EK2 with Spange KO

[evilmike]

Just had these to inspect from a dealers no money down but iam puzzled, to me iam thinking they dont seem right, the KO ring also has some markings that to me are unusual, the core looks very undetailed in the crown, perhaps and hopefully its me being paranoid, the spange also has KO stamped on it, cant see that being good. Ive posted pics in the Crosses section you may want to view wants posted there, but i will try and keep both threads together so nothing is missed. (I dont think everyone views both sections so hopefully the 2 threads isnt excessive!)

Thanks for looking

Mike

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=430407

[evilmike]

1

[evilmike]

ring markings looks like +M+ KO

[evilmike]

the spange

[evilmike]

well it appears the EK is doubled stamped KO & the +M+

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=265963

[evilmike]

the spange is no good unfortunately, but iam still puzzled by the markings on the EK2

[Don D.]

Interesting for sure. At one time it was believed issued crosses were marked (or at least from) KO. Now it is believed that issued crosses could be from almost any manufacturer. Another possibility is a combination of the two theories, i.e. at the beginning of the war KO issued the crosses for award but as the war drug on they could not produce them fast enough. That would mean they would have to contract/purchase them from other makers. Perhaps they tried to mark them appropriately in the beginning and gave up as the numbers swelled.? Just a theory and probably no way to prove it.

Interesting cross though. Anyone else care to hazard a thought?

[gregM]

The theory sounds good, I guess. It seems like a lot of hassle to mark
remark someone elses already marked crosses.

The double mark does make for some interesting questions. Purhaps
the "+M+" is not really a makers mark but had some other meaning.

[Steve Campbell]

I have a WS EK2 that has the mark on the ring overstamped with another known maker, Z. Perhaps items were bought from one maker by another to satisfy contracts that had to be filled but at the time there was a shortage of either parts, such as suspension rings, or entire crosses.

[Don D.]

I don't think it was all that hard to mark an item with a new mark. All you need is a work bench, a hammer, and the punch with the mark.

[Ammersee]

Interesting cos though. Anyone else care to hazard a thought?

Okay Don, I've been thinking about this for a while, and you asked. Here are some numbers I've come up with.

There were 5 million EK2's passed out from '14-'18...at least that's the number I've read. If there were 50 firms making EK's from '14-'18, they would each have to make 100,000 crosses. Or, 25,000 per year. Or, ~500 per 6 day week. Or, 90-100 per day. That doesn't seem like very many crosses per day to me.

If there were 25 firms, they each would have to make 200,000 ea. from '14-'18 or 50,000 per year. Or, ~1000 per week.

It seems to me a large medal maker like Godet that made EK's from 1870 on and off through 1914 would be able to make a lot more than this. The numbers don't add up for me somehow.

The above numbers would represent a constant production for the whole war, which of course was not the case. At first, the usual large medal companies that made the 1870 cross originally would be called upon to crank up production of EK's. The "machine shop" would cast/stamp the cores and frames and the "assembly department" would assemble them.

As the war progressed, more crosses were needed...many more. It would seem to me that the easiest way to increase production would be for the core and frame makers to expand their production, then farm out the assembly to other smaller jewellers or firms that were not set up to cast cores or punch frames. Eventually, the larger firms were making more cores and frames than they could assemble themselves and the extra parts were sent to other firms that only assembled...and stamped their mark...on the EK's they put together from other makers parts.

So, could these maker marks we see be actual marks made by the maker on some crosses, and on others the mark only represents the assembly firm?

Just a few of my foggy thoughts at 5 am. Good Morning! Ammersee

[Steve Campbell]

Ammersee, very similar to my scenario.

[Don D.]

Right now one theory is as good as another. I agree that at the beginning, traditional sources were used to provide crosses. At some point they must have realized that they needed to expand the manufacturing base. The question is, did the government realize this or was it the traditional manufacturers? Could this be why we see several makers using the same frames/cores? The EK is a labor intensive award to make so pumping them out in huge numbers required the materials and SKILLED labor, which was probably in increasingly shorter supply as the war went on.

I guess the question is: "If you were a sub-contractor for a larger company trying to fill an order (possibly one of many) would you mark yours so you could ensure credit for the work?" Could the practice of marking crosses have faded out towards the end as this step was eliminated as an unneccessary step in the production cycle when filling huge government orders?

So many questions, so little time.

[evilmike]

The frame is approx 24mm slightly larger than the KO i just recieved in the post today of approx 22mm, the frame is also thicker. core is magnetic, but the frame doesnt seem to have the same properties as the KO only marked piece, it may be non magnetic

I'm just wondering if the KO stamp maybe a repro/fake addition

[Don D.]

Compare both marks to the ones in the database.