Imperial EK2 vs Third Reich EK2

[CRAIGGOODWIN]

Hi,

I just recieved the other day 2 EKs, a 1914 EK2 & a 1939 EK2.

I must say I have never really been into Imperial awards but thought I would get one just to add to a display.

The silver was very tarnished but the back paint was excellent not a mark on it. I know you guys are gunna hate me for it but I had to clean off the tarnish & it came up mirror bright, in fact I was thinking the quality of this was indeed better than the 1939 version which is unissued in the envelope etc.

What do you guys think are they better quality or perhanp my 1939 version may be a late war ??

Regards

[Doug See]

I don't think it can be said that 1914 EK2's are of better quality than 1939's. Quality among 1914 EK's varies from maker to maker, and depends on when they were made (up through the 1960's). Usually, the 1914 frames were made of silver and the 1939's were usually silver plated.

In my opinion, 1914 EK1's were generally superior to 1939 EK1's, or at least more interesting due to the variations and the craftsmanship.

[PaulChep]

Well, In my experience I have to say that the quality of the 1914 EK2 is superior to the 1939 EK2. The iron core of the 1914 has more detail and frame is silver rather then plated. In general the quality of Germany WWII decorations does not compare to the quality of German WWI decorations. This is just my opinion.

[Eric Stahlhut]

Bad! Bad! Bad!

I agree with both Doug and Paul, but tend to veer more towards Paul's assertion that in general, 1914 EKs are of superior quality when compared to their 1939 counterparts. The level of mass production during the 2nd Reich was not as sophisticated as the level shown by production during the 3rd Reich. As we all know, mass production usually causes quality to defer to quantity.

Craig, by cleaning the 1914 EK you have in my opinion effectively reduced the ethsthetic and monetary value of the piece. Granted, it is just a lowly 1914 EK2, but in my eyes you have just erased almost 100 years of history!

Not a big deal, it is just my personal opinion ( no cash value).

[Mike H.]

It's true about hand-made versus mass-produced. Also, in 1918 the 2.EK was still a respected and coveted award. More care and attention went into its production.

And I have to agree with Eric. Although it's just a personal hang-up on my part, I like them dirty! Sure, my pieces would look great with a little elbow grease - but it's not tarnish and grime that's being removed, it's HISTORY!!! It's the struggle and sacrifice that went into earning it. It's the story of the life of the soldier and the EK's travels since...

[CRAIGGOODWIN]

thanks

Yes - I know sorry half of me said no, the evil half said yes.

I'm on the mint trip at the moment & since the paint was 100 % & i could see no wear to the silver I couldnt resist.

Now I know why it came up mirror bright with the core silver rather than plated.

Thanks for your comments
Regards

[Tom Y]

Yup, as a rule '14's are better made than '39's. Now you need a '70 to see what an EK should really look like

[PaulChep]

Tom, I absolutely agree. The detail of a 1870 is far superior to anything before or after. When you add a 1895 Oakleave to the 1870 EK2 I think it is the nicest EK2 example.

[Dez H]

The nicest EK I ever handled was an 1870 EK with 25 year oakleaves AND the spange to the 1914 EK bar. I have only had the pleasure of handling one of these pieces ever once. What a rare beauty. So much rarer than any other EK.


Dez

[Tony & Kaiser]

Had no idea??

I found Eric and Mike's comments very interesting. Not being an awards collector, I had no idea that patina on awards was so important or so desirable. (?) Compare this to collecting Pickelhaubes, where cleaning is not frowned upon, but rather expected and accepted. As a soldier, I polish my cap badge, blacken my beret and shine my boots daily before trudging off to work. Likewise, a soldier in the Imperial German army would not dream of stepping out of the barracks with dull fittings or an helmet that was not shone. It would not happen. So in this case, cleaning and polishing (within reason and certain constraints) is just putting the helmet into it's appearance of the period. I would have thought that removing grime from an EK was just maintenance as well. But it appears not? Tony

[CRAIGGOODWIN]

i'M WITH YOU

I think for medals & daggers etc it is a bit frowned upon to clean, yet mint or unissued always seems to command a higher price.
But each to his own, I prefer them to be like they were when they were issued but that's just me. Steve Tedds has posted some pics of a 4 year & 8 year ss medal in another forum & to me they are mind blowing exactly like they were the day they were issued. I agree most veterens I have seen ( Aussie ones esp on ANZAC day ) always have their medals shiny & just so. The way I would expect an soldier to be, however others like to keep the "history" of grime etc. Like I said each to his own

[Mike H.]

Tony

I used to shine my boots and brass daily as well, but they were mine and it was regulation. Should I have entered into a conflict, and 60 years later someone treasured my medals, I would appreciate their being left the way I left them. No, they weren't grimey or patinaed when I touched them last, but that's what time does to them...

Again, it's personal preference. I don't begrudge someone who chooses to clean their collection, I just won't buy a piece from it on selling day.