The Grand Cross of the Iron Cross

Dietrich Maerz · Post by **Dietrich Maerz** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:29 pm

Paddy Keating wrote: When you make statements that, for instance, the first twenty-seven RK awarded were feinzink/neusilber crosses by C E Juncker, I cannot help wondering how you arrived at that conclusion.

It is clear from the record that the first awarded crosses were of the Juncker Neusilber/Zink Type. There is enough provenance and it is not something I came up with - I just could confirm it (again).

What of the special cased presentation sets commissioned by Hitler from Godet for his General Officers after the Polish and Western Campaigns? I have seen three of these sets. Two contained 1939 Spange and the RK, all of the the type associated with Godet.

Regarding to another collector the cases contained L/12 Juncker.... However, I have only seen a few such sets and the Spange set had Juncker in it (L/12). There are fake sets of this in circulation, though. I also have handled some sets with Godet RK and Oak and the one with the Godet EK set.
It seems there were sevaral variations and of course not all were given out. Hitler alway needed some reserve - same as with the Grand Cross. I tend to think that the later ones were the Godet ones.

The crosses were identical to Zimmermann RK, of course, except for the core finish.

Yup, living is learning!

With reference to your PM, I have not seen a cased set by C E Juncker but if you have, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

It's in the book. The case is not from Juncker but the content is.

You said that Halder's set contained a zinc-cored Juncker RK like the one I sold to Dr Hansen. How do you know that this cross was in the case when Halder received the set?

Thats not what I said in the PM. I said that Halder had a zink core/Neusilber frame cross. I have no idea in what it came in. I also say in the PM that not all of the zink core/Neusilber Juncker are neccesserely one of the early 27 awarded pieces - there were for sure more than that number around before the change to the next model was performed.

Dietrich

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:13 am

Of course there were. Like other firms, C E Juncker would have had minimum production runs. The RK was handmade in the style of the Imperial Iron Crosses, as were early 1939 Iron Crosses of both classes, but the firm would have made enough to cover the client's order and create a modest stock in case of repeat orders and for retail purposes. In itself, the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 is not a particularly rare item. Some variants by certain manufacturers are rare but if you just want a KC, you can probably own one within five minutes of reading this post...assuming you have the money.

When you say that the first twenty-seven awards involved feinzink/neusilber Juncker crosses, is that because you examined the medals of the first twenty-seven RKT? Or is it an educated guess or 'guesstimate' based on a predominance of this type in RKT groups dating from the early war period in question? If I am going to regret not keeping the example I had, then I want to be sure that my regret is justified!

Regards,

PK

PK

Dietrich Maerz · Post by **Dietrich Maerz** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:19 am

Paddy Keating wrote: When you say that the first twenty-seven awards involved feinzink/neusilber Juncker crosses, is that because you examined the medals of the first twenty-seven RKT?

Of course I did not. How could I find all 27?

Or is it an educated guess or 'guesstimate' based on a predominance of this type in RKT groups dating from the early war period in question?

As I said earlier already this is not something I came up with. A student of the RK can find this fact in Gordon's book on page 295. I just could confirm it with the Halder cross and the feedback from other collectors.

If I am going to regret not keeping the example I had, then I want to be sure that my regret is justified!

If your regret is based on the thinking that your cross might be one of the first 27 (named) then you don't need to worry- it might be very unlikely and unprovable anyway.
If your regret is based on not keeping one of the very first RKs of the the 3rd Reich then your regret is 100% justified - if it was a genuine example, that is.

Dietrich

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:41 pm

dbl post

PK

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:47 pm

In the vast majority of cases, there is no sure way of confirming that something like a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 belonged to a particular individual. I have seen a few cases in which a cross forming part of a group was identifiable in wartime photographs but that really was a handful of cases in over thirty years. Although I have some medals and badges, I tend to collect documents as these were the awards and are attributable. The Knight's Cross, though very impressive in itself, is really just an overpriced bauble of no great rarity, variants aside.

If you recall, I mentioned to you that I had sold this cross to Dr Hansen. You replied that you were familiar with it. Therefore you have only to take a look at it to see that it is a perfectly genuine feinzink/neusilber RK by C E Juncker.

You stated quite unequivocally that these crosses were awarded to the first twenty-seven recipients in 1939.

Zink core/Neusilber framed Juncker crosses are no retail pieces - they are the rarest of the rare and were the crosses that were awarded to the first 27 recipients in 1939. You should have kept it.

