The 1870 "wideframe" Iron Cross has fascinated me since I learned about it. They are automatically distinctive, as the frames measure over 43.5mm square -- noticeably larger than a standard 1870 Iron Cross, and larger even than an Imperial Iron Cross. They are very well made. But I began to ask some questions: Who made them? When? Many people had different theories. When I discovered a 1914 couterpart, I began investigating the crosses further. The first thing I wanted to was make sure the 1870 and the 1914 were indeed a match.
Comparing the Crosses:
Were the 1870 "wideframe" (below, left) and the 1914 "wideframe" (below, right) EKs made by the same maker? I believe so.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that the frames were struck from the same die, as was the reverse core, apparent in the illustration below. The details of construction are identical as well: for example, the jumpring is soldered on one side only to a small lug on the 12 o'clock arm of the frame.
The inner-beading pattern of the frame is distinctive:
A close comparison between the 1870 (left) and the 1914 (right) reveals that the same die was used to strike both frames:
Finally, the measurements of key (and, with the exception of overall height (n) and width (m), inflexible) distances reveal a synchronicity that can hardly be coincidental, especially given the non-standard dimensions of the cross. Here are the measurements I took, with an accurate caliper:
As will be seen, the measurements are virtually identical for the 1870 and the 1914 "wideframes":
Also evident in this table is the reason for the name "wideframe." Overall height and width are around 43.6mm -- substantially larger than other 1870 or 1914 EKs. In fact, these measurements have led some to conclude -- incorrectly, as I hope to show -- that these "wideframes" are in fact of Third Reich manufacture.
At this juncture, I hope only that it's clear, from the illustrations and information above, that these two crosses are made by the same maker.
Dating the 1870:
There are a number of reasons I believe the 1870 was manufactured before the 1914, and probably before World War I. While I have concluded this to my personal satisfaction based on physical observation and available evidence, it should be noted that Detlev Nemann, who has examined these "wideframe" 1870 EKs in both second and first classes, has also determined them to have been made "around 1900." This opinion has graced all of his COAs that have accompanied these crosses.
The most compelling evidence in my view is the progression of die wear. The frame of the 1870 (below, left) has crisp beads and virtually no die flaws. By the time the 1914 frame (below, right) was struck, the die had apparently been worn down over time. The beads are softer and flatter in appearance, and numerous small flaws -- most notably in the lower right inner corner of the 1914 (marked with an arrow) -- have begun to grow, further testimony to a well-worn die.
It's important to note that the softer, flatter appearance of the beading crown on the 1914 series EKs, as well as the progressive die flaws, is consistent across all examples I have seen, which tends to rule out the possibility of individual wear as a cause. Moreover, the beading is sharply defined and the flaws are minimal on all the 1870s I have seen.
Another clue that the 1870 was made earlier than the 1914 is the design of the core details. A comparison of the two cores, and especially the crowns, indicates to me that the 1870 core obverse and reverse (below, upper left and lower left) were designed together, probably by the same hand. The dates "1870" and "1914" are excellent stylistic matches, and the crowns, while not identical, show evidence of having been designed as a matching set intended to be part of the same cross. By comparison, the 1914 cross was assembled using the same core reverse as the 1870 with the addition of a different, and in my opinion newly designed, core obverse. The crown on the 1914 reverse (below, lower right) is therefore identical to the 1870, while the crown on the 1914 obverse (below, upper right) is a different design, possibly by a different hand.
Incidentally, the 1914 core obverse may also be found on WWI EK1s (with the same frame, the same worn beading crown and same progressed die flaws):
Another piece of evidence leads me to believe that the 1870 is a pre-World War I manufactured piece: the case in which one particular example of this cross came housed. Cases, of course, can be swapped. However, I believe this case was made to house this exact cross, and is probably of pre-World War I manufacture:
The inlet in this particular case is a precise fit for this particular type of cross (the "wideframe"), and no others. As noted, these crosses are known as "wideframes" for a reason: their outer measurements are substantially larger than any other 1870 (or 1914) EKs, with an overall height and width of approximately 43.5mm. A standard 1870 or 1914 EK2, with measurements closer to 42mm square, is dwarfed in this case's inlet. The "wideframe," however, fits perfectly snugly, the rims slotting into the inlet and sinking flush with the base material. Here it is shown partly removed to demonstrate the size of the inlet:
Also, this set was purchased directly from a dealer, who claims in turn to have purchased it directly from the original family. This kind of "dealer provenance" is unconvincing to some, and I understand why, but I believe the inlet evidence supports the conclusion that the case was made for this cross, even without any provenance. If we accept this, we must then ask; when was this case made? I believe it was made before World War I, although this is harder to pin down with any certainty. However, the hardware used, especially the closure mechanism, is more consistent with prewar cases than with wartime cases:
Finally, these 1870 "wideframe" crosses are also commonly found with "25" Oakleaf attachments affixed to them -- on at least one occasion, on a medalbar:
© WAF member NBolinger
For these reasons (die wear, progressive flaws, core design, case evidence, and ancillary evidence such as Detlev Niemann's opinion and the frequency of Jubilee attachments) I believe the "wideframe" 1870 EK was made before World War I, probably around 1900, obviously as a private purchase item.
