Shinkel form EK1 - Brass core - named to Willi Hamm of Scharnhorst

[all1knew]

Hello all,

Please let me know what you think either way - photos below. Thank you.

William Kramer

[tinmantis]

Hi William,
this cross looks totally bizarre to me.
The catch and pin assembly looks as if it was moved from horizontal to vetical, meaning the core must have been also rotated. Also It looks as if it has been sloppily 'opened' and re-soldered...?
The rim's die-flaws are HUGE! and if it's marked '4'... I'm at a loss to explain it! If nothing more, it's had a very interesting life, on AND off the 'Scharnhorst'!
let's see if anyone else has any views
regards
jon

[all1knew]

markings

Hello,

Thank you for the fast reply.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67194

Please check this out if you wish to see where exactly I bought it from.

Like I said, I don't know if it is marked "4" when I bought it - sold to me as an unmarked example. When I got it I searched and found a 4 to the naked eye, and very faint. I then asked my girl without telling her what I thought it to be, she immediately said it was a "4" as well.

The frame was also turned, and the re-weld is good, but seperating now. There are pretty large gaps, if I had a better camera I would show you, but I don't.

So, after your evaluation of all the information and photos that I have provided, is it a good example in your eyes?

Other people also bought from this awesome grouping (see link) and they all love their items. I was told that all of the items came from the same man, Willi Hamm, after he died the wife sold them together.

Thanks again.

Bill

[gregM]

I am a newbie when it comes to TR crosses BUT to me the date looks BAD. I have never seen a 1939 that didn't have the little balls on the bottom of the
numbers. If there is a maker who did this? or a particular type of cross that has a date like that?

Just courious,
Greg

[Biro]

I have no major beef with this cross, other than that it has been heavily messed with ......

The components at least (small non-serif date, low swaz, pin and hinge style) look pretty much 'textbook' for a schinkel EK1.....the pin 'rotation' is a mystery....I can't see how removing the damaged pin and clasp from its original vertical position, re-attaching it horizontally, then rotating the whole back plate to the vertical position again and re-soldering the frame would have been easier than just repairing the clasp and re-attaching it in its original position......but this scenario would explain the mis-allignment of the two frames at least.

Concave and/or brass is not a problem....I don't think it's a '4' mark on the repaired catch plate.....looks more like a '4' shaped scratch, and it's not in a position you would expect even a FAKER to apply a m/mark.......

Here's your piece above Gordon W's (different) schinkel EK1...which also appears to share the same 6 and 9 o'clock die flaw

I wouldn't buy it personally, but not because I think it's fake..

JMO...

Marshall

[gregM]

Thanks for the explanation of the date I learn something new all the time.

[DasEiserneKreuz]

Just from a quick look at this cross, I think it checks out. It is a little rough, but I think it is original.

[Darrell]

I have no major beef with this cross, other than that it has been heavily messed with ......

Is it true those KM dudes were party hardy types when on-shore? That would explain the damage ... especially if he partied with the likes of Thomson (from the movie Das Boot fame)

[Chet Sowersby]

John,
Good to see that you are up to speed on Schinkels now!

Chet

[all1knew]

Gordon W's cross

Hello,

Thank you all very much for your opinions. I can see the flaws on both Gordon's and my cross, do you know who manufactured his example? The four looks like it was stamped and not scratched in, not that I am saying your theory is wrong, but with my own eyes it is too "quality" to be scratched. I wish I had more clear photos of the mark to show you, but at the moment, that is not the concern really.

Yes, this cross definately has a "been there" look to it. I really like that in my militaria and that is why I bought it. I understand that it isn't for all, but for me I am happy as long as it is real and not made to look that way by some.....(you know what!)

I would really like to know who made this example......any ideas?

Please let me know either way. Thank you.

William Kramer

[all1knew]

Hello again,

Anyone know the maker of mine?

William Kramer

[streptile]

Deumer.

It's Brassie Schinkel day!

PS: I personally wouldn't have one of the heavily-flawed Deumer-frame Schinkels in my collection. They exist as both 1914 and 1939 EKs... but so do the unflawed ones. There is something about that fact that makes me wary of them, but I want to be careful to say: I have no evidence that the flawed frames are postwar; just an uncomfortable feeling about them.

[all1knew]

Deumer.

It's Brassie Schinkel day!

PS: I personally wouldn't have one of the heavily-flawed Deumer-frame Schinkels in my collection. They exist as both 1914 and 1939 EKs... but so do the unflawed ones. There is something about that fact that makes me wary of them, but I want to be careful to say: I have no evidence that the flawed frames are postwar; just an uncomfortable feeling about them.

Trevor,

I appreciate your opinion. Better images can be seen here:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ad.php?t=78088

William Kramer