I have a Knight's Cross that has no content, or maker mark. It's been looked over by several antique dealers/collectors and they've said they all believe it to be authentic. My question is, were there any authentic KC's that were unmarked?
There is some damage to the Swastika and under the black appears to be silver..... please help!
Help With KC please!!
Moderator: John W. Howard
Well the fact that it's silver under the black color can give you some hope; all RK were made of silver. The fact that it doesn't have a number on it can be a bit of a problem. But to answer your question: No, every RK was marked.
best,
Nibelung
best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
Some images would help to determine the RK:S originality.
Most RK:s has a IRON CORE, not a Silver. I have never heard of RK with a core in silver, yes there are some with non-magnetic cores but they are not made in Silver!
Why would the make a core in silver and then paint it black? Thats just a waste of silver. The frame was made in silver though!
KR
Hans N
Most RK:s has a IRON CORE, not a Silver. I have never heard of RK with a core in silver, yes there are some with non-magnetic cores but they are not made in Silver!
Why would the make a core in silver and then paint it black? Thats just a waste of silver. The frame was made in silver though!
KR
Hans N
Sometiomes my lack of accuracy really makes me mad.Why would the make a core in silver and then paint it black? Thats just a waste of silver. The frame was made in silver though!
best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
You are right again; the RK's were marked on the ring on top of them through which the ribbon went. I'm not so sure anymore about the number on the RK anymore. 
best,
Nibelung
best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
Hmmm, now it sounds like you are talking about iron Cross 2 class.Nibelung wrote:You are right again; the RK's were marked on the ring on top of them through which the ribbon went. I'm not so sure anymore about the number on the RK anymore.
The makermarked RK´s are marked on the 12 o´clock arm on the frame, some where marked on the ribbonloop but most certainly not all of them.
Last edited by Hans N on Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's what I suggested in the first placeThe makermarked RK´s are marked on the 12 o´clock arm on the frame, some where marked on the ribbonloop but most certainly not all of them.
But the thing is that you really got me with the things I wasn't so sure. The info about unmarked RK was is totally new to me so excuse me for not being accurate in the first place.best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-
Paddy Keating
Hmmmm. Let me see if I can help you. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 was made by a limited number of authorised manufacturers. There were:
C E Juncker
Steinhauer & Lück*
Klein & Quenzer
Otto Schickle
Deschler & Sohn
C F Zimmermann**
Godet**
*Beware the 1939 pattern crosses with flaws to the frame beading as these were made after 1957.
**These crosses are identical because Godet and Zimmermann collaborated on Iron Cross production.
Early in the war, some unauthorised firms like Paul Meybauer produced Ritterkreuze for retail sale. Some of these crosses had non-silver frames and non-ferrous centres. Some of the authorised firms produced non-silver, non-ferrous crosses too. I have an RK by Juncker with a neusilber frame and a feinzink centre.
In March 1941, this was stopped by Dr Heinrich Döhle of the Präsidialkanzlei des Führers. Only authorised firms were to produce the Ritterkreuz and only in the approved materials, to whit, silver and iron, as per the original Iron Cross. Formal award pieces would bear the Präsidialkanzlei 'Lieferant' code number and pieces for sale through retail outlets, as replacements or duplicates, would bear the LDO code number.
Juncker's Lieferant number was 2 and its LDO number was L/12. So, for example, a Ritterkreuz bearing the '2' number was a formal award piece while its counterpart bearing the 'L/12' code was a retail piece. In November 1941, the Präsidialkanzlei announced a formal interdiction on the sale of the Ritterkreuz and its add-ons through retail outlets. All LDO-marked decorations were ordered to be surrendered to the Präsidialkanzlei.
Not all Ritterkreuze were marked. Some crosses did not even bear a silver content hallmark. The LDO-marked Zimmermann cross, for instance, has been observed with the ribbon ring marked L/52 and 800 but no marking on the upper reverse of the frame, the usual place for RK hallmarks. I have never seen the cross itself marked L/52. However, there are Zimmermann crosses marked '20' and 800 on the frame but with no marking on the ribbon clip. And then there are Zimmermann crosses with nothing but the 800 silver mark on the frame and no maker's number.
Confused yet? It can seem confusing. But the main thing to focus on when you are at an early stage of learning about the Ritterkreuz is that with such a limited number of makers, you quickly learn to recognise the die characteristics of originals according to their makers. Of course, some makers had more than one type of centre but it is simply a question of study. It is well worth buying Gordon Williamson's definitive study, The Iron Cross of 1939, published by Roger Bender (ISBN N° 0-912138-86-6), which contains very clear photos of the various kinds of original Ritterkreuze.
Here is a link to a webpage where you can see a few original crosses.
http://www.majorplm.com/collections/col ... adges.html
PK
C E Juncker
Steinhauer & Lück*
Klein & Quenzer
Otto Schickle
Deschler & Sohn
C F Zimmermann**
Godet**
*Beware the 1939 pattern crosses with flaws to the frame beading as these were made after 1957.
**These crosses are identical because Godet and Zimmermann collaborated on Iron Cross production.
Early in the war, some unauthorised firms like Paul Meybauer produced Ritterkreuze for retail sale. Some of these crosses had non-silver frames and non-ferrous centres. Some of the authorised firms produced non-silver, non-ferrous crosses too. I have an RK by Juncker with a neusilber frame and a feinzink centre.
