The Grand Cross of the Iron Cross

[Paddy Keating]

I got a good price for the feinzink/neusilber Juncker RK. One cannot keep everything. I'll post a picture of it in due course. The Godet/Zimmermann collaboration is obvious because the RK and EK1 supplied by both firms were made on the same dies. The conclusion that Zimmermann was the actual manufacturer is reasonable to anyone familiar with Anneliese Klietmann's activities when CEO of the Godet firm, or the rump firm, during the 1960s and 1970s. The 1939-pattern RK discreetly supplied to top militaria dealers for resale as genuine wartime pieces was not the same as the RK observed with Zimmermann and Godet marks. Had Mrs Klietmann been in possession of the wartime dies, restrike Zimmermann and Godet RK would be as plentiful as S&L and K&Q RK. The Zimmermann and Godet RK are, however, extremely rare, indicating that the dies have not been used since the war and leading to the reasonable conclusion that it must have been Zimmermann that struck the components.

PK

[Dietrich Maerz]

Ok, so no definitive proof.

During my research for the book I talked at length to collectors in Germany and the USA. One topic was of course the unfortunate 'story' Gordon published in his groundbreaking book "The Iron Cross of 1939". He mentions the nearly perfect restrikes of Godet oaks (and even swords), stamped L/50 but SILBER instead of SiLBER. He doesn't show a picture but if they are - apart form the wrong stamping - so perfect as some people allege and report it should also be clear that they are of the first type.

I could not find any convincing fake of the 1. Type.

The story later expanded to the rumor that more than 50% of all 2. Type (900 21) Oaks on the market are restrikes and that those hit the market in the 60's and 70's.

I did find some very clever fakes (microcasting) but nothing more. Now one could say that - since they are so perfect - one would not detect them anyway. But one could, maybe, wake up because of the quantity on the market.

Apart from the lack of quantity, none of the German collectors (a few even having direct contact to Klietmannn and still have contact to Mrs. Paetzold) there never was a 'surge' in Oaks and/or Swords. Frau Klietmann even had different oaks and swords in her catalog.

This is a rumor - a spectacular one, I admit - most likely born out of a lack of a deeper comparison with the alleged copies with certified real pieces.

The same, by the way, applies to the rumor of Klein remakes of the diamonds. There are fakes on the market (tons of them) but no identical copies from Klein. This also comes from the unfortunate mix-up in Gordons book where he shows the same (fake) in the fake section and also in the 'real' section.
The diamaonds (Platinum and gold) is a chapter on it's own anyway. I will post the golden diamonds (A and B Type - not Rudel) next week.

But we should not stray into such things here. This is about the Grand Cross.

[Paddy Keating]

Yes, it's about the Grand Cross. However, the fact remains that perfect restrikes of the Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords were produced using wartime tooling and techniques by the rump of the Godet firm in the 1960s and 1970s and these were supplied under the counter to various top dealers who sold them on as originals. Godet also offered copies that did not look much like the wartime originals. It is interesting to see a shift away from previous arguments asserting that there is a way of telling the difference between a set of Godet Oakleaves from, say, 1943 and a set from 1973 to this assertion that no such skulduggery occurred. Ordinary collectors did not have access to Mrs Klietmann in the '60s and '70s but several top dealers did, including one who was having an affair with her. Of course, you were not around back then. But I was around at the end of the 1970s and was involved with some of the most active forgers and crooks in the business in London. I see a lot of stuff posted on these forums as original that I know to be fake. I don't think you've even been around long enough to remember some of my posts on the subject in the early days of militaria forums. I don't say this to be hostile. However, if you are contending in your book that none of this happened, then that is revisionism. It will please those with a vested interest in rehabilitating all sorts of expensive but questionable items in their collections and stock lists but to say that Godet did not supply high end restrikes to a small group of top dealers for fraudulent resale as originals to largely American collectors is like continuing to assert, for instance, that the so-called "Rounder" RK existed. Klein also produced perfect repops of their RK Diamonds to special order, if the customer were properly "introduced".

This is old territory and anyone interested in it can do some searching on websites like the WAF and GMIC.

PK

[Dietrich Maerz]

It is very easy to talk about facts and not to back it up with hard evidence. I understand that this is possible and the state of the affairs on the internet fora. This rumor is not the first one and will not the last one, the L/12 scare comes to mind and the post war flawed S&L.

However, as a serious researcher one has the duty to dig deeper.

You are right when you say that there is a way to distinguish fakes from genuine oak leaves but it is not in the way you portray it but rather in the way Gordon already described it. In searching the internet fora about this topic you mentioned one will only find the same posts from the same gentleman all over the place. That does not make it more credible.

I am absolutly confident that one can distinguish good Godets from bad ones and I give ample help in the book. I did what ever I could to proof the rumor and I could not. Regarding to my research there are no perfect Godet restrikes.

You might call that revisionism, I call it serious research. I will not go down as an author who reprinted every gossip he heard - there are enough already.

