Lets take a look at this grouping

[Craig Gottlieb]

The first thing I will say is that NTZ's sarcasm, commentary about me being a nut-job (or whatever it is he said above, about a page ago), reflect a very emotional and inappropriate approach to this subject. He provides some good insight and argument, but then ruins his credibility with his tone, and his personal assaults. I'm glad they have been edited, but I hope we see less of this. Otherwise, I commend everyone else for doing their best to make this thread educational and productive.

Regarding conflicting opinion, there are issues of disagreement with regard to these tunics, both on-thread and off-thread. They involve the loops, the photo, sewing, and other topics. That said, my apologies that I have had to let this thread develop in my absence - I've been traveling for business, and have not been as available as I normally am. That said, let me offer my opinion on this tunic set, based upon the very informed and frank discussion that I always encourage about anything I post, or offer for sale:

I believe this tunic set belonged to Schneider. I believe this because my in-hand evaluation of the nametapes does not reveal the same issues that other well-informed members here have raised. I also believe this because the tunics are an exact match, with respect to size (they don't just look the same size), and I also believe that the photo is a match with the M36 tunic, despite other opinions to the contrary. I also believe in the "collar hooks" and do not believe them to be post-war added. HOWEVER, I also believe that like many tunics on the market, they were modified by the addition of loops, by a couple of new breast eagles, and possibly by the removal of pips. He was obviously wounded severely, and we might find that an assignment provided the opportunity to add cyphers to the one set of boards. Or, maybe not . . .

It is crucial to discover the service record of Schneider, to see where he was from, what assignments he enjoyed while serving, and maybe even what his size was. I will order as much as I can from Rob McDivit, and we'll see what he comes up with. In the mean time, I believe it's smart to make this tunic set a "gallery" set on my website until further analysis of his record can provide some additional facts. I'll try to re-write the description to reflect my opinion of these tunics. I do have two people interested in two of the tunics, based upon the analysis in this thread, as tunics that belonged to Schneider, but I am tempted to hold the set until I get the research from McDivit.

I will also try, as time permits, to re-create a photo of the M36, in an effort to allow for a better comparison of the two pieces of evidence. And by all means, if anybody has other photos of Schneider, please let us know!

[Vid]

let me offer my opinion on this tunic set, based upon the very informed and frank discussion that I always encourage about anything I post, or offer for sale:

I believe this tunic set belonged to Schneider. I believe this because my in-hand evaluation of the nametapes does not reveal the same issues that other well-informed members here have raised. I also believe this because the tunics are an exact match, with respect to size (they don't just look the same size), and I also believe that the photo is a match with the M36 tunic, despite other opinions to the contrary. I also believe in the "collar hooks" and do not believe them to be post-war added. HOWEVER, I also believe that like many tunics on the market, they were modified by the addition of loops, by a couple of new breast eagles, and possibly by the removal of pips. He was obviously wounded severely, and we might find that an assignment provided the opportunity to add cyphers to the one set of boards. Or, maybe not . . .

It is crucial to discover the service record of Schneider, to see where he was from, what assignments he enjoyed while serving, and maybe even what his size was. I will order as much as I can from Rob McDivit, and we'll see what he comes up with. In the mean time, I believe it's smart to make this tunic set a "gallery" set on my website until further analysis of his record can provide some additional facts. I'll try to re-write the description to reflect my opinion of these tunics. I do have two people interested in two of the tunics, based upon the analysis in this thread, as tunics that belonged to Schneider, but I am tempted to hold the set until I get the research from McDivit.

So........ Let me see if I can translate this into English.

You don't care what is said about these tunics and your going to re-write your opinion to reflect it in a manner so that you wont have to guarantee the items and although you did not research the items prior to listing them for 18,000.00 you will now. And although you are going to post them in your "Gallery" you will sell them anyway as your tempted to do so.

I see.. Very clever.

[Johnnie]

This thread is developing in a very intersting, or should I say amazing, manner.
It is becomming the highlight of my day to check in here
Amazing. Simply amazing.
But I am truely learning a LOT!

Cheers,
Johnnie

[Craig Gottlieb]

Vid is obviously trying to derail the friendly spirit of this productive and educational discussion, and we shouldn't let that happen. It's obvious from a read of my reply that I do take the efforts of the forum seriously, that I am interested in the truth, and that I am doing everything I can to assist in the discovery process.

[Vid]

Vid is obviously trying to derail the friendly spirit of this productive and educational discussion, and we shouldn't let that happen. It's obvious from a read of my reply that I do take the efforts of the forum seriously, that I am interested in the truth, and that I am doing everything I can to assist in the discovery process.

No, I am not. I am simply breaking down your words. You said, you are going to re-write the description with YOUR opinion and that you are TEMPTED to hold them for the research.

That means, your opinion will supercede all others, and you may sell them anyway with the controversy as it is, which would pretty much void any guarantee as you now have an out. Am I wrong?