In March 1941, this was stopped by Dr Heinrich Döhle of the Präsidialkanzlei des Führers. Only authorised firms were to produce the Ritterkreuz and only in the approved materials, to whit, silver and iron, as per the original Iron Cross. Formal award pieces would bear the Präsidialkanzlei 'Lieferant' code number and pieces for sale through retail outlets, as replacements or duplicates, would bear the LDO code number.
Juncker's Lieferant number was 2 and its LDO number was L/12. So, for example, a Ritterkreuz bearing the '2' number was a formal award piece while its counterpart bearing the 'L/12' code was a retail piece. In November 1941, the Präsidialkanzlei announced a formal interdiction on the sale of the Ritterkreuz and its add-ons through retail outlets. All LDO-marked decorations were ordered to be surrendered to the Präsidialkanzlei.
Not all Ritterkreuze were marked. Some crosses did not even bear a silver content hallmark. The LDO-marked Zimmermann cross, for instance, has been observed with the ribbon ring marked L/52 and 800 but no marking on the upper reverse of the frame, the usual place for RK hallmarks. I have never seen the cross itself marked L/52. However, there are Zimmermann crosses marked '20' and 800 on the frame but with no marking on the ribbon clip. And then there are Zimmermann crosses with nothing but the 800 silver mark on the frame and no maker's number.
Confused yet? It can seem confusing. But the main thing to focus on when you are at an early stage of learning about the Ritterkreuz is that with such a limited number of makers, you quickly learn to recognise the die characteristics of originals according to their makers. Of course, some makers had more than one type of centre but it is simply a question of study. It is well worth buying Gordon Williamson's definitive study, The Iron Cross of 1939, published by Roger Bender (ISBN N° 0-912138-86-6), which contains very clear photos of the various kinds of original Ritterkreuze.
Here is a link to a webpage where you can see a few original crosses.
http://www.majorplm.com/collections/col ... adges.html
PK
-
Paddy Keating
This has been discussed on the various forums quite often. Steinhauer & Lück were one of the firms that produced the 1957 pattern crosses for veterans. They used the wartime frame dies. Early 1957 pattern S&L Ritterkreuze were of a high quality, comparable to the wartime awards. At some point, the frame dies were damaged and cracks developed, resulting in raised flaws on the frame beading at 3-o-clock and 9-o-clock. A study of S&L crosses will show that the damage got worse over time. So, it is logical to conclude that any 1939 pattern RK by Steinhauer & Lück with these flaws postdates the introduction of the 1957 pattern cross, early examples of which lack the flaws.
The dies were sold on the quiet in 1981 by Steinhauer & Lück. They were offered at one point to an acquaintance of mine in London who was quite a serious criminal forger. He turned them down because of the damage. They were then bought by a top London dealer who used them to produce crosses that found their way into quite a few collections. Now that the cat is out of the bag, thanks to the internet, this issue has provoked furious arguments on several forums. Naturally some collectors with 1939 pattern S&K crosses made in or after 1957 tend to resist the truth.
There have been recent attempts by one or two top dealers to legitimise these restrikes/fakes by selling flawed S&L Ritterkreuze with certificates of authenticity, which is amusing given that the London dealer used to sell his fakes with CoAs and even little lead seals of quality. Of course, there is a difference between the S&L restrikes of the 1950s and 1960s and the London-made crosses of the 1980s.
In a sense, it's like the Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords by Godet: identical restrikes were produced in the 1960s and 1970s with the wartime tooling by Godet, then run by Anneliese Klietmann, and many of these were subsequently passed off as original wartime pieces. Some 'top collectors' suggest that there is a way to differentiate between a 1940s piece and one made in the 1960s but short of laboratory tests requiring physical damage to the piece, there is no effective way of telling them apart. One suspects that these collectors are merely trying to protect the value of their collections.
But if you say things like this in collecting circles, it provokes fury, for obvious reasons.
PK
The dies were sold on the quiet in 1981 by Steinhauer & Lück. They were offered at one point to an acquaintance of mine in London who was quite a serious criminal forger. He turned them down because of the damage. They were then bought by a top London dealer who used them to produce crosses that found their way into quite a few collections. Now that the cat is out of the bag, thanks to the internet, this issue has provoked furious arguments on several forums. Naturally some collectors with 1939 pattern S&K crosses made in or after 1957 tend to resist the truth.
There have been recent attempts by one or two top dealers to legitimise these restrikes/fakes by selling flawed S&L Ritterkreuze with certificates of authenticity, which is amusing given that the London dealer used to sell his fakes with CoAs and even little lead seals of quality. Of course, there is a difference between the S&L restrikes of the 1950s and 1960s and the London-made crosses of the 1980s.
In a sense, it's like the Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords by Godet: identical restrikes were produced in the 1960s and 1970s with the wartime tooling by Godet, then run by Anneliese Klietmann, and many of these were subsequently passed off as original wartime pieces. Some 'top collectors' suggest that there is a way to differentiate between a 1940s piece and one made in the 1960s but short of laboratory tests requiring physical damage to the piece, there is no effective way of telling them apart. One suspects that these collectors are merely trying to protect the value of their collections.
But if you say things like this in collecting circles, it provokes fury, for obvious reasons.
PK
Paddy, so is there any way to get a real RK if you really want to, without the chance of being riped-off? You really got me depressed with all these fakes, that I really begin to wonder if I'll ever buy one (if I have the money 
)
best,
Nibelung
)best,
Nibelung
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people. - Heinz Guderian
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --
-- Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago. --