Maybe I should have kept it. But if I were to regret letting it go, it would not be based on some impossible hope that it was one of the first twenty-seven Ritterkreuze awarded. There is no way of establishing that. My regret would be based upon having sold a nice, honest example of a rare and early type of Ritterkreuz.

As I said earlier already this is not something I came up with. A student of the RK can find this fact in Gordon's book on page 295. I just could confirm it with the Halder cross and the feedback from other collectors.

On Page 295 of his book, Gordon Williamson writes that the "...very earliest known Juncker Knight's Crosses have Neusilber frames and are without markings." So, with this in mind, you looked at a Juncker feinzink/neusilber RK attributed to Franz Halder, awarded the RK on 28.10.1939, collected some "feedback" from other collectors and decided that the first twenty-seven recipients of the RK were given these zinc and nickle crosses?

I'm trying to follow the logic here. Is this because C E Juncker only produced feinzink/neusilber RK to begin with? If so, it seems reasonable to presume that this was the type of cross supplied and handed out. There again, was C E Juncker the sole supplier of the RK in 1939? The contract to produce this new grade of the Iron Cross would surely have been put out to tender as soon as or even before the official announcement was made. Other firms would have presented samples. On Page 285, Williamson writes: "From September 1939 to some time in mid-1941, a number of firms manufactured the Knight's Cross for retail sales.". Williamson then makes the point that these retail crosses were for RKT who wanted duplicates or wearing copies should they prefer to keep the award piece at home.

Coming back to the special cased sets containing the RK along with the 1939 EK1 and EK2, intended for high-ranking officers, Williamson also states, on Page 281, that "most surviving examples of this type contain crosses manufactured by Godet.". I have seen a couple of these sets plus one of the sets containing the RK with both classes of the 1939 Bar to the 1914 Iron Cross. In two instances, the RK was definitely a Godet piece, as were the other awards. The cases were also typical of Godet. In the other instance, the cross was by another maker. I can assure you, despite not having written a book on Iron Crosses, that the cases and their contents were certainly genuine.

I agree that the zinc Juncker is a very early piece but I confess to finding it hard to believe that the first twenty-seven recipients received this type, based on Williamson's statement, your examination of a cross alleged to have been given to Halder in 1939 and this feedback from other collectors to which you refer. However, I see nothing wrong in suggesting that this happened. I just cannot accept it as proven fact so I think we will have to agree to disagree, as we have on other occasions.

PK

Dietrich Maerz · Post by **Dietrich Maerz** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:18 pm

Paddy Keating wrote: If you recall, I mentioned to you that I had sold this cross to Dr Hansen. You replied that you were familiar with it. Therefore you have only to take a look at it to see that it is a perfectly genuine feinzink/neusilber RK by C E Juncker.

I might have misspoken. What I meant is that I know that Tom has a Neusilber/Juncker. I see this cross the first time and I would for sure have remebered it....I can tell you that much here!

You stated quite unequivocally that these crosses were awarded to the first twenty-seven recipients in 1939.

Again, this is not what I meant. I meant they are of the type that were also awarded to the first 27 recipients. I thought I clarified that later on....And so you don't need to nail me on this misunderstanding from your side for pages : I say clearly in the book that there are more than 27!

On Page 295 of his book, Gordon Williamson writes that the "...very earliest known Juncker Knight's Crosses have Neusilber frames and are without markings." So, with this in mind, you looked at a Juncker feinzink/neusilber RK attributed to Franz Halder, awarded the RK on 28.10.1939, collected some "feedback" from other collectors and decided that the first twenty-seven recipients of the RK were given these zinc and nickle crosses?

No. I wished life would be as easy as you portray it.

There again, was C E Juncker the sole supplier of the RK in 1939? The contract to produce this new grade of the Iron Cross would surely have been put out to tender as soon as or even before the official announcement was made. Other firms would have presented samples. On Page 285, Williamson writes: "From September 1939 to some time in mid-1941, a number of firms manufactured the Knight's Cross for retail sales.". Williamson then makes the point that these retail crosses were for RKT who wanted duplicates or wearing copies should they prefer to keep the award piece at home.

Yes, Juncker was the sole supplier in 1939. You might know that there were only 27 recipients in 1939!
The statement of retail crosses (as being different as award pieces - if I understand correct) from licensed manufactueres is a misconception. Could there be a ton of lets say lead-made one piece RKs?. Sure. I don't care about them.

Coming back to the special cased sets containing the RK along with the 1939 EK1 and EK2, intended for high-ranking officers, Williamson also states, on Page 281, that "most surviving examples of this type contain crosses manufactured by Godet.".

True. And...?

