Rare DRGM marked EK1 sold on DE Ebay

[wayne gosley]

Hi All
Thought I would some pics of this cross sold on German ebay, very interesting.

[wayne gosley]

1

[wayne gosley]

Marking similar in style to a KMST variation.
Cheers
Wayne

[wayne gosley]

4

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Wayne,

Did you get a full pic of the reverse?

That sort of in your face marking on this type of cross (TR period at best) is a big red flag for me.

Regards
Mike

[gregM]

It's a fake. I've seen this same cross (large crown-closed 4) with a S-L, WS,
K and L/13 makers mark. I posted a thread about these last year some time but the way our search function works now, I can not find the the thread.

I've attached some pictures that I had saved to my files.

[ekhunter]

Fake

I agree, it’s a fake.

[v2a4]

...this is a typical copy from "Dortmund", a stronghold of counterfeiting!!

[Ferg 1]

Almost all of what that seller auctions is fake .

[wayne gosley]

Hi All,


Dear Learned Gentlemen,

I could be way off with this cross, but I think it merits a closer look.

I am not trying to prove this cross is correct here, (I am not the owner), just thing it might be worth a little further investigation. When compared to the other pics added to the thread.
It may just be as well be fully bad based on the sellers reputation as stated by Ferg and your learned gentlemen''s experience ans assessment.

If you could amused me by taking a much closer look at this piece, please do a bead count on several arms and look closely at the die characteristics of the ones Greg has posted compared to the one that sold on ebay.

If I am not mistaken there are bead count differences on several of the arms and die differences between them, or my eyes are really bad,(I do wear glasses so don’t laugh).
The one on ebay looks more like a silver type frame then the middle photo, and it seems that from the information below, that a drgm mark by itself only, could be placed on an item to make others aware of a copyright has been issued, even though there appears to be nothing special about this cross when compared to other more intricate designs. Not sure on the core, similar and differences, The crown, 1914, and the W look similar, but are they exacting the same? Or is It could be the angle of pics showing differences when that are no differences?.
Greg are the ones you posted one piece or 3 piece construction , I cannot determine from the pics off the ebay one, if it is single or multiple piece construction.
I don’t recall seeing others eks with just a drgm mark on the cross itself before, has anyone else.?
The styling of the mark makes it stand out, as mike has said.
Mike, your comment about being in your face marking may be just for that purpose, for you to take note that that it has a patent. If this cross is genuine, I am thinking post ww1 as the frame looks a larger width frame, but before the discontinuation use of issuing a drgm in 1952.
I am not trying to prove this cross is correct here, just thing it might be worth a little further investigation. When compared to the other pics added to the thread.
A couple more pics downloaded off the ebay listing as Mike asked for.
Cheers
Wayne

D.R.G.M. registration was introduced 1891 and if you are dating items you should hold in mind that even during Allied occupation up until 1949, registration procedures remained untouched and still used the D.R.G.M. registration documents, which of course explains why D.R.G.M. marks can be found on products actually manufactured up until 1952 as the registration itself was valid for three years. As from the end of October 1952, all registrations were definitely marked with 'Deutsches Bundesgebrauchsmuster' (D.B.G.M.) or simply with 'Gebrauchsmuster' or 'Gebrauchsmusterschutz', see below.
As already noted, the D.R.G.M. registration offered a basic copyright protection for the duration of three years and included the right to indicate the item status by marking the registered items with the D.R.G.M. acronym. It was left to the registration owner to include the registration number as the D.R.G.M. marking alone was the element with legal character. The actual result of such a registration (the form of protection) was called Gebrauchsmusterschutz.
D.R.G.M. registered products were protected either for their way of intended use or design only and this did not include patent protection. Patent rights were secured by applying for a Deutsches Reichspatent (D.R.P.), so even if many people use the term 'D.R.G.M-Patent' it is factually wrong. Reason for this mix-up was that the D.R.G.M. registration in colloquial language was also known as 'kleines Reichspatent' which literally stands for 'small Imperial patent' but actually was meant as 'poor people's patent' and made fun of the fact that many manufacturers could not afford the fees needed to register a full patent. One should take into count that German patent registration fees (as was openly criticized during the year 1906) where two and a half times higher than in England - and 36 (!!!) times higher than in the US.

[wayne gosley]

10

[wayne gosley]

11

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Wayne,

I'll restrict my main comments to the marking, which to me is bogus, both in style and intent.

Re style, the font is huge. Much larger than the KMST DRGM stamped version (for which both the KMST and DRGM are single punches). On the example above, each letter and dot have been heavily hand punched individually (very neatly though). That is apparent from ghosting around the M, irregularities around the R and uneven spacing of the dots (3 of which appear to have the same characteristics, the last one being the exeption). The marking is on a vaulted (curved) cross, so I would not expect the impressions to be so deep in the middle area if a single punch was used).

Re intent, what exactly does the DRGM copyright? The hot soldered (scorched) central screwpost? The marking is on the cross, not the discs, and to me there is nothing obviously patentable on the cross.

For me, at best, it's a late cross with a bogus mark and some frankenstein hardware, if not just pure fake hardware as that style of ribbed screwdisc has been used on many fakes and itself needs to be examined in detail. The smaller brass disc looks pretty new as well.

As others have said/illustrated, this style of cross has known fakes of varying quality. Is there a genuine version though from which the fakes were generated, quite possibly.

Re bead counting, don't forget that you have to rotate the frame 4 times when doing the comparison as there was generally no "this way up" prior to assembly (especially for 1st class frames).

Regards,
Mike

[Gew44]

Hi Wayne,
The D.R.G.M. it was created precisely to patent solutions or designs and to protect the manufacturer from any copies.
Here the design is not particular, it was born in 1813 from the pencil of the architect Schinkel, very famous at the time, and developed over the years with the change of the core.
The rear closure is not so strange as to deserve a DRGM registration as it happens on KMST, I think the only case, for the particular types of closures adopted.
The screw closure also lacks the typical "horizontal lines" present on the ribs on the inside and outside, in this case it compares the Deumer typologies which is the manufacturer who welded the nut to the cross, Schickle also adopted this typology but welded the screw to the cross , the opposite of Deumer.
Personally I have nothing more to check on this cross which denotes an attempt at "customs clearance" as often happens with the addition of various writings "ad personam" and as other serious collectors have already written before me.
You may like it or not, but here we are in the subjective field and no longer in the field of objective data comparison which is the key to reading each piece.

[wayne gosley]

Thank you Gentlemen for entertaining my comments and thoughts below, You have both have added weight to your summaries and it is greatly appreciated.
And Mike the 4 side different assembly count is something I did not even factor in as a possibility of bead count being different on each arm/row.
I mentioned that there is nothing different to cross there seems no design to warrant an DRGM and I concur and affirm Gew last sentence indeed.

I hope you all dont mind me asking to see if this cross required a closer look. So thank you Mike and Gew for taking the time to reply in length.

Kind regards
Wayne