Who was 'around' or not has no bearing on the level of knowledge. I met a lot of people that were 'around' and don't know anything. Reading early internet postings is no measurement of deeper knowledge - however interesting it was. Just because you didn't know me doesn't meant that I didn't exist.

The same restrike rumor applies to the Diamonds of Klein. There are very good copies, but they miss out on some finer details that are not known to many. At it will stay that way.

Now you can accuse me of revisionism and rehabilitating fraudulent resale and even throw in the Rounder for good measure but you also know me as a serious researcher. And I could not verify that one and Diamonds. And you also know that I wold write about it if I would have found it.


We should stop the discussion here since there is nothing to add for me or you.

[Paddy Keating]

You are right when you say that there is a way to distinguish fakes from genuine oak leaves but it is not in the way you portray it but rather in the way Gordon already described it.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that there is a way to distinguish the 1960s/70s restrikes from the 1940s originals. I did not "portray" anything. I do not think that there is a way to distinguish them.

I am absolutly confident that one can distinguish good Godets from bad ones and I give ample help in the book.

I haven't seen your book yet. Do you present Godet Oakleaves known to have been restruck in the 1960s and 1970s side-by-side with known originals from the early 1940s? Or are you just talking about out-and-out fakes of Godet Oakleaves that were not struck on the wartime dies?

I did what ever I could to proof the rumor and I could not. Regarding to my research there are no perfect Godet restrikes.

It is certainly a hard thing to prove. Probably impossible, in fact.

You might call that revisionism, I call it serious research. I will not go down as an author who reprinted every gossip he heard - there are enough already.

The issue is not the reprinting of unsubstantiated gossip, Dietrich, but the repudiation of stories without, it seems, any hard proof on your part. It is OK to say "some people are wary of Godet Oakleaves because of rumours that perfect copies were produced in the postwar period by Godet and sold by unscrupulous dealers as originals but these rumours remain unsubstantiated".

It is not OK to blithely dismiss the rumours as untrue just because you, arriving on the scene thirty or more years later, couldn't find anyone prepared to go on the record in your book about them. Most of the players are dead now and the few still alive want a quiet life.

Who was 'around' or not has no bearing on the level of knowledge. I met a lot of people that were 'around' and don't know anything. Reading early internet postings is no measurement of deeper knowledge - however interesting it was. Just because you didn't know me doesn't meant that I didn't exist.

Well, in some cases, being "around" does have a bearing on "knowledge". I was "around" in the late 1970s, working as a runner for some of the dodgiest characters in the London militaria "underworld" and I saw and heard a lot of things, Dietrich. Can I prove it? No. But why do you think I have never added any Godet Oakleaves or Oakleaves & Swords to my collection? Because I can't afford them? Or because I distrust them? Godet Oakleaves are just one small part of it.

The same restrike rumor applies to the Diamonds of Klein. There are very good copies, but they miss out on some finer details that are not known to many. At it will stay that way.

I'm glad you use the word "rumour". That's a good word. Ah yes, the "finer details". Actually, I do know of one "finer detail" in the construction of Klein originals that enables some of the better fakes to be told apart from originals.

Someone who dealt with Klein in the 1980s recounted a conversation in which this detail was described as a faker's mark, rather like the full stop that enabled the Paul Conrath RK documents sold to Petersen to be indentified as fakes.

However, the fact remains that there are Klein-made Diamond sets out there that were probably not in existence before 9.5.1945 but which pass every test. That is the whole point of getting medal makers to collaborate with you when you set out to make some money from gullible collectors.

Now you can accuse me of revisionism and rehabilitating fraudulent resale and even throw in the Rounder for good measure but you also know me as a serious researcher. And I could not verify that one and Diamonds. And you also know that I wold write about it if I would have found it.

I'm not accusing you of anything at all. I am simply disagreeing with some of your assertions and asking you, in some cases, to provide grounds for those assertions.

"I couldn't find any proof that A. Dealer Esq was commissioning perfect Godet Oakleaves from the woman running the firm in the 1970s so it never happened" is not a valid statement, Dietrich. You might have spent lots of time trying to verify the stories but your opinion is nothing more than your opinion.

Yes, sure, I mentioned the Rounder because it remains relevant in the context of how seriously you take your research. You backed down over it after one of your main sources for asserting its originality, Brian S, admitted publicly that he had lied about his Rounder RK having been awarded to his relative and that he had bought the cross from a dealer. Now, that's a matter of record. The Rounder RK was probably a carefully orchestrated scam by a group of dealers and dealer-collectors. I'm not saying that you were knowing involved in the scam. You dropped it as soon as it was exposed, which is to your credit.

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. 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. The crosses were identical to Zimmermann RK, of course, except for the core finish. The third contained EK2 and EK1 by Godet (Zimmermann) but the cross was an LDO-marked Juncker, indicating a replacement at any time between 1939 and 2003.

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. 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?

We should stop the discussion here since there is nothing to add for me or you.

I respectfully disagree. I'd love to discuss your conclusions and how you came by them. I will certainly give you the contact details of the French bookseller so that you can export some copies of the book to France. However, you can contact him yourself via the WAF. His name is Jean-Yves Nasse.