[Craig Gottlieb]

No, you're misinterpreting them entirely, due to the emotional investment you have in proving me to have made a mistake. I am not interested in being right - I'm interested in the truth. And until opinion becomes fact, I will take opinions into consideration, but will draw my own conclusions as a seller, as you will draw your own conclusions as a buyer. Now, let's get back on track and discuss the tunics. Hopefully, McDivitt can get us the research file, and we can start digging into Schneider's records.

[Vid]

No, you're misinterpreting them entirely, due to the emotional investment you have in proving me to have made a mistake. I am not interested in being right - I'm interested in the truth. And until opinion becomes fact, I will take opinions into consideration, but will draw my own conclusions as a seller, as you will draw your own conclusions as a buyer. Now, let's get back on track and discuss the tunics. Hopefully, McDivitt can get us the research file, and we can start digging into Schneider's records.

Ok.

[NTZ]

Hopefully, McDivitt can get us the research file, and we can start digging into Schneider's records.

Very good idea!

[Panzer Rob]

Simon Orchard, who is considered by many to be one of the most respected, experienced, knowledgeable researchers and collectors here on this forum, has raised some extremely valid points in the sister-thread running over in the Collector Community forum that I think need be repeated - and addressed - here as well:

Whatever these may be they simply cannot be untouched\messed with. The little ribbon bar is downright laughable but that has little to do with the tunics. It's quite possible he had a small ribbon bar, flower war, westwall, ostfront, KVKII and EKII were all within his reach for his age.

the '8+D' tunic is trying to tell us he was a leutnant with the staff of the 8 Pz.Div. a WK III formation, something i find hard to believe (though by no means impossible) for reasons i'll explain later. Certainly having an attachment device for an RK added to a tunic not only below the rank at which he got his award but to a different unit is not believable not to mention against military law had he actually worn it.

On to the man himself. Rudolf Schneider was born in Darmstadt, 13.12.1918 and was killed or died 17.04.45 as a Hauptmann somewhere West of Kassel. Darmstadt is in Wehrkreis XII, we know he belonged to Pz.Jg.Abt.342 of the 342 ID and just as you'd expect it was a WK XII unit. It had been formed in 1940 from Pz.Jg.Abt.72, also a WK XII unit again as you'd expect. It was normal for soldiers and junior officers to serve in units within their home wehrkreis which brings us back to the 8 Pz.Div. which had no relation to WK XII.

I haven't cross referenced extensively but apparently Schneider got his RK on the 4, Oct.42 not Sept. as stated in the sales pitch.

‘he would obviously have rated a would badge, an EK1, and probably a PAB. Could this configuration work?’

A GAB not a PAB.


From the sales blurb

“Rarely do you get a group that leaves NO speculation as to the attribution of the grouping”



I find it worrying, perhaps irresponsible that such a bold statement can be made when the relatively simple step of getting the man's career history and cross checking it with the story the three tunics tell hasn't been carried out. Also, a blurry head and shoulders shot is not really good enough to say much at all.


Lastly, it's interesting to note that there are 8 Rudolf Schneiders born in 1918 listed on the Volksbund database, 2 with the rank of Hauptmann, one being the RKT Schneider. In other words, there were a good few of them about!

Again, all valid points that need to be addressed.

And, as forum member Gary_T pointed out earlier... Why is this set (still) being listed as a PANZER grouping (from Craig’s site as of 14:33 hours on 28 January 2008 “Panzer Uniform Grouping to Knights Cross Winner #2366”

He was a Infantry Panzerjäger - not Panzer - officer, yet it is still being touted as a "Panzer Uniform Grouping" in the headline. Despite the multiple updates and modifications to the listing, this issue still has not been addressed.

I'd like to add that I have no dog in this fight, I have nothing personal against Craig, nor do I have anything to gain or lose from participating in this discussion. That said, I find it extremely upsetting despite the issues and red flags discussed here, the obvious lack of research on the 'supposed' individual these tunics are claimed to have originally belonged to, and most importantly the lack of any real provenance linking these to RKT Rudolf Schneider, that Craig can still see fit to keep these listed on his site ‘and’ maintain that they belonged to RKT Rudolf Schneider.

Let me get this clear… Craig, you're saying that despite the red flags, criticism and lack of any real provenance, you're still confident that these belonged to RKT Rudolf Schneider and that you’re still going to list them as such and guarantee them for life? Sorry to be so pessimistic, but... Who on earth would be willing to take a 18,000K risk based on anyone’s word and guarantee, especially when these now have so much going against them? If I were spending that kind of money, I would want unquestionable provenance linking these directly to Rudolf Schneider, without any red flags, and I would have expected the individual selling them to have done the proper research behind the provenance, backing up his claims.

Personally I have not seen much that would lead me to believe that these tunics are what they are being offered as, nor do I see anything convincing enough linking them to Knight's cross Recipient Rudolf Schneider. Hopefully for Craig’s sake, information on Schneider can be uncovered that will put all of these issues to rest.

