ADOLF GALLAND'S DIAMONDS

ADOLF GALLAND'S DIAMONDS

 

Only twenty-seven Ritterkreuzträger received the Brillanten, making it a very rare award. Adolf Galland was one of the first three recipients, receiving the Brillanten as Oberst und Kommodore of Jagdgeschwader 26 on 30.8.1942.   

In Galland’s memoir The First and The Last, the fighter ace recounts the story of how Göring had a set made for him after examining the set given to the Galland by Hitler and that Hitler, on learning of this, then presented Galland with an even better set. Galland wrote: 

“How I got the diamonds is another story. Hitler had given me one set with the usual ceremony. Some time later, when I was sitting opposite Göring in his special train at his H.Q. in the Ukraine, Göring looked at me quizzically and said, "tell me, are those diamonds the Fuhrer gave you? Let me have a look at them.'. 

 

"I put down my knife and fork and started to take off the Knights Cross. Göring took my diamonds in his hand and scrutinised them.  'No,' he said with a grimace of disapproval. 'These aren't diamonds at all. They're just stones, ordinary stones. The Fuhrer has been swindled over this. He knows a a lot about guns, battleships and tanks but hasn't a clue about diamonds. Look here, Galland, I'll get some for you. Then you will see what diamonds really are. I still have a few left.'. He took the diamonds and I fastened on my Knights Cross with a paper clip. 

 

"Later I went to Karinhall to see Göring. The diamonds had been built by his court jeweler and Göring was as pleased as a child. 'Look here,' said Göring, holding a decoration in each hand so that the diamonds sparkled. 'These are the Fuhrer's diamonds and these are the Reichmarschall's. Do you see the difference? Now, which one of us knows about diamonds?'. 

 

"I had to admit that he was right. The Reichmarschall's had a beauty of their own, they were larger and had a wonderful brilliance. Compared with them, the Fuhrer's stones looked very inferior. He gave me both decorations back and I now had two sets. Well, later it seems that Hitler found out about this and stated that the original pair he had awarded were only 'temporary'."

 

Hitler then ordered another pair made which was presented to Galland as a third set after he criticised the second (Göring's pair) as 'just ordinary stones'. Galland recounted: "Towards the end of the war my command post near Berlin was completely destroyed by bombs, and among other things I lost set No. 3. When Hitler heard of this he had a new set made. This was my fourth.". 

 

In 1990, the Deutsches Ordensmuseum published a list of the known fate of genuine examples of the Brillianten.   ‘A’ refers to the platinum sets and ‘B’ to the silver versions: Vorhanden in Familienbesitz, beim Träger oder beim Käufer 15A, 10B; nicht augehändigt 3A, 6B; in den Kriegswirren verloren, gegangen 3A, 0B; von den Siegern erbeutet, gestohlen 1A, 1B; beim Absturz zerstört 1A, 2B; umgearbeitet in eine Brosche 1A, 0B; umgearbeitet in eine Brosche und gestohlen 1A, 0B; mit den Trägern beigesetzt 0A, 3B; in Gefangenschaft abgenommen 0A, 5B; unklar 2A, 0B. Total, 27A 27B.  

 

Not every Brilliantenträger received two sets. Ramcke, for instance, received just one set. The set attributed to Marseille which is on display at the Luftwaffe Museum in Utersen is a copy and there is some question as to whether Marseille actually received the Brillanten before his death. Other RKT, like Adolf Galland, received more than two sets.

 

According to the DO, just two sets were unaccounted for in 1990, both of these being A Stück platinum Brillanten. A set of allegedly genuine Brillanten reportedly realised around $100,000.00 US early in 2004. This was a silver B Stück set and changed hands between two well known collectors.

 

Galland's Brillianten in the Wolfe-Hardin dealership showcase

 

The Californian dealers Wolfe-Hardin had a cased set of Galland Brillanten for sale for years. As the above photograph shows, these Brillanten attributed to Galland resemble neither the 1st Pattern set attributed to Hermann Graf (center) nor the Klein set attributed to Gordon Gollob (right). 