I have seen a couple of these sets plus one of the sets containing the RK with both classes of the 1939 Bar to the 1914 Iron Cross. In two instances, the RK was definitely a Godet piece, as were the other awards. The cases were also typical of Godet. In the other instance, the cross was by another maker. I can assure you, despite not having written a book on Iron Crosses, that the cases and their contents were certainly genuine.

OK? What's your point? One of the set I have seen (and show in the book) has Juncker in it. Now what? Maybe you should write a book ...

I agree that the zinc Juncker is a very early piece but I confess to finding it hard to believe that the first twenty-seven recipients received this type, based on Williamson's statement, your examination of a cross alleged to have been given to Halder in 1939 and this feedback from other collectors to which you refer.

Then don't believe it! It's that easy!
However, just to bring your twisted statement in a straight way: I did not set out and took Gordon's statement, found one cross (there is your 'alleged' again... don't question my sources!) and run with it. By the way, I did not take one of Gordon's statement as gospel (nor any other peoples) .... you will not find a Deschler in my book and there's a reason for that.

However, I see nothing wrong in suggesting that this happened.

Thank You! I'm happy!

I just cannot accept it as proven fact so I think we will have to agree to disagree, as we have on other occasions.

Yes, out of principle! I know what I know! And there is a difference between believing and knowing based on hard evidence.

Dietrich

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:36 pm

I'm simply quoting you. Nothing more, nothing less. And I will question your sources if I wish to! This is a discussion forum, after all. You stated clearly that the first twenty-seven recipients of the Knight's Cross received these Juncker crosses made of feinzink and neusilber.

You wrote:

Zink core/Neusilber framed Juncker crosses are no retail pieces - they are the rarest of the rare and were the crosses that were awarded to the first 27 recipients in 1939. You should have kept it.

Now you write:

Again, this is not what I meant. I meant they are of the type that were also awarded to the first 27 recipients. I thought I clarified that later on....And so you don't need to nail me on this misunderstanding from your side for pages : I say clearly in the book that there are more than 27!

How, precisely, did I misunderstand your original statement? How does "...they are of the type that were also awarded to the first 27 recipients." differ in meaning from "Zink core/Neusilber framed Juncker crosses are no [sic] retail pieces - they are the rarest of the rare and were the crosses that were awarded to the first 27 recipients in 1939"?

What you say in the book is irrelevant to this discussion, I am afraid. Moving on, you also write:

Yes, Juncker was the sole supplier in 1939. You might know that there were only 27 recipients in 1939!

The statement of retail crosses (as being different as award pieces - if I understand correct) from licensed manufactueres is a misconception. Could there be a ton of lets say lead-made one piece RKs?. Sure. I don't care about them.

Like many other people, I was unaware that C E Juncker was the sole supplier of RK in 1939. This is a most interesting revelation. I shall not ask you how you established this because I have not wish to upset you. I will order the book and read it attentively.

I do not think Gordon Williamson was suggesting that there was any material difference between retail and award pieces from authorised manufacturers, other than the hallmarks. After the March 1941 directive, as I understand it, authorised manufacturers had to mark retail pieces with their LDO code. Other than that, there was no difference between an RK supplied to the government and an RK sold through a retail outlet.

There was also an order to cease manufacture of the RK in any materials other than iron and silver. All the the RK made of other materials from 1939 to 1941 were outlawed. RK destined for retail and made of the correct materials were confiscated from retail outfits and manufacturers, with the exception of a few display samples.

That is the accepted view of the situation and has been thus for some time. If you have uncovered new information that changes this, I congratulate you and I am sure that many others will too.

To summarise, then, I misunderstood your meaning regarding the first twenty-seven crosses awarded: they were not all feinzink/neusilber crosses by C E Juncker. That is clear now. So, that just leaves us with your statement that C E Juncker was the sole supplier of the RK in 1939. Does this mean that they also made the RK in iron and silver?

And what were in all those red luxury cases presented to Generals and Admirals? Most students of the subject agree that the majority of these red-cased sets contained Godet products. You have seen one with a Juncker RK in it. I saw one with another type of cross. Was the Juncker RK you saw in this red case a feinzink/neusilber cross or a silver and iron cross? I think this is an important question as it would help to date the case. A lot of us thought they were only presented for the 1939 and 1940 campaigns. According to what you have written here, it would seem that the majority of these cased sets date from 1940 or later as they contain Godet RK which, apparently, did not exist in 1939.

I have asked Gordon Williamson to come and take a look. I am sure he will tell me if I am getting everything wrong. I am not infallible. I might just be failing to understand all of this new information.

PK