Dating the 1914:
Fixing a period of manufacture for the 1914 "wideframe" would seem at first to be unnecessary. However, the dimensions of the frame have convinced many that this piece was in fact made during the Third Reich, when larger dimensions for the Iron Cross were mandated. It is my view that this is incorrect, and that the 1914 "wideframe" was manufactured during World War I.
As evidence, I refer to First Class examples of the same cross:
As previously noted, the frame and core on this example are identical to the frame and core of the EK2 shown and discussed above. The hardware found on this particular example is consistent with World War I examples, and not with Third Reich examples:
Here, the same cross (core, frame, pin system), engraved "September 20 1914 / Heinz" in Stephen Previtera's The Iron Time, 2nd Edition p. 238:
© Stephen Thomas Previtera
Moreover, this same frame may be found on many undoubtedly World War I manufactured EK1s. Of note is that the frame is found (so far, by me) exclusively on crosses marked by maker AWS, or on unmarked crosses consistent with AWS manufacture (of which more later). Here are but two examples:
© WAF member Steve Campbell
Note the similarity in pin systems:
© WAF member Steve Campbell
One more, unmarked:
And, interestingly, this onyx-core example, which may be seen in detail on pp 180-181 of S. Previtera's The Iron Time, 2nd Ed.:
© Stephen Thomas Previtera
Center beading:
© Stephen Thomas Previtera
Thus I believe the evidence supports the conclusion that the 1870 "wideframe" was manufactured around 1900, the 1914 "wideframe" was manufactured during World War I, and that they were made by the same firm.
A Surprising Turn Of Events:
Once I familiarized myself with the particular features of this frame, I began to see it on more and more crosses. It's not the most common frame, but you do see it around. It was only a matter of time before I found it on a very surprising cross:
A 1939 cross that uses leftover Imperial frame stock? Don't we have a name for those crosses? This cross may never be widely accepted as a Schinkel, and may never command a premium on dealers' websites, but it is, in my firm opinion, a Schinkel in the truest sense of the word. It's gone unnoticed for reasons I can only really speculate about, but the most obvious one is its dimensions. What was considered a "wideframe" in 1900 or 1914 was only slightly too small in 1939. Indeed, the fact that the frame measures almost 44mm square is probably the main reason it was used in the first place. Another reason it may not be accepted as a true Schinkel is that the definition of Schinkels has changed over the years. It used to be that a Schinkel was, simply, any 1939-series cross made up using Imperial-era frame dies. However, I have read differing definitions lately, definitions that rely more on the shape rather than the origin and history of the frames. For example:
But do these frames really match?
Let's have a look at some comparisons:
Center beading:
Note the progression of the corner die flaw:
The bead-count is identical on every arm. Here, the 6-o'clock arm of the 1870 (top), the 1914 (middle) and the 1939 (bottom):
There is other evidence to support the conclusion that this 1939 cross is of early manufacture, as every Schinkel is: every example I have seen has been unmarked, and most have non-magnetic zinc cores.
Fixing a Maker to the "Wideframe" Series
Given that we now know (if you're with me so far) that the 1870 "wideframe" was made around 1900, the 1914 "wideframe" was made during World War I, and the 1939 cross was made early in World War II, is it possible to say who made them? Well, the obvious answer would be "AWS" made the 1870 and the Imperial ones. After all, AWS EKs use the same frame. But why don't they use the same core? And who then made the 1939 ones? Could there be another firm with whom AWS had known contacts, who could have either supplied AWS with the frames, or sourced the frames from AWS for use with their own cores? As it turns out, AWS had a known business relationship with the Berlin film of C.E. Juncker. Specifically, Juncker's 1914-series EKs that were manufactured during the later years of World War II used AWS cores. Also, every single example that I have seen of the 1939 "wideframe" Schinkel has a Juncker core. The EK2 pictured above has a Juncker core. Here is another one:
© WAF member Stew
The two First Class 1939 "wideframe" Schinkels I have seen in just the past few days have Juncker pins, as well:
© WAF member Stew
In summary, I believe that the evidence supports the following tentative conclusions:
The 1870 "wideframe" was made before World War I by Juncker (or possibly AWS)
The 1914 "wideframe" was made during World War I by Juncker (or possibly AWS)
The 1939 "wideframe" Schinkel was made early in World War II by Juncker
I hope this will generate some debate, and some checking of frames in personal collections. Please don't hesitate to post observations, photos, doubts or questions in this thread! These frames are out there: on 1914 crosses, as well as on the 1870 "wideframes," and on what I believe it is fair to call the 1939 "Juncker Schinkel."