It is interesting that there were no takers amongst Wolfe-Hardin's clientele –– said to include Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks and Client Eastwood –– for Adolf Galland's Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds to the Knight's Cross. One would have expected the Galland Brillanten to have been snapped up quickly by any of the collectors with sufficient disposable income.

 

The set taken from Galland by Göring at the dinner table was probably a Godet piece. Galland’s anecdote is sometimes cited as bearing out the story that Hermann Göring had Brillianten production switched from Godet to Klein because he felt that Godet's product was not good enough for his boys, the first five recipients being Luftwaffe pilots.  

 

However, if Göring commissioned Klein, then where did Hitler source the sets he later presented to Galland? Some people have suggested that Göring commissioned Tiffany’s Paris branch to produce the replacement set he gave Galland. 

 

Given Göring’s nature, this story is possible. Göring was certainly a Tiffany's customer before America's entry into the war. However, by the time Galland received the Brillianten from Hitler on 28.1.1942, the United States was at war with Germany and Tiffany’s was an American company. 

 

Revue magazine 23.5.1953 - courtesy of the late Dave Kane

 

In 1953, the German magazine Revue published a story about Galland's family commissioning a new set of Brillanten for the air ace, who was working as a consultant to the Argentine dictator Juan Perón. This article poses some awkward questions for anyone claiming to be in possession of Adolf Galland's Brillanten.

 

If the Galland family had had two sets of Brillanten back in 1953 –– or three sets, if you believe that they sold a set to Wolfe-Hardin a few years ago –– then why did they go to the trouble and considerable expense – DM 3.200.00 - of having a set made for Adolf Galland to wear at functions in Argentina? Why not simply send him one of the two or three sets they had? 

 

One obvious conclusion is that neither Adolf Galland nor his family had any sets of Brillanten in 1953, unless they had the set that Galland was wearing when he went into captivity at the end of the war. If so, why did they not simply have that set sent out to Buenos Aires in the Argentine diplomatic bag or via one of Perón's couriers, given that General Galland was working for the Argentine government? 

 

Sentimental reasons? Did they wish to keep the wartime set safe? It would seem unlikely because for Germans, the document is the award. The medal is merely an outward sign of possession of the document. It is more likely that someone stole Galland's Brillanten during his time as a POW or that he sold them for scrap value during one of his periods of poverty after his demobilisation. 

If Galland or his family had been in possession of at least one of the superior sets from Göring or Hitler in 1953, why would Galland have asked his brother to commission the best possible set money could buy when he could have bought a perfectly acceptable wearing copy to show off in Buenos Aires for considerably less than DM 3.200?

 

It is worth noting that while the 1957 Ordensgesetz instituting the denazified versions of Third Reich awards mentioned the Brillanten, none of the firms which produced 1957 pattern awards appears to have listed the Brillanten in their catalogues, doubtless for commercially-related reasons.There were only twenty-seven holders, of whom several were dead.

 

Some 1957 pattern Oakleaves & Swords exist with crudely inset paste stones but one cannot really imagine a Brillantenträger wearing such cheap-looking versions when he could commission a set from the original maker. Even if he could not afford diamonds, he could still have asked for a decent-looking, well-made replica from Klein in silver  or platinum with zircon stones. Platinum was popular with jewelers for setting stones and prices had not yet been pushed up by the space race. 

Klein's replica Brillanten were sold through various sources, including the Historical Military Art & Collectibles enterprise, operating out of California in the 1960s. One could buy a set in silver with real diamonds for $3,675.00, which was quite a hefty sum in those days. A budget set in silver with fake stones retailed at $795.00. A few years ago, the British dealer Adrian Forman sold a set of replica Klein Brillanten described as having been commissioned by Vern Bowen for £1,000.00 Sterling.  These postwar sets were not identical to the wartime sets.

 

Given that Klein continued to produce Brillanten after the war for collectors and, presumably, for Brillantenträger, it seems likely that the Brillanten in the possession of the Galland family today or, to be more precise, since 1953 are all postwar reproductions. Klein’s reproductions differed slightly from the wartime sets but Klein, like Godet and some other firms, are alleged to have made perfect replicas of the wartime pattern Brillanten to order. 

