conclusion. Do that and I'll address your input in a civil manner.

If there is someone in this forum who NEVER provides evidence about what he is talking about ... you are a gentleman. Please do not address me anymore in your life ... I already know too many unpleasant people in my work and I do not feel like polemics also in my hobbie

If there is someone in this forum who NEVER provides evidence about what he is talking about ... you are a gentleman. Please do not address me anymore in your life ... I already know too many unpleasant people in my work and I do not feel like polemics also in my hobbie

I care little for asking for an opinion on a particular article ... if it is original it is and if it is not original it is not, period.

You seem to be the guardian who wants to prevent spreading knowledge to others.

In this case, A MI seems original and so I have expressed with my arguments to support my opinion ... if you do not agree, just give your opinion and offer evidence, which never makes

[Peter J.]

“If there is someone in this forum who NEVER provides evidence about what he is talking about ... you are a gentleman. Please do not address me anymore in your life ... I already know too many unpleasant people in my work and I do not feel like polemics also in my hobbie

I care little for asking for an opinion on a particular article ... if it is original it is and if it is not original it is not, period.”


This is what I’ve had to endure for the last couple of years, a self-righteous individual who has figured it all out and won’t accept any constructive criticism that question his divine knowledge

“You seem to be the guardian who wants to prevent spreading knowledge to others.” No! Contrary to you, who claims specifics to be “100% undisputable facts”, I’ve never to my recollection presented my arguments as facts. My smiley was used only to illustrate my astonishment of how easily you were able to verify this piece by using inadequate images. I fully appreciate your honest intent to establish the specifics about the DAO and with a more modest approach perhaps this can be achieved.


“In this case, A MI seems original and so I have expressed with my arguments to support my opinion ... if you do not agree, just give your opinion and offer evidence, which never makes[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Texas\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/IMG]”.


You’re absolutely correct, in this case I haven’t presented any opinion or evidence. Why? That’s simple, I don’t have enough input to form an educated opinion. That’s why I consistently ask for plausible evidence or logical assumptions. The only thing I’ve seen from you is a COA from mr Weitze. To be crystal clear, I don’t know whether or not the presented 2.Stufe is contemporary, but I’ll present what I perceive as lack of logic regarding the statements presented by you.


Although the COA contradicts some of the statements you bring forward, you still use it. You correctly identify the mistake regarding the actual class, but then you decide to suggest a different time-period of production. You also leave out Weitze’s claim of it being an early Godet, but claim the other three to be positively identified. Are you suggesting Weitze’s account is not correct and if so why (the alleged 6-month theory?


The new images in the sales thread indicates a totally different silver mark i.e. the top portion of the digit “3” is flat (presuming I view the image correctly). The markings on the breast crosses are generally stamped so that they are read from the hinge to the catch. This one is stamped the other direction. Do you seriously think these anomalies are not worthy of a civilized discussion?


Peter

[marisca lrommel]

you use demagogy ... you ask me to provide evidence and yet you never give it.

I do not know where he got that I use the Weitze COA. I have presented it to you to see that I am not the only one who affirms that this type of second class crosses are original.

The COI of Weitze is wrong because it indicates that it is a third class, when we all know it is a second class of the German Eagle Order but I only presented the Weitze COA to show that an experienced dealer recognized this model as original since you never trust my word as I do not trust yours.

As for the marking is present in the needle in the opposite direction that it should, it is true but I do not consider it a detail that indicates anything ... surely when this cross was made, the person in charge of marking the shoelaces was mistaken and placed the die as opposed to as it should.

Regarding the fact that it was made and distributed in the first six months of 1937, it is not an affirmation that I took out of the hat as if I were a magician ... some veteran collectors of militaria and Order of the German Eagle also affirm this theory. ..you can ask our friend in common Edward (I do not say his surname out of respect, but you know who he is and he knows that he understands a lot of this decoration)

The shape of the cross, enameled, caught, lace, hinge is characteristic of Godet without a doubt but the shape of the eagles is different because it was an early model of Godet when not yet manufactured in exclusivity this Order

That said ... you are very free to believe in my affirmations or not ... as I am to believe or not in theirs ..

[Peter J.]

Demagogy, really? Please quit this Sigmund Freud impersonation and focus on the topic. Even this forum has rules of engagement and calling me a liar without proof of the fact can have consequenses

"Regarding the fact that it was made and distributed in the first six months of 1937, it is not an affirmation that I took out of the hat as if I were a magician ... some veteran collectors of militaria and Order of the German Eagle also affirm this theory. ..you can ask our friend in common Edward (I do not say his surname out of respect, but you know who he is and he knows that he understands a lot of this decoration)

So now that the COA from Weitze is not intended as reference of facts, only an opinion, perhaps you could share with us who these anonymous high end collectors of DAO are. Funny you should mention Edward, according to his own words he has never in his +60 years of collecting encounterered a "935" DAO! He does favour the 6-month theory though, not in reference to this cross, but rather to all classes, including the introduction of the fan!!! I realize you can't use that, as it'll not support your theory. Nor do you comment on the "3" seen on your cross and the cross that started this thread. It's really fascinating though, I've now seen 3 different crosses of this type and all 3 are marked differently compared to each other! I mean, the odds for that must be astronomic.

"I do not know where he got that I use the Weitze COA."

Simple, I bought your book and there it was. You mention in your foreword that the 1st types were previously listed as reproductions. Does that include the type seen here and more importantly, where were these reproductions illustrated?