Comparing the Crosses:
Were the 1870 "wideframe" (below, left) and the 1914 "wideframe" (below, right) EKs made by the same maker? I believe so.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that the frames were struck from the same die, as was the reverse core, apparent in the illustration below. The details of construction are identical as well: for example, the jumpring is soldered on one side only to a small lug on the 12 o'clock arm of the frame.
The inner-beading pattern of the frame is distinctive:
A close comparison between the 1870 (left) and the 1914 (right) reveals that the same die was used to strike both frames:
Finally, the measurements of key (and, with the exception of overall height (n) and width (m), inflexible) distances reveal a synchronicity that can hardly be coincidental, especially given the non-standard dimensions of the cross. Here are the measurements I took, with an accurate caliper:
As will be seen, the measurements are virtually identical for the 1870 and the 1914 "wideframes":
Also evident in this table is the reason for the name "wideframe." Overall height and width are around 43.6mm -- substantially larger than other 1870 or 1914 EKs. In fact, these measurements have led some to conclude -- incorrectly, as I hope to show -- that these "wideframes" are in fact of Third Reich manufacture.
At this juncture, I hope only that it's clear, from the illustrations and information above, that these two crosses are made by the same maker.
Dating the 1870:
There are a number of reasons I believe the 1870 was manufactured before the 1914, and probably before World War I. While I have concluded this to my personal satisfaction based on physical observation and available evidence, it should be noted that Detlev Nemann, who has examined these "wideframe" 1870 EKs in both second and first classes, has also determined them to have been made "around 1900." This opinion has graced all of his COAs that have accompanied these crosses.
The most compelling evidence in my view is the progression of die wear. The frame of the 1870 (below, left) has crisp beads and virtually no die flaws. By the time the 1914 frame (below, right) was struck, the die had apparently been worn down over time. The beads are softer and flatter in appearance, and numerous small flaws -- most notably in the lower right inner corner of the 1914 (marked with an arrow) -- have begun to grow, further testimony to a well-worn die.
It's important to note that the softer, flatter appearance of the beading crown on the 1914 series EKs, as well as the progressive die flaws, is consistent across all examples I have seen, which tends to rule out the possibility of individual wear as a cause. Moreover, the beading is sharply defined and the flaws are minimal on all the 1870s I have seen.
Another clue that the 1870 was made earlier than the 1914 is the design of the core details. A comparison of the two cores, and especially the crowns, indicates to me that the 1870 core obverse and reverse (below, upper left and lower left) were designed together, probably by the same hand. The dates "1870" and "1914" are excellent stylistic matches, and the crowns, while not identical, show evidence of having been designed as a matching set intended to be part of the same cross. By comparison, the 1914 cross was assembled using the same core reverse as the 1870 with the addition of a different, and in my opinion newly designed, core obverse. The crown on the 1914 reverse (below, lower right) is therefore identical to the 1870, while the crown on the 1914 obverse (below, upper right) is a different design, possibly by a different hand.
Incidentally, the 1914 core obverse may also be found on WWI EK1s (with the same frame, the same worn beading crown and same progressed die flaws):
Another piece of evidence leads me to believe that the 1870 is a pre-World War I manufactured piece: the case in which one particular example of this cross came housed. Cases, of course, can be swapped. However, I believe this case was made to house this exact cross, and is probably of pre-World War I manufacture:
The inlet in this particular case is a precise fit for this particular type of cross (the "wideframe"), and no others. As noted, these crosses are known as "wideframes" for a reason: their outer measurements are substantially larger than any other 1870 (or 1914) EKs, with an overall height and width of approximately 43.5mm. A standard 1870 or 1914 EK2, with measurements closer to 42mm square, is dwarfed in this case's inlet. The "wideframe," however, fits perfectly snugly, the rims slotting into the inlet and sinking flush with the base material. Here it is shown partly removed to demonstrate the size of the inlet:
Also, this set was purchased directly from a dealer, who claims in turn to have purchased it directly from the original family. This kind of "dealer provenance" is unconvincing to some, and I understand why, but I believe the inlet evidence supports the conclusion that the case was made for this cross, even without any provenance. If we accept this, we must then ask; when was this case made? I believe it was made before World War I, although this is harder to pin down with any certainty. However, the hardware used, especially the closure mechanism, is more consistent with prewar cases than with wartime cases:
Finally, these 1870 "wideframe" crosses are also commonly found with "25" Oakleaf attachments affixed to them -- on at least one occasion, on a medalbar:
© WAF member NBolinger
For these reasons (die wear, progressive flaws, core design, case evidence, and ancillary evidence such as Detlev Niemann's opinion and the frequency of Jubilee attachments) I believe the "wideframe" 1870 EK was made before World War I, probably around 1900, obviously as a private purchase item.