 

To add to the mystery, the Galland family has declined to comment on the Brillanten offered by Wolfe-Hardin except to say that the air ace's Brillanten remain in the family's possession and that there are two sets. This statement raises the same question as the 1953 magazine article: why would Adolf Galland have gone to the expense of having a new set made if he still had an original set or, as the family allege, two original sets?

We can be reasonably sure that the 1st Pattern Brillanten were supplied to the Präsidialkanzlei by the firm of Godet, which may or may not have entrusted the setting of the stones to another firm. These early Brillanten were replaced by the 2nd Pattern Brillanten by Klein. Any set of Brillanten that does not conform to known original examples of each pattern, be it A or B Stück, must be treated with caution. 

To make matters worse, Klein are alleged to have made some perfect replicas of their wartime Brillanten although the sets they offer publicly as reproductions for collectors incorporate slight differences to the wartime pieces. We are therefore faced with a situaton similar to that pertaining to Godet Oakleaves and Oakleaves & Swords: without unshakeable provenance, who can tell the difference between a 1940s piece and one made twenty years later in exactly the same way? 

 

It is, of course, a rhetorical question. The situation is further muddied by the mistaken description on Page 423 of Gordon Williamson's The Iron Cross of 1939 (Bender 2002) of one of these replica Klein pieces as a wartime set. The set in question belonged to the late Bill Stump, who always claimed to have pointed out to Williamson that the set was a reproduction.  

 

Whatever the case, the evidence suggests that, by 1953, Adolf Galland no longer had any of the four sets of Brillanten to which he referred in his memoir. So where did the various sets of "Galland Brillanten" in the possession of Adolf Galland's family and Messrs Wolfe-Hardin come from?

 

 

 

 

 

THE CONRATH KNIGHT'S CROSS SCAM

THE CONRATH KNIGHT'S CROSS SCAM

This is the story of how even the top experts and collectors were gulled by a set of forged formal Ritterkreuz documents purporting to have come from the family of Paul Conrath, Commander of the Luftwaffe's elite Hermann Göring Division. Generalmajor Conrath died in 1979 and some time later, so the cover story fed to collector George Petersen went, the Conrath family had decided to sell these documents.

Paul Conrath's Knight's Cross Document

Those who tried to expose the truth were gagged by the two main militaria forums at the time: Wehrmacht Awards Dot Com and German Daggers Dot Com, run respectively by Sebastián Bianchi and Craig Gottlieb. You will not find this story on either of these websites nor on any others today, although collectors occasionally ask about it.

The fake documents were good enough to fool an experienced document collector of the calibre of George Petersen and were said by many to have been produced by the father of Kai Winkler. That the Oakleaves document and its cassette found their way into one of the two or three leading reference works on the Iron Cross 1939 is no reflection on the author, Gordon Williamson, who in any case would just have received publication quality scans. The cassettes, on the other hand, were both original pieces but had contained award documents to other men.

 

General der Fallschirmtruppe Paul Conrath's paybook

George Petersen said that he was approached at a military show in Dortmund in the early 1990s by the Hamburg dealer Detlev Niemann, who offered him the documents set "straight from the family". Niemann was already gaining a reputation amongst American collectors as a dealer who could source extraordinary items for their collections of Third Reich memorabilia.

 

As Niemann's reputation was clean, compared to some other dealers, Mr Petersen saw no reason for suspicion. Had he known, however, that the documents had come to Niemann from fellow Hamburg dealer Kai Winkler rather than directly from the Conrath family, he might have exercised more caution. 

 

 Niemann was said to be one of the dealers who had financed the Wehrmacht-Awards Forum in 1999. The WAF's Argentine-American owner, Sebastian Bianchi, whose ignorance of militaria was painfully clear when he contributed to 'his' forum, was merely a frontman for this shady cabal of American and German dealers. 

 

Rumours about the Conrath documents scam began circulating in 2003. When Paddy Keating published an exposé on a new 'rebel' forum called Militaria Collecting Dot Com, it was clear that Keating, employed as a senior editor on various monthly magazines, had gone as far as interviewing the normally very reticent George Petersen, 

 

 Detlev Niemann's reputation was severely damaged by Petersen's revelations. Niemann's cult-like followers dropped him like a hot rock and he maintains a low profile to this day. 

