Ek1 1914 jal

[5tefan]

I'm not very often in the Imperial Forum, due to my favourite is more the EK's from WW2. For this cross I try to get some Information or find some Pictures for compare. But I didn't find any of this maker JAL.

Can you give me some more Details about this EK1?

[Rich G]

A first for me as I have never seen this type before. Question is...is the disk a replacement or orginal? Can the cross itself be matched to a maker?

Rich

[gregM]

Like Rich, I have never heard of JAL or Julius Lemor.

[Mike Kenny]

Imo an original cross (at least the obverse half) with bogus disc. Would need to see the backplate to see if it's yet another Frankenstein.

Regards
Mike

[5tefan]

Imo an original cross (at least the obverse half) with bogus disc. Would need to see the backplate to see if it's yet another Frankenstein.

Regards
Mike

Many Thanks for your opinion.
Does no one have reference pictures?
Here is the picture of the backplate.

[Montgomery Burns]

My god ,,don't you people GOOGLE


http://www.holzwerken.de/museum/bank...zhobel12.phtml
from there

http://www.holzwerken.de/museum/bank...zhobel12.phtml


By the way the soldering should say enough



regards kay

[Mike Kenny]

Many Thanks for your opinion.
Does no one have reference pictures?
Here is the picture of the backplate.

Hi Stefan,

From the reverse it looks like the edges of the 2 frame halves to not match up and, obvious soldering under the nut aside, the backplate looks chemically aged compared to the evenly toned obverse.

Imo it is indeed another Frankenstein based on that pic, even without Monty's pleasant link to the true patent number holder.

Regards
Mike

[Montgomery Burns]

regards kay

[5tefan]

A great help from WAF Imperial Experts

Hi Mike,

so it is a Frankenstein build from parts out of original obverse of a known maker and include a not authentic disc

Additional the Google Research D.R.G.M # 661364 number sould belonging to a "Holzhobel"?!

Many Thanks your are the best imperial EK1 Expert

Than it will stay in my colection as first unlucky imperial cross catch

[streptile]

so it is a Frankenstein build from parts out of original obverse of a known maker and include a not authentic disc.

Hi Stefan,

That is also my opinion.

[jaeger7-de]

Yes, I might help to use Google correct...

...the DRGM no. of the slicer is given on this page as 66136 and on the the questionable disc is a 6613634

But anyway - I do not like the piece either !

Regards

jaeger7

[Montgomery Burns]

your indeed right ,,,its a 4 not a +


hmmm game changer

lets see ,,remains the soldering of the screw ,,not so nice ..

nothing much to stand in the way of being a genuine thing .... except the disc is so out of the ordinary,,,hmmm an enigma


regards kay

[Montgomery Burns]

My apology's Stefan

I did make the mistake to see the 4 as a + ,,

unfortunate mistake

regards kay

[streptile]

Yes, I might help to use Google correct...

...the DRGM no. of the slicer is given on this page as 66136 and on the the questionable disc is a 6613634

Thanks Jaeger.

That changes something.

Is there a list of DRGM numbers in an archive somewhere that can be checked for the correct number?