Announcement

**Runic** · 12-10-2017, 10:21 AM

Peter and Marisca and all, I agree, should be pinned. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going! Interesting information, great research, very useful.
R

**marisca lrommel** · 12-11-2017, 01:59 AM

Thanks Runic

**Peter J.** · 12-14-2017, 12:05 PM

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>SV</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="******45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> It’s been suggested that our collective knowledge of TR regalia is 10% facts and 90% assumptions. Although I believe this have leveled out a bit (due to great research from devoted collectors), there is still a lot we don’t know about the DAO. Another obvious detail is the massive amount of fakes in genera we encounter on a daily basis. In the 70’s it was easy to spot them, often made in lead or some other crap metal, but gradually they were improved as the years went by. The real problem we have to cope with is the material produced post-war with original dies by producers active during the war. The Godet firm, purchased by Anne-Lise Klietmann, is known for their shady dealings post-war and only a die-hard believer would IMHO think the DAO could not have been faked as well. I’m not suggesting this is the case, but it wouldn’t be responsible to dismiss the possibility. The statement from Wehrlich is an opinion and not backed by any details to confirm its validity, but there is rarely smoke without a fire. Still, if there’s any substance in his claim, where does that leave us? The 3 illustrations in his book are one Grand Cross Star and the obv/rev. of what is most probably the Grand Cross badge (pay attention to the ball on the fan). The images are clearly cut in order to fit a white background, hence it’s impossible to draw a definitive conclusion, but I enclose a comparison for reference.
Continue..........

Attached Files

**Peter J.** · 12-14-2017, 12:09 PM

There are basically two different types of the DAO i.e. the 1937 version with a badge without a fan and a Star with plain reverse and straight pin. This is IMO undisputed, based on the missing fan on Mussolini’s badge awarded Sep. 1937 and the 1.Stufe with fan illustrated in Uniformen-Markt in May 1939. Whether or not the introduction of the fan is linked to this specific date is still not known. This is probably one of the facts surrounding the DAO we’ll most likely never establish beyond any doubt.
It would be great to get some input from other collectors about normal procedure of choosing a product for award purposes, as its been suggested several companies produced awards without any real regulations for appearance. Perhaps a few took a shot at it, without any being ordered, which in that case would explain the newly surfaced versions. Even if that should turn out to be correct, I don’t think the awarding branch of authority would present them simultaneously. Provided that this is a correct assumption from my part, a definitive timeline of awarding will be difficult to explain.
The 1937 version we have known as the Deschler type is probably the 1<sup>st</sup> Design 2<sup>nd</sup> type, as suggested by Jesus. This design have all the classes represented and most probably the Medal as well. The Medal is said to have been awarded for only a 6 month period. The edges on the badges of this version are angled at approx. 40-45 degrees, forming a sharp ridge in the center (illustrated in Jesus’s book).
continue.....

Sorry, these images should go with the next post

Attached Files

**Peter J.** · 12-14-2017, 12:14 PM

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>SV</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="******45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Now things are getting complicated. Yet another version in several classes has surfaced (also in Jesus’s book), all with a “sparkling” texture of gold, contrary to the smooth finish seen on other crosses. Amongst these crosses is a 3.Stufe with 90 degree angled edges i.e. totally flat and a 6-pointed Star with textbook features (markings, hardware etc), as well as a 2.Stufe and a 1.Stufe. Only a reference to a Grand Cross of this type is missing. All things considered, this appears to be a Deschler 1st Design, awarded for only a few months, in conjunction with the short”m” Medal.
“But wait, there is more”, like they say in the commercials. Another anomaly has also surfaced, a 2.Stufe with a totally different design, marking and pin. This cross was awarded from 1937-39 according to Weitze’s COA and produced by Godet (incorrectly described as a 3.class!). The consequences of such a statement leaves the following scenario: Godet, who never to my knowledge produced any cross with this design in any other class, decided to go into the market with only one class, attach a pin typical of their alleged 1939 production and mark it with 2 different types of “935” (the two “935” marked crosses presented by Jesus and LOTHRINGEN have the mark stamped in opposite direction). That would also indicate that 2 or even perhaps 3 different types were awarded simultaneously. I leave it to the reader to contemplate the plausibility.

For images see the previous post

continue......