 

Keating was banned from the WAF and other leading militaria forums. Here is the text of Keating's exposé of the Conrath RK documents scam, preceded by the llawyer's letter sent by WAF frontman Bianchi to the owner of the website where the following article was published. The receipient refused to delete the article so Bianchi found other ways of retaliating against Keating on behalf of Niemann and his dealer associates.

Bianchi and Niemann: the $100 lawyer's letter

THE CONRATH DOCUMENTS SCAM

One of the bigger scandals to hit the militaria market was hushed up for a while but details are beginning to emerge as the victim speaks out. Legendary American collector and dealer George Petersen has a particular interest in the Hermann Göring Division and related units. 

Top German dealer Detlev Niemann reportedly approached Mr Petersen privately to see if he would be interested in the formal award documents for the Knight's Cross and the Oakleaves presented to the Hermann Göring divisional commander, Generalmajor Paul Conrath in 1941 and 1943. Mr Petersen purchased the Conrath documents from Mr Niemann for a substantial sum, said to be in the region of $80,000.00.

The document was subsequently featured in Gordon Williamson’s book The Iron Cross of 1939, published in 2002, which is considered to be the definitive reference work to date on the Iron Cross of WW2. At the MAX Show in October 2002, Mr Petersen was in the process of selling the Conrath Oakleaves document to another leading document collector.  German dealer Helmut Weitze, intervened, recounting a disturbing story to the prospective buyer. 

Mr Weitze said that the Conrath Oakleaves document was a fake and alleged that Mr Petersen had been the victim of a carefully planned ‘sting’ conceived and executed by Mr Niemann and Kai Winkler, another top German dealer. Mr Petersen was understandably sceptical because the three German dealers in question are bitter rivals. 

 

Furthermore, the Conrath document was perfect in every respect. Or so Mr Petersen thought. But according to his informant, the faker had incorporated a secret mark into his work in the form of a diamond-shaped full stop, known to a handful of accomplices but invisible to the untutored eye.

Mr Petersen duly examined the Conrath document and discovered the faker’s mark. The document was indeed a fake but such a good fake that it had convinced one of the world’s authorities on WW2 German documents to part with a high five-figure sum. According to Mr Petersen, he contacted Detlev Niemann and during the conversation that ensued, gave him an ultimatum; Mr Niemann was to reimburse Mr Petersen by the end of February or face exposure by Mr Petersen as a crook.

Mr Niemann was reportedly unable to refund Mr Petersen’s money in full because his accomplice refused to return his share of the proceeds of the scam, telling Mr Niemann that there was no proof that he was involved. 

 

 

According to sources close to Mr Petersen, he and Mr Niemann came to a financial arrangement and Mr Niemann was thus spared public exposure by Mr Petersen as a crook who had deliberately entered into an ambitious criminal enterprise with a business rival to swindle one of the world’s top collectors and foremost authorities on documents. 

However, the story has been in circulation since the beginning of 2003. In January 2003, I put the story to Sebastian Bianchi, webmaster of the Wehrmacht-Awards Dot Com website, which promotes Detlev Niemann to its large membership as a trustworthy and reliable dealer. 

 

As Mr Bianchi wrote on on April 29th 2002: "Detlev Niemann has been a friend of this site and this forum since its inception. He not only sponsors the site in an official capacity but also provides support in ways that are above and beyond this commitment. 

 

"You know from your purchase success rate that he hardly needs the advertisement, yet he supports the site and the hobby in ways that other dealers and auction houses would never dream of. If I sound like a cheerleading band it is because I personally hold deep respect for the man.".

Mr Niemann is widely believed to be a joint-owner of the Wehrmacht Awards concern, described dubiously as a non-profit organisation. Mr Bianchi and his forum moderators are well known for a tendency to discourage and to delete negative comments related to Detlev Niemann from the discussion forums hosted by Wehrmacht Awards Dot Com.

