57 RKs How and When Did The 2nd Pattern Come Into Being?

[DavidM]

Hello

I raised a question in another thread, (about the 57 RK on E-Bay that went quite cheaply), but then decided it might be worthy of thread of it's own.

My question is, how did we end up with the unflawed 2nd frame? And the 2nd pattern core. The frame you could perhaps surmise as being due to the final deterioration of the original wartime die. But why change the core?

Does anyone know, or have any working theories on how and why the 2nd pattern 57 RKs from S&L came into being? And does anyone have any approximation as to when the change occured, e.g. 1966, 1970, 1975 or when?

Regards
David

[CSForrester]

Hello David,

a very difficult question, and much more to answer in english. At first i think that there was no real change. Both types of core were already 1957/1958 in production ! The book from Mr. Krantz was printed in early 1958 and shows already both types of core !
Why two types ? I only have a theory.
There were only two companies in Germany which tried seriously to offer the complete scale of awards which were allowed to wear again, in the original or 1957-style, Steinhauer and Deuer.
Steinhauer was very close to the Federal German Governement and i believe, they produced the first RK with Oaks on the core before 1957 to present the samples to the official commission preparing the law. They used their old frame and reverse and created a new obverse, the 1st type. Deumer never before produced Knights crosses themselves, so may be they bought parts and/or tools from Otto Schickle (the two companies worked also together during the war) and ordered a tool for the oberverse from Steinhauer. So the early Schickle and Steinhauer RKs have the same obverse, the first type.
Harald Geisler called the RKs with 2nd type of core "Deumer-RK", and this is a hint that he bought one from Deumer or he knewed that they were made by Deumer.
After the parts from Schickle went out and the dimensions of the Schickle-frame did not agree with the instructions from 1957, Deumer could have ordered a complete set of tools for a RK from Steinhauer. This could be the core 2nd type and the unflawed frame.
When Deumer stopped production in the early 1960 years Steinhauer took back all tools and further used the "new" Deumer-tools instead of their old, flawed tools.
Understand me ? Only a working theory.
Regards
CSForrester

From: Hans-Ulrich Krantz "Orden und Ehrenzeichen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", Bonn 1958, page 101:

[DavidM]

Hello

Many, many thanks for that Markus. Very useful information. I never knew that both types co-existed. This would go a long way to explaining why there are some very good, real silver framed '2nd pattern' RKs out there.

Regards
David

[New World]

CSForrester,

If this is the case, then our obsession with "thin oaks" crosses is incorrect and we are excluding large number of Deumer crosses from early universe.

How do you then tell early Deumer pieces from later ones?

William

[DavidM]

CSForrester,

If this is the case, then our obsession with "thin oaks" crosses is incorrect and we are excluding large number of Deumer crosses from early universe.

How do you then tell early Deumer pieces from later ones?

William

Hello

An extremely good point William. However, and this only my opinion, a lot of collectors of the 57 items will also include the early, quality '2nd pattern' RKs in their collections.

If you look at the different '2nd pattern' RKs, you find them ranging in quality from very good to very bad. My opinion is that, as seems to be the case with most of the 57 pieces, the early ones are the good quality pieces, more often than not with a magnetic core, and the later ones are the non magnetic cored, poorer and bad quality ones.

Regards
David

[speedytop]

Hi,

to help (or to confuse?), here are different period pictures of 57 RKs from three books, one from 1956, two from 1958.
With 4 (ore 5?) different cores.

1. Taschenbuch für Wehrfragen 1956. Picture (painting) top left.

2. Geeb/Kirchner, Deutsche Orden und Ehrenzeichen, 1958 (November 1957). Picture top right.

2. Krantz, Orden und Ehrenzeichen, 1958. The other three pictures



Regards
Uwe

[DavidM]

Hello

Many thanks for that Uwe. Excellent information. Quite clearly the '2nd pattern' has been around from the start of the 57 pieces production.

Another question then is does anyone have, for example, an S&L 57 RK with the '2nd pattern' core but the early flawed frames?

In the light of what is coming out of this thread, should we still refer to a '1st and 2nd pattern', as this, in the way it has been used, suggests a progression and hierachy, or perhaps they need renaming to something else?

Regards
David

[Peter Wiking]

I think it is fair to use "first" and "second" pattern core to describe them. They are clearly different. The 1957 RK groups that have surfaced so far have included the first pattern core with thin leaves and accorns placed low.

The second pattern core with fatter leaves and accorns placed high up, tends to be in frames with the "dipping" ring. The second pattern core is still in use, but they have switched from the iron based core to a tombac core. Something they did along time ago.

Peter

[Peter Wiking]

CSForrester,

If this is the case, then our obsession with "thin oaks" crosses is incorrect and we are excluding large number of Deumer crosses from early universe.

How do you then tell early Deumer pieces from later ones?

William

There is more to it than just the oaks in the core.

Peter

[New World]

There is more to it than just the oaks in the core.

Peter

How do we then identify early crosses with "non-thin oaks"?

We should establish what to look for.

William

[George L]

Great stuff, thanks for the information!! I don't pass on early, quality 2nd patterns...maybe we can call the thin oaks (aka 1st patt) type "A", and what's called second pattern type "B"??? Just a suggestion.

[New World]

In the light of our discussion, what can be said about this cross - is it early Deumer (Type B)?

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/avers1/KC%201957/KC1957_1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[New World]

Oak details:

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/avers1/KC%201957/KC1957_2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[New World]

MM stamp on reverse:

[Peter Wiking]

How do we then identify early crosses with "non-thin oaks"?

We should establish what to look for.

William

The core paint on modern pieces is glossy. Modern pieces do not have any frosting on the frame. Modern pieces have tombac/white alloy core.

Regarding the cross you show above i think it is a cross from the 1960's. I am not sure about Deumer though. It is a St&L cross to me.

Peter