**Peter J.** · 12-14-2017, 12:22 PM

The Godet design of -1939 features a fan for the ribbon-ring and various markings on the ribbon-ring or parts of the fan. The only exception from this “rule” is the claim in Angolia’s book about the 1.Stufe being marked with “900” and “1” for designation of class on the loop. I’ve personally never seen such a cross, perhaps some member could provide an image. The Star features a “sectioned” reverse+ a very distinct pin and are marked in the viewing side of the pin, also occasionally on the base of the hinge. The eagles also have a distinctly different design on both badge and Star.The single digits are believed to represent the actual class, as the pieces presented in public appear to follow this logic. With that said its difficult to explain some odd anomalies. Thanks to my dear friend Edward, I’m now aware of at least 6 different pieces not being able to logically account for. The first is a 3.Klasse with “900” and “21” on the ribbon ring and a “4” on the fan. The other is a 4.Klasse with “900” and “21” on the pin and a “10” on the base of the hinge! Jesus has pointed out the different width of the center enamel on some badges, but that’s a path I haven’t looked into, hence I can’t comment.

continue.......

**Peter J.** · 12-14-2017, 12:35 PM

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>SV</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="******45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> We may think we are safe with the Godet design and assume they are all originals. I’m not going to claim the enclosed image illustrates a verified fake, but the combination of features don’t speak in its favor i.e. a 1937 silver Star with 1937 markings, eagles and rivets of the -1939 model, “21” on the pin (not used presumably before 1942) with unprecedented design and a sparkling finish on the silver, which I’ve never seen before. I’ll finish this monologue by once again emphasizing these are only my reflections and I utter them only for the purpose of perhaps getting this train started. I also wish to give amounts of credit to my dear friend Edward, a real gentleman who shared his thoughts and decorations with me in a very generous way. He will probably not share all my views, but s—t happens.

cheers
Peter

Attached Files

**Runic** · 12-15-2017, 08:54 PM

Peter, first, thank you so much for all of the time and thought you have put into this beautiful award.
You have put much research and effort into this subject which I appreciate.
I agree totally with you that it is a minefield, and I wish more collectors would get involved in sorting out fact from reality, if such is possible. And this thread is the place for those who have the courage and the balls to address this subject.

Thanks also to Jesus and all others who have added to this thread.

The waters get more and more ‘muddied’ on this order the newer the examples get.
And if your theory or hint that Godet kept pumping these out post- War, they get muddier still.
And I have access to photos of the “T” stamp, supposedly very early and rare, found on some of the earliest awards, as well as other rare stamping from the early years, which I hope to post soon.
And if you want to look at prototype/unenexplainable versions, here are a few, from Christopher, which I have seen credited to Bill Stump, known for his hard-nosed approach to verifying the awards.

These strike me as possible original strange one-off prototypes, because they only appear in Angolia’s FUF, and never again. In other words, no other examples of these ever surfaced. Here, thanks to Ailsby are the photos.
I hope to post more markings and forms from the earliest awards.
Do you think there are too many sellers making money from the fakes that they want to remain quiet on this subject?? It seems obvious to me. IMHO.

Attached Files

**Runic** · 12-15-2017, 09:07 PM

Note that one of these breast stars posted in the previous post below has an Eagle in outline similar to the Red Cross awards. Note also that one of the anomalous breast stars has eagles that were colored Red. The only theory put forth for this in Angolia’s FuF is that it may be SA related but is only conjecture.
I doubt it was SA related, because these were largely given to foreign dignitaries who helped the TR. I believe it was just a prototype. Or maybe a one-off post war construction?
I hate to say it, but given the state of the Eagle Order in our hobby, and the lack of courage of dealers or collectors to state opinions or defend it, I would be happier owning any one of these three rare prototype/anamolous examples!
R

Attached Files

95EE3D48-FA8F-4F6B-A996-2057F7657F04.jpg (101.5 KB, 77 views)

**ironfist** · 12-16-2017, 04:44 AM

dear lord

Runic.
How many prototypes do you think a company like Godet would make.
1 possibly 2 .They would not mske a run of them ,why would they.
Godet at the time was at the top of their game ,being one if not the best of the best . Do you think they would be constantly getting it wrong and saying hey lets try another to get it right ??????? I do not think so .
Are their many corrupt dealers that will remain quiet to fool and to sell their crap to the nearest idiot ..HELL YES many .More fakes for sale than originals in this hoby.
Old school collectors who have been going on for years this is real and that is real simpley because they were told so .or were sold it by tourist troops coming back from Germany post war.The fakes were flying out then .Especialy daggers .
Whitman kept silent on the number of crap ones of those he flogged saying protertype .I think he gets confused with the Word in English for rubbish .but hey ho.
I still defend my view that apart the different deasign in the Godet eagles we can just about dismiss all other items.This also includes the so called (with no evidence ) Deschner flat pin type .The quality is shocking on them for a start ...Not going down that road again .Show me a real presented set with a Marked case or period information to Dreschner and I may believe there should be a debate.
Give that time and some dubious dealer or collector that has a load of these post war ,jeweller copies ,will invent something to put value into their pile of fishing weights.
Just MO but look at the logic .(why would Godet keep making them all different )
Mate if you wish to own these dubious protertypes ,anamolous examples you crack on ,but when it comes to sell you may be screwed as you were when you brought them.
Good hunting and best of luck
Regards Pete