Mr Bianchi had called me to discuss some negative comments I had made about his “friend” and “sponsor” Mr Niemann in relation to several fakes that Mr Niemann had sold, including Army Parachutists Badges and a Legion Condor Tank Badge. I had previously been banned from Mr Bianchi’s website after a member there had linked to a Luftwaffe badge, purchased from Mr Niemann, displayed in the collectors’ gallery section of a website I co-own. The badge was discussed on Mr Bianchi’s forums and declared a fake. 

 

It was indeed a fake but when I produced the Certificate of Authenticity accompanying the badge when it was sold to a French collector, and published it on Mr Bianchi’s website, in the thread where my website was being criticised for showing fakes, the thread was closed, my post was deleted and my account was suspended. This is just one example from a catalogue of similar incidents involving several people who have all been banned by Mr Bianchi for “attacking” Mr Niemann.

Upon hearing the story of the Conrath document from me on the telephone, Mr Bianchi sounded very uncomfortable indeed. His aggressive tone evaporated. He was silent for a moment and then asked if there was “any proof”. I suggested that he call George Petersen. He was again silent for a moment before saying “Well, let’s wait and see what happens.”, referring to the ultimatum given to Mr Niemann by Mr Petersen. Mr Bianchi then changed the subject. 

 

Since then, Mr Bianchi has become protective of Mr Niemann to the point of hysteria as this quote when he closed down a thread shows: "This thread has run its course, Detlev’s integrity needs no further endorsement and I will not open this up for posts by those who do not have the sense to recognize that sometimes issues needs to be discussed via private e-mail."

In another example from the record, Mr Niemann sends out a clear signal to Mr Bianchi that he is in difficulties, on this occasion over a flawed die Steinhauer & Lück Knight’s Cross for sale on his website. A number of forum participants had asked awkward questions about this cross. Mr Niemann had responded with customary aggression but found himself ‘on the ropes’. So Mr Bianchi duly obliged by stepping in to warn everyone off. 

 

His reference to the “ring” is interesting. He was confusing two issues. I had earlier made a reference publicly to the Conrath document episode and Mr Bianchi was furious as he had threatened me with immediate expulsion if I ever raised the matter publicly, not just on his forum but anywhere. I had not used the term “ring” – as in a ring of conmen or car thieves – so his slip is a telling one.

Sebastian Bianchi

Administrator

Joined: Jan 2000

Location: Matawan, NJ, USA

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Detlev Niemann

But as this fruitless and personal debat should not continue I will ask the Moderators either to order us to stay logic and cool, or simple to delete the whole circus.

d.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed this thread should be about the cross in question, and only about the cross in question. The serious accusations put forth regarding this "ring" should be either backed up with names, dates, and places or deleted. I will be monitoring this thread carefully and will not hesitate to act, do not force my hand.

__________________

Sebastián J. Bianchi

Wehrmacht-Awards.com

Wehrmacht-Association.com

Report Post | IP: Logged

The reason, according to several inside sources, is that Niemann is not just a "sponsor" of the Wehrmacht Awards operation. He is a sleeping partner in an operation whose management - and certain members – devote a remarkable amount of energy to promoting Mr Niemann and his dealership. The Conrath Document Affair exposes certain truths that many militaria collectors are reluctant to face. If collectors as experienced as George Petersen can be taken for a ride in this way, what else is possible? As one collector said:

"The reason many of them are worried is that their knowledge of what they collect is actually insufficient in itself and instead of investing the time and effort in educating themselves, they place sheeplike faith in the dealer annointed as their guru. This is why they tend to shoot the messenger."

Meanwhile, Mr Bianchi’s operation continues to grow in size, forming alliances with other websites like Militariaweb, derided by many top European collectors as nothing more than an outlet for dealers unloading questionable items which they either cannot risk selling under their own names or which have already been returned by dissatisfied customers.

 

These items are consequently are sold off through such auction websites by dealers’ frontmen or the dealers themselves, operating behind the anonymity afforded by the internet. As for Detlev Niemann, some idea of the man behind the myth can be gleaned from his own statements.

Who ever insults,attacks or bad mouthes me OR MY STAFF will be added to our privat “Black list” we have in our office.I will never ever sell or help this person again.Either being a dealer or a collector,this strain is dead.And this list is already very long.Few might know that I’m not on speaking terms with most of my collegues.