Rgds,

PK

PK

[Dietrich Maerz]

Your logic is astonishing!

You state something that is unproven, I say I could not verify it and now I am in cahoots with all kinds of shady dealers?

I will not discuss this issue any further. I know what I did, I know what I know, I wrote what I know and if that was wrong (which it isn't) you are welcome to write a book on your own and prove your point.

Why will I stop here?

Because I will not start the usual mudslinging with you. I see it already:

"Yes, sure, I mentioned the Rounder because it is relevant in the context of how seriously you take your research. You only backed down over it after one of your main sources for asserting its originality, Brian S, admitted publicly that he had lied about his Rounder RK having been awarded to his relative and that he had bought the cross from a dealer. Now, that's a matter of record. "

The Rounder thing is perfectly preserved at WAF. The version you refer to comes from a not so trustworthy source, straight out of the hate/sensation department. Thats not a record, thats the internet version of the "The Sun".

You can be lucky that I do not judge your personality and the stories you tell on your past an present deeds and take them as a witness of your research ...

Yes, time will tell ...

[Paddy Keating]

I am sure that your book is very good. I just tend to question some of the statements you make on internet forums. Which is the function of forums. It's called discussion. I cannot prove the Godet Oakleaves story but nor can you disprove it. True or false, I'm still not buying any Godet Oakleaves! Like mint Klein & Quenzer RK and flawed S&L RK, there is just too much of a question mark over them. I don't know why this makes some people so angry. I simply prefer not to place faith in things that seem questionable.

The only extant Rounder discussions of which I am aware, other than the much-edited one to which you refer, can be found on the GMIC site, which is hardly Sun-style tabloid in nature. The best one, in which you participated, can be found here: http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=13627. There is another Rounder discussion at http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2 ... ntry196702. There was a discussion on the WAF started by George Stimson in which Brian Hildemann aka Brian S came clean about the provenance of his Rounder, which was a mainstay of the Rounder article you subsequently renounced once it became clear that one of your sources had fabricated the evidence.

PK

[phylo_roadking]

And at THIS point the "discussion" rests for the afternoon until Jason can take a look-see later.

[Dietrich Maerz]

You know very well that I did not refer to the thread at GMIC but to the nasty ones at MCF...

So, just to make one thing clear: I value GMIC very high, I have a lot of friends there and I would never ever compare GMIC with The Sun.

I do not dislike Gordon a little bit and will always stand up for the groundbreaking work he did with his book "The Iron Cross of 1939". Without this work mine would not have been possible and I say that ever clearly in the Introduction. And he also thought the Rounder to be good, among a ton of other people.

I don't know where you have that idea from with me and Gordon ...

The thread at WAF is not edited and let me say this: If it was edited by me (which you imply) why not erase it completely? You know that I have the power as a Forums Moderator to erase all posts I don't like...but I just don't do things like that.

I'm not nasty and rude - I am known on the Internet for being very calm, polite and factual.

When you finally have my book and you have read what I wrote about the Godet and Klein rumor we can talk further. It does not help to talk about something one has not seen or read. You have to see it in the full context of the book.

[Paddy Keating]

I was basing my responses to you solely upon your statements here. You're free to opine that no perfect replicas or restrikes of Godet EL and ELS were produced after the war but I am just as free to disagree with you. There is no need to get personal, Dietrich. Keep the temper in check. Otherwise the topic will be closed down...and that would be a shame because readers have a right to know all sides of an argument. People are still buying Godet EL and ELS so those who share my feelings about them have not been heeded by many people. Which is probably more of a commentary on the majority of militaria collectors than any discussions between people like you and me.

Pax vobiscum...

PK

[Jason Pipes]

It's clear you both have some very strong feelings on this matter, and Dietrich is clearly an expert in this area of research. Feldgrau very much values his contributions and his comments in this thread so far. Paddy brings up some good points which as far as I can tell Dietrich responded to although maybe not to PKs liking.

If you both want to continue this discussion that is fine, but it MUST be done in a civil and respectful manner. If you need to take a break and respond later to avoid uncivil remarks please do so.

Dietrich is fairly new here so he certainly gets the benifit of the doubt, but PK you're a long time member and you know the rules. No snide remards, no baiting, keep it civil, etc. I say that because this is clearly something you both feel strongly about. This will be a good test of our new zero tolerance policy for uncivil comments and postings.

[Paddy Keating]

I think that signals the end on Feldgrau of any discussion between myself and Dietrich Maerz. I'll stay away from him but I expect him to stay away from me.

PK

[Jason Pipes]

I have kept it civil. I don't feel all that strongly about this. I am simply expressing my opinions. Well, I am keeping some opinions to myself, in line with the new policy.

We appreciate the attempt to keep things civil.

[Paddy Keating]

Well, I even toned down that last post as you were making yours, Jason. It's probably best if I ignore Dietrich Maerz from now on. I hope he ignores me too.

PK

[Jason Pipes]

I don't think you need to ignore each other, just try to keep the discsussion civil regardless of how much you disagree. Reasonable people can disagree on important subjects and do so in a way that is respectful.