EK1 Brass Core Rare?

[Blackopps]

Hello all. I'm told this is a brass core, RARE? ek1.
Thanks for any help. Blackopps



Thanks again.

[Robert P.]

Although not found as easily as iron cored EK's a brass cored EK is not rare, not by a long shot. There are many manufacturers who produced brass cored EK's in their early days of WWII production. I believe an L/19 can be found only with a brass core.

Robert

[AndyC]

Not hard to find a EKI with brass core, I have had several over the years

Andy

[dmytro]

Wachtler & Lange certainly produced one, got one in my collection

[Douglas 5]

As Robert pointed out L/19 - F Hoffstätter used only brass cores in their LDO EK1s . Other established companies like - S&L , W&L , Rettenmaier - just to name a few who used brass cores in their EK1s early in the war . Easy to work with - but paint would not hold well on them - unless pre plated first . This goes for copper cores too .
Truly rare would be finding any PKZ marked EK1s with a not magnetic core !!

Douglas

[Blackopps]

Thanks all for your help.

I meant to say just this cross. Not all brass cored one's sorry.

The last one down this page

http://www.ek1-dna.de/-26--bernard-h...-pforzheim.php

My cross is like this one but I think the frame on mine is upside down?

[Douglas 5]

Yes .... it is the same maker - a harder to find BH Mayer brass core EK1 - with a rotated core or frame .
From all makers - W&L is the easiest one to find with a brass core .

Douglas

[streptile]

This cross is a so-called "333 Mayer."

In my opinion this cross is a fake, or a postwar Frankenstein (parts cross).

But it's been discussed so many times, at such great length with no conclusion, and some advanced collectors like it, that I seriously doubt anyone will ever determine for 100% sure if it's a period cross or not.

[Douglas 5]

Why is 5tefan posting this one as original on his site ??
It looks the same as far as I can tell .

Douglas

[Mike Kenny]

I thought I saw the "333" beading "issues" on this example however, I'm one of those collectors that, despite the link to the fairly recent 333 repro frames, believe that this type of cross - YET ANOTHER in what appears to be genuine combat worn condition - is period. Patina and wear can be faked of course, but to get that genuine combat worn look would not be easy.

Personally I think this may be another case of genuine wartime dies falling into the wrong hands and resulting in everything from the die being branded fake.

I've thought about the beading issues a bit and I think that physically altering a die (I am assuming the beading was 100% "standard" to being with, ie parallel beading ridges and troughs) to produce the effect seen would be very difficult. It's easy to convert a raised feature on a die to something flat or indented (simply remove some material from the die) but it would be difficult to ADD a small raised area on a die (that would be a weak area prone to breaking under the pressures involved) and BOTH would be required to produce the "333 beading effect" from a standard die. Further, I doubt a faker would have deliberately made a set of dies with partially offset beading - I think that effect would actually require MORE effort.

I am thinking that the "333 beading effect" may be due to consistent double striking/ghosting of the beading.

All speculation of course, but then again so is the premise that these EK1s are not period (unless someone KNOWS the 333 faker to find out the history of the dies involved?).

Regards
Mike

[streptile]

Why is 5tefan posting this one as original on his site ??

Because he doesn't believe the cross is a repro.

I've had long discussions with Stefan about this cross on three separate forums in a half dozen threads. He knows I think his cross is not a good one, and I know he does.

Bottom line for me: it shares the same frame and core with the "333" fake. Also it does not match other original Mayers. To me that puts it in deeply questionable territory.

For those interested in further study check some of these threads or search "333 Mayer": 1 2 3

[sanya13]

I think it's a fake of Paul Meybauer
On your way to the front as you like, but the back is not

[Blackopps]

I've had long discussions with Stefan about this cross on three separate forums in a half dozen threads. He knows I think his cross is not a good one, and I know he does.

Bottom line for me: it shares the same frame and core with the "333" fake. Also it does not match other original Mayers. To me that puts it in deeply questionable territory.

So it is a Fake "333 Type" Iron Cross then. Thanks

[5tefan]

www.ek1-dna.de

In my opinion it is an authentic / original BHM to me, due to I have seen so many different finish (frosted & unfrosted), different original Pinsetup (early & common) none magentic, marked "L/18" and unmarked EK1! And have two different owner of this EK1 Frame- Variant who knows the distinguished Person (personal) and they are all certified both dated 1942!

I remove this variant from Rettenmaier, due to I have never seen this variant marked wiht L59, but at least with L/18.

#1 unmarked EK1 Variant - see last EK1!
http://www.ek1-dna.de/-26--bernard-h...-pforzheim.php
#2 marked EK1 Variant with early S&L Pinsetup - mint / usual finish # 2 & # 3!
http://www.ek1-dna.de/l-18-bernard-h...---pinback.php
#3 marked L/18 Variant like the unmarked pinsetup!
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=660381

Hope you understand, why this variant is not in the fake sector of my
www.ek1-dna.de
page!

IMO 100% Authentic/ Original early BHM EK1

P.S.: If I would not be 100% sure about the originality, I would not put it into my home page! E.g. you will not find the L15 Variant in the fake or oriignal sector, because in this case I have not the confidence level! And I'm open mind, but I needs Facts and not assumption!

[streptile]

This debate -- which has played out ad naseum in other threads and on other forums -- will not be solved until some new evidence appears.

Stefan has some good points, but the bottom line for me is that this type of cross has more ticks in the fake column than the real column. If someone discovered a cross with a Floch frame and core, but a variety of authentic S&L hardware and marks on the back, would we call it authentic? That's a directly analogous hypothetical situation.

To me, this is a questionable-at-best postwar parts cross until someone can demonstrate otherwise.