It would be surprising indeed if Mr Niemann were on speaking terms with his colleagues in Germany. One of them grassed him and his accomplice up over the Conrath document scam and the other, his partner in this criminal enterprise, left him holding the baby when the furious buyer came a-knocking. Presumably George Petersen is now on Detlev Niemann’s blacklist.

 

The observer is left with a choice of conclusions. One view is that Mr Niemann was merely a young dealer back in 1991 who allowed himself to get carried away by the excitement of handling the sale of two historically important documents to a collector seen as legendary in militaria circles. In short, an unwitting patsy. Another view is that the prospect of earning a commission prevented him from questioning the situation too closely. A third view is that he was in on it.

 

A number of WAF worthies and Niemann fans have offered spirited defences on behalf of the famously charmless Hamburger. Nevertheless, a troubling aspect of this story is Mr Petersen’s statement that Mr Niemann told him that the documents came from the family directly although Mr Petersen no longer recalls whether or not Mr Niemann stated that a picker was involved. This was at best economy with the truth on the part of Mr Niemann.

As for the fake Paul Conrath documents, they found their way back to Kai Winkler in the end and were purchased, as fakes, by Roger Honts, webmaster of the Militaria Collecting Forum (MCF), but without the folders, which were originals. Two highly skilfull fake documents, each bearing a small forger’s mark, had been produced and inserted into original folders, which would have been harder to fake, by crooks who clearly set out to set up George Petersen.

 

Mr Petersen makes it clear that he has a low opinion of Kai Winkler and that he holds Mr Winkler ultimately responsible for the scam.  Roger Honts has stated that Mr Winkler told him that his father produced the forgeries, having worked as an apprentice for Frieda Thiersch. Whoever produced them, the documents are such convincing forgeries that they fooled one of the world’s foremost authorities on Third Reich documentation.

 

Another troubling question is how the man who blew the whistle on the documents at the 2002 MAX Show, Helmut Weitze, knew how to identify the fakes. The full truth will probably never be known. As far as George Petersen is concerned, he was deliberately targeted as a buyer for the two fake Conrath documents. 

 

Detlev Niemann who sold him the documents and then claimed innocence, shifting the responsibility for the fake documents onto Kai Winkler for whom he was acting as a frontman. That Kai Winkler was in possession of the fake documents until recently, when he sold them as curiosity pieces Roger Honts, confirms Mr Niemann’s admission to Mr Petersen that he received the documents from Mr Winkler.

Copyright © 2004 Paddy Keating

As this screenshot sent to Keating of an announcement posted by Bianchi in the closed WAF moderators' forum shows, Bianchi moved quickly to show that he was punishing Keating by persuading other militaria forum owners and administrators to ban him. In this case, Craig Gottlieb agreed to sack Keating as a moderator in return for free advertising for his new dealership on the WAF website. 

Bianchi and Gottlieb: a dirty little deal

A decade and a half afterwards, Keating's contributions remain visible on the WAF with the 'Expelled' tag by his name. But it was too late to save WAF shareholder Detlev Niemann, who was almost bankrupted by George Petersen's demands for compensation.

 

George Petersen may have given Detlev Niemann "the benefit of the doubt" concerning any intention on the latter's part to swindle Mr Petersen. However, sources close to Mr Petersen said that the Virginia dealer still held Mr Niemann responsible as far as remuneration and compensation were concerned and referred to "working with" Mr Niemann to settle the whole thing in order to avoid the exposure of "much dirty laundry", as the following page from his long fax on the subject shows.

Quite what Mr Petersen meant by "much dirty laundry" can only be guessed at. Mr Petersen was said not just to have demanded the refund of the original purchase price, which the above fax indicates was high, but a sum equivalent to the value of the documents in 2002, had they been genuine. The fact that Detlev Niemann's business went into a long, painful decline in terms of quality and value of stock and subsequently closed down seems to confirm the sources' information. 

Today, no mention of the Conrath documents story can be found on any of the militaria forums on the Internet. However, the Conrath Knight's Cross document was  reportedly auctioned by Craig Gottlieb early in 2012, as a copy, reportedly fetching over $3,000.

Wilbur Stump 2020