**Peter J.** · 12-16-2017, 04:04 PM

Hi Runic,

Thanks for the feedback and those illustrations. Would it be possible with some skots on the reverses as well? I don't know who came up with that SA connection, but agree there is no logical purpose for this special version. I'm not saying Godet actually had any post war production of DAO's, only remind you guys about the possibility. As for the dealers activities, well check my avatar, "Believeing is not knowing". I don't think they will lose any sleep though, should I be killed by a bus tomorrow

cheers
Peter

**ironfist** · 12-16-2017, 04:52 PM

oops

"Believeing is not knowing". I don't think they will lose any sleep though, should I be killed by a bus tomorrow

What ,,,do you think they have ordered a hit on you .Just as well you do not live in the US then ....

regards Pete

**Runic** · 12-16-2017, 06:27 PM

Ironfist,
Good points. I don’t think these - all of them - or any of them for sure - are prototypes. I think they could be assembled pieces and parts post war - maybe one - two - are prototypes? Maybe none. Who knows. But on the other side of the argument, a firm like Godet at the top of their game would spare no expense in getting it right. And so - who knows how many designs were put forward by the artisans at Godet before they voted on the final version? Anyway, these are solo examples for which there is no explanation. They might not even be Godet? I only posted them for the reader’s interest in this subject.

I wouldn’t actually prefer owning these to owning legit super great condition DAOs with rock solid provenance. Would I kick them out of my collection? Hell no! Would you? - they are cool, one of a kind items, way out of the ordinary, documented, beautiful. But I would rather have a Grand Cross with provenance than these any day. But I would love these in my collection - if just for rarity. A complete collection would include all the versions of the DAO, and just to show off, the anomalies I posted. How could you beat that? I would trade a neck Order first class for one of these. Call me crazy.

Put it this way - I was just trying to be dramatic to keep this thread going, to get more members interested.

It is such an important subject, I think more people like you should weigh in on this. I’m glad you did. Great opinions, thanks for speaking up!! Now we need more serious researchers like you and Peter y Jesus adding to the discussion.

Peter, I will try to get copies of the reverses of those anomalies. As for me, Peter, I’m a Godet believer as far as DAOs are concerned. Maybe the DAOs were actually subcontracted out at some point - I will admit there is enough evidence there to at least consider the possibility. But the thought of Godet making these post-War is a nightmare to me. Thanks for pointing out that is not a Proven fact. But I have a later Godet DAO, and if they Were made post-War, I will have to cough up money for the earliest version. I still might, anyway. Probably I will.

Jesus - as far as your research is concerned - Dale hombre. Órale.

I think posting the rarest and earliest markings on the 1937 DAOs might help the discussion. I may be able to help more with that with photos courtesy of Christopher.

My theory about dealers being quiet on this subject plays into my conspiracy theory that they have more info about fakes than the average collector. Mind you, some, if not most, dealers are just like us, with a sincere interest in their subject, trying to make an honest buck. But unfortunately, some are predators. Let’s face facts. We all know the score on that.

And if I were hit by a bus tomorrow, Ironfist, and I DO live in the US, I don’t think any dealers would give two F’s what happened to me either, let alone Peter. And I don’t think dealers would give two flying Fs for you, Ironfist, if you took the dirt nap, for that matter.

That’s why we have to stick together!
R

**Runic** · 12-17-2017, 05:28 PM

Gentleman,
As promised, courtesy of Christopher, markings found on early DAOs. Some of you may be aware of these, some not. I am sure this image of marks on DAOs is much more helpful than only my opinions. At least I hope it adds to the discussion, especially for you serious researchers.
R

Attached Files

D5711D87-8C3B-44BF-AFF6-5E49F1316327.jpg (72.2 KB, 58 views)

**ironfist** · 12-18-2017, 03:01 AM

nice

Runic thanks and also to your friend Christopher. There are 2 there that I haven't seen before ,very well done that man .
We are still in the dilemma as to what they were .The individual jeweller,
a batch code .This will be a good point for debate .
Thanks for bringing a new prize to the table.
Regards Pete

Announcement

German Eagle Order

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread