1914/1957 Schinkle Form EKII

[Mike Yokum]

Hey gents,

This little diddy arrived today. Hope you lke it. It's, as the title says, a 1914/57er era made EKII in Schinkle form. Did I get that right Nigel? It's the first Schinkle from this era that I have seen. Anyone seen another? If so, please post some pics here for comparison!

The condition is very good with nice frosting. The core is non-magnetic and the cross itself weighs 16.55g.

[Mike Yokum]

1

[Mike Yokum]

2

[Mike Yokum]

3

[LuckyLuudje]

I am not sure if we can call this cross a "Schinkel" (not Schinkle).
Because IMO there is no such thing for Imperial crosses.
The term Shinkelform generally refers to an early variant of the 1939 Iron Cross that is made in the demensions of the 1914 crosses and named after the designers name.

The cross wich is posted is IMO made by Deumer and it wouldn't surