Early Deschler pin or not ?

[Douglas 5]

Early Deschler pin or not :
Not familiar with this type of pin set . Looks at first close to a Zimmerman or Godet pin , but the anchor is different .
3 piece construction , silver plated and magnetic core . There is a cutout for the pin-foot to fit in the anchor , which does not show too well in the pictures. Pin-foot sits on the pin at a sharp 90 degrees . The loop of the catch was lower down and has been pulled up , so it has a noticeable kink and a thin spot , as it seamingly has been bent back and forth a few times and is to breaking off .
Putting up 6 pictures of the reverse .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

3 and 4 :

[Douglas 5]

5 and 6 :

[streptile]

Hi Douglas,

I've never seen that exact pin system on a Deschler. Early ones had one similar, but with some differences, including the hinge block, which was of folded sheet metal. It could be something I've not seen, of course.

Also, missing is a plain reverse shot with the pin closed (like the first photo, but with the pin under the catch). This might help identify it.

[Douglas 5]

Trevor ;
I am trying to remember from this morning , did find here 1 or 2 that were close in apperance but would have to contacted them to get closeup pictures in the same view angles .
The closed pin - top and side shot ... I will get .

Douglas

[streptile]

An early Deschler.

[Douglas 5]

So that in the last picture is an early Deschler with the 'crimmed' anchor , .. then this is by what maker ??/ Zimmerman ???

Douglas

[streptile]

Douglas, can you show the front of the cross?

[Douglas 5]

I knew someone would eventualy ask to see the front . The front which will be shown in time I have no problems with . It is the pin system I cannot associate to a maker . I only have a 30 day return window to which I need a that it is not a fake . Showing the front right now will influence/bias the decissions of one or many . I was and am hoping for a massive turnout .... first !

Douglas

[George Stimson]

"I knew someone would eventualy ask to see the front ."

Well, it's a pretty reasonable request. You might have your answer pretty quickly if you show it.

[streptile]

I'm not entirely sure I understand. If you want to know if it's a fake or not, why not show the front? No one can say if it's good based solely on the reverse, and that pin is not a slam-dunk for any one particular maker without corroboration from the frame and core.

[Douglas 5]

I posted the same cross about a month ago ,.. just different pictures provided by the seller who still might be a member here . Had to ask for pictures of the reverse at that time . Not overly surprized no one recconnaised / remembers it - pictures are a bit different , and besides that these posts fade off the first page so fast - with 159 views sofar(page 6 right now) it was gone befor most members got on to read posts .
Responce was over all 'uncertain' with the front being ok . That is why I started with the reverse first . Took almost 4 weeks for the cross to get here ! Try to link the thread :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=429357
Here is a new quick picture of the front .

Douglas

[streptile]

It is not one of the recognized Round-3 variants. It's not a Deschler frame, and I don't recognize the pin system.

Some time ago Detlev Niemann had a very good fake-of-the-week, which was a Round-3 EK2 core, ground down and sealed inside a good EK1 body (I think it was marked L/18 or something). All the component parts were authentic, in other words. The fakers made the mistake of putting the core inside an LDO or otherwise marked cross. My feeling is that this cross is a similar fake -- a Round-3 EK2 core, well sealed inside another (possibly good) cross. They just learned to put it in an unmarked cross.

There are two known, main Round-3 EK1 variants: the "unknown maker" and the Deschler. Anything else that surfaces now, at this point in time, is (to me) immediately suspect. Fakers have become excellent at sealing EK2 cores inside EK1 frames, and adding patina. These fakes are indistinguishable from wartime crosses in terms of the workmanship. The only thing we have to go on is "textbook," and this is not one.

I do remember the old thread, and I thought it might be the same cross. I said much the same back then:

In my opinion, a genuine R-3 EK2 core sealed in a (probably also genuine) EK1 frame, but recently, with the intent to deceive. A view of the seams could possibly alter my opinion, but I doubt it.

I would send this cross back in a heartbeat.

[Douglas 5]

I had posted shots of the seam - post 7 and 8 . No reaction to them ....
In your last thread you start off with : ... not a reconnaised R3 variants . In the old thread -post 4 it was : " In my opinion , a genuine R3 EK2 core...." ??
You happen to have a chart with acceptiple R3 variants at handy .... I do not have mine finished yet - I keep finding more with the R3 EK2s because of additional reverse die combinations .
The imposterous R3 EK1s are then put together with a R3 EK2 core . .. on top of the existing core . This had to be ground down to fit the EK2 core on top of the old one . A new method to me . I have the cross in hand nothing I notice right now . The paint is thick and some lumpy spots , have to look at it more closely .
Only once I had to send a cross back . Return clause : On authentisity only .
Will see if the seller Armeewaren Ralf Haas will respond here .

Douglas

[streptile]

In your last thread you start off with : ... not a reconnaised R3 variants . In the old thread -post 4 it was : " In my opinion , a genuine R3 EK2 core...." ??

Correct. My thoughts were identical both times.