Dating the 1914:
Fixing a period of manufacture for the 1914 "wideframe" would seem at first to be unnecessary. However, the dimensions of the frame have convinced many that this piece was in fact made during the Third Reich, when larger dimensions for the Iron Cross were mandated. It is my view that this is incorrect, and that the 1914 "wideframe" was manufactured during World War I.
As evidence, I refer to First Class examples of the same cross:
As previously noted, the frame and core on this example are identical to the frame and core of the EK2 shown and discussed above. The hardware found on this particular example is consistent with World War I examples, and not with Third Reich examples:
Here, the same cross (core, frame, pin system), engraved "September 20 1914 / Heinz" in Stephen Previtera's The Iron Time, 2nd Edition p. 238:
© Stephen Thomas Previtera
Moreover, this same frame may be found on many undoubtedly World War I manufactured EK1s. Of note is that the frame is found (so far, by me) exclusively on crosses marked by maker AWS, or on unmarked crosses consistent with AWS manufacture (of which more later). Here are but two examples:
© WAF member Steve Campbell
Note the similarity in pin systems:
© WAF member Steve Campbell
One more, unmarked:
And, interestingly, this onyx-core example, which may be seen in detail on pp 180-181 of S. Previtera's The Iron Time, 2nd Ed.:
© Stephen Thomas Previtera
Center beading:
© Stephen Thomas Previtera
Thus I believe the evidence supports the conclusion that the 1870 "wideframe" was manufactured around 1900, the 1914 "wideframe" was manufactured during World War I, and that they were made by the same firm.
A Surprising Turn Of Events:
Once I familiarized myself with the particular features of this frame, I began to see it on more and more crosses. It's not the most common frame, but you do see it around. It was only a matter of time before I found it on a very surprising cross:
A 1939 cross that uses leftover Imperial frame stock? Don't we have a name for those crosses? This cross may never be widely accepted as a Schinkel, and may never command a premium on dealers' websites, but it is, in my firm opinion, a Schinkel in the truest sense of the word. It's gone unnoticed for reasons I can only really speculate about, but the most obvious one is its dimensions. What was considered a "wideframe" in 1900 or 1914 was only slightly too small in 1939. Indeed, the fact that the frame measures almost 44mm square is probably the main reason it was used in the first place. Another reason it may not be accepted as a true Schinkel is that the definition of Schinkels has changed over the years. It used to be that a Schinkel was, simply, any 1939-series cross made up using Imperial-era frame dies. However, I have read differing definitions lately, definitions that rely more on the shape rather than the origin and history of the frames. For example:
The slender early design is what makes a Schinkel a Schinkel
Let's have a look at some comparisons:
Center beading:
Note the progression of the corner die flaw:
The bead-count is identical on every arm. Here, the 6-o'clock arm of the 1870 (top), the 1914 (middle) and the 1939 (bottom):
There is other evidence to support the conclusion that this 1939 cross is of early manufacture, as every Schinkel is: every example I have seen has been unmarked, and most have non-magnetic zinc cores.
Fixing a Maker to the "Wideframe" Series
Given that we now know (if you're with me so far) that the 1870 "wideframe" was made around 1900, the 1914 "wideframe" was made during World War I, and the 1939 cross was made early in World War II, is it possible to say who made them? Well, the obvious answer would be "AWS" made the 1870 and the Imperial ones. After all, AWS EKs use the same frame. But why don't they use the same core? And who then made the 1939 ones? Could there be another firm with whom AWS had known contacts, who could have either supplied AWS with the frames, or sourced the frames from AWS for use with their own cores? As it turns out, AWS had a known business relationship with the Berlin film of C.E. Juncker. Specifically, Juncker's 1914-series EKs that were manufactured during the later years of World War II used AWS cores. Also, every single example that I have seen of the 1939 "wideframe" Schinkel has a Juncker core. The EK2 pictured above has a Juncker core. Here is another one:
© WAF member Stew
The two First Class 1939 "wideframe" Schinkels I have seen in just the past few days have Juncker pins, as well:
© WAF member Stew
In summary, I believe that the evidence supports the following tentative conclusions:
The 1870 "wideframe" was made before World War I by Juncker (or possibly AWS)
The 1914 "wideframe" was made during World War I by Juncker (or possibly AWS)
The 1939 "wideframe" Schinkel was made early in World War II by Juncker
I hope this will generate some debate, and some checking of frames in personal collections. Please don't hesitate to post observations, photos, doubts or questions in this thread! These frames are out there: on 1914 crosses, as well as on the 1870 "wideframes," and on what I believe it is fair to call the 1939 "Juncker Schinkel."
Comment