Have you ever considered the consequences, should the timeline of production presented by you be contemplated? Weitze might be correct in his opinion that it's a contemporay cross (even though I strongly question his timeline), but as far as I can tell, you still stick to your story of the 6 months. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Peter

[marisca lrommel]

I do not have time to lose it with you ... You will never admit anything that is against your opinion ... criticizes my theory harshly but does not contribute anything that says otherwise ...

By the way ... in my country "demagogy" means asking others to do something different from what you do yourself ... this does not mean being a liar but asking for evidence of everything and not contributing anything against what is said.

Chao

[Peter J.]

1937 with swords, yet another home improvement?

you use demagogy ... you ask me to provide evidence and yet you never give it.

I do not know where he got that I use the Weitze COA. I have presented it to you to see that I am not the only one who affirms that this type of second class crosses are original.

The COI of Weitze is wrong because it indicates that it is a third class, when we all know it is a second class of the German Eagle Order but I only presented the Weitze COA to show that an experienced dealer recognized this model as original since you never trust my word as I do not trust yours.

As for the marking is present in the needle in the opposite direction that it should, it is true but I do not consider it a detail that indicates anything ... surely when this cross was made, the person in charge of marking the shoelaces was mistaken and placed the die as opposed to as it should.

Regarding the fact that it was made and distributed in the first six months of 1937, it is not an affirmation that I took out of the hat as if I were a magician ... some veteran collectors of militaria and Order of the German Eagle also affirm this theory. ..you can ask our friend in common Edward (I do not say his surname out of respect, but you know who he is and he knows that he understands a lot of this decoration)

The shape of the cross, enameled, caught, lace, hinge is characteristic of Godet without a doubt but the shape of the eagles is different because it was an early model of Godet when not yet manufactured in exclusivity this Order

That said ... you are very free to believe in my affirmations or not ... as I am to believe or not in theirs ..

[marisca lrommel]

ALL the orders of the eagle, first model and second model were manufactured and distributed without swords.
When in 1939 Hitler authorized the swords the military that received Orders of the Eagle without swords ordered to specialized jewelers the addition of swords in these crosses ... there are hundreds of examples in Spain of it. Look for example this third cross of the Colonel of the Blue Division Mr. José López-Barrón Cerruti.

I bought this cross to the direct relatives of the Colonel and he already came with the swords added.

Now, as always ... you can believe or close in your limited knowledge ....

[marisca lrommel]

I can insert hundreds of images of Orders of the Eagle of 1937 ORIGINALS with swords added later. These swords were put at the time (1939-1945)

for example

[Peter J.]

I direct specific questions to you in relation to your claims and when cornered, you decide you don't have time to respond. In this case I made a correct call (the modification as such) and you turn that into limited knowledge from my part. You most definately pick your fights. I'm fully aware of your account for these modified pieces and I have tried to research this from my end, but the military records for senor Cerruti are closed. So if you find me worthy a response, when did senor Cerruti receive his initial decoration (III. Stufe w/o swords)?

[marisca lrommel]

I do not know the exact date but I can indicate that at the end of 1937, beginning of 1938

[marisca lrommel]

Even if it's not the issue we're dealing with now, look at this 1St Eagle Order. I think you'll agree that it's a 1937 1St Design

[marisca lrommel]

If in the rest
of countries was delivered in the same way, in Spain first the award was received and then the Award certificate was delivered.

In Spain the award was received and about 6 months later the Award certificate

This 1St Eagle Order 1St Design that we have seen before was delivered during the first or middle of 1937 and the Award certificate came later ....

The example seen before belonged to Jorge Godoy who received his Award Certificate in August 1937

[marisca lrommel]

In this comparison, eagles of a first model of 1937 and eagles of a second model of 1937 that is the best known ...

[Peter J.]

Jesus, thanks for a straight response . I think both of us need to stop for a minute and think this over. The constant bickering between us does’nt move this topic forward and must be confusing for new readers. Instead of doing it all over again, here’s a previous suggestion I sent you a few years back and I’d like to propose it once again.


Hi J-M,
The two of us share a common interest, the DAO and we have had many heated discussions over the years. At the same time the input from other DAO collectors have been rather limited. Your new publication is the first attempt to shed some light over this topic and you should have all the credit for giving it a try.
Unfortunately the book lacks IMHO a lot of essential information and (I’m sorry to say) some questionable conclusions. I’ve no intention to do a review of the book publicly, nor to present a full account for the specifics of the DAO (I simply don’t have all the info needed at the moment). I’ll however respond to the thread about the medal and the cross from Patrick. This I’ll do only to illustrate my view as to how we need to differentiate facts from assumptions. The reason for this is simple, future collectors will rely on info from today and any mistakes from our part would only add to the confusion. I sincerely hope you’ll not perceive this as provocative, I can assure you that’s not my intention.
Personal egos (from both of us) and the language might have been a negative factor in our previous discussions, but I sincerely hope we can find a way to work together with this topic and find some plausible scenarios for the history of the DAO.

I know I haven’t provided conclusive opinions, due to the lack of factual evidence, but please give me a week or two and I’ll present all my reflections. One thing though, all claims must be allowed to be questioned and potential answers must be based on facts. This does of course not exclude personal opinions or assumptions, as long as they are presented as such. Does this sound fair?

Peter