Thanks,
Rob

[Federico Perez]

Mr. Gottlieb, may I sujest you take the two tunics with name tags to an handwriting certified/expert, who can make a judgement on the writing in style and form and above all originality to one person, with this you at least have one of the direct links to the soldier resolved and out of any doubts.

As has been posted before and is my personal opinion, they are not writen by the same person, one of them is triying to imitate the scripture style of the other.

Fred

[Craig Gottlieb]

Rob: You have to acnowledge that it is unreasonabe to get "extremely upset" that a listing is not immediately changed. I have been traveling all weekend, and have just gotten back to work. With all due respect, it's not fair to expect me to be able to drop everything, fly back to California, and make changes. I wished to wait until I was back, and had the tunics in-hand. If the tunics had been sold and paid for, and someone had a hole in their pocket, this would be higher on my list of priorities. However, as it has NOT been sold, and as it WONT be sold until some issues are resolved, please bear with me and have some patience and understanding.

To resolve the issue of the loops, however, I can conclusively show that these tunics NEVER were fitted for a Spange, which shoots a big hole in the theory that this set belonged to some Imperial Officer. As the photos below will show, there are 5 individual loops in a row, and I can't really figure out what is going on. However, it's not a Spange that's going on. Best case: the loops were updated during the period, and old ones were not removed. Worst case: some dumb collector or dealer added loops. Sine the total of 5 individual loops in a row make no sense to me whatsoever, it seems likely to me that we are looking at an old set, and some new ones, to accomodate a wound badge or something.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Here's the other tunic. Again, we have a row of 5 individual loops, not suggesting a Spange, but something else entirely. Especially when you consider that the top two loops - where a Spange woud have gone, appear to be done at DIFFERENT times. It appears to me, as I suggested before, that more loops were added for an additional award of, say, a Wound Badge, without removing the older ones. Of course, the possibility exists that they could have been added by a collector or dealer. Also, it should be noted that these tunics are virtually identical with respect to size - they are not just "kinda similar." Finally, I studied the nametapes, and they are commensurate with the wear of the tunics. While it's a good idea to have a handwriting person look at these, I don't really have a handwriting expert, and frankly, assuming that Schneider's war-record checks out, I don't have a problem NOT going to a handwriting expert. I've had enough named tunics to be comfortable with the nametapes. You may disagree, but for now, respectfully, I have no problem with the tapes.

[NTZ]

Craig with all do respect your inexperience with tunics (and/or your expert) shows. First off please tell us what the top loops could be used for if not a spange? It is the exact width for a spange. Secondly let me run this scenario by you. Our Hauptmann or whoever really owned these tunics is a WWI vet and carries the WWI EK1. He is now awarded the EK1 spange. He now adds one loop above the original EK1 loop. Now he has his spange loops using one new and one old. He now adds the lower loop to adjust for the new positioning of the EK1 leaving an extra loop unused that he just does not remove. There is your answer but it looks like you will just keep making lame excuses for an obviously bad set. There are more problems than just the loops. Fred is 100% correct on one of those name tags being copied off the other one. Look at every single letter. You don’t need to be a handwriting expert to use common sense. But hey it is your reputation, do what you want. You may convince your wallet that these are right but you wont convince collectors that know what they are doing.

Oh wait I need more thing of humor for the night. Tell me why he added a RK device to all three tunics some time after 1942 but did not update his rank?????

[Craig Gottlieb]

Sorry NTC, but with respect, it seems you don't seem to understand loop usage . . . count the loops. There are five in a row. What do you think would go in the other 3 remaining loops once you're done using two for a spange? Answer: very difficult to suggest a combination. I can imagine one, but it's such a rare occurence, that given the fact that the top loops were NOT done at the same time, your argument falls apart, or at least becomes much weaker. Loops are almost always used in pairs, which means that with an odd lot, it seems most likely that the tunic was upgraded, and all of these loops were not used at the same time. So it is now doubtful that these loops housed a spange, which significantly lowers the "not Schneider" argument.

And with respect again, you must say that in your OPINION one of the tags is incorrect, just like in my OPINION, they are correct. Again, I am looking for truth, and you seem to be looking for the tunics to be bad, so you can pat yourself on the back as having discredited a dealer for making a mistake. At least, that is what it seems like to me. Again, I did the right thing by pulling the tunics from sale upon my return from my trip, and I re-wrote the description in the mean time, until I can answer some of these questions to my satisfaction (or not to my satisfaction). You may never be satisfied, NTZ, but you don't have to buy the tunics.

[Glenn McInnes]

Does an EK1 fit in the top 3 loops in the row of five? Have seen 3 used to attach this award before,probably to secure it better to the uniform,pin markings in the jackets cloth under the top 3 loops looks to be from one pin,leaving two loops left at the botton (wound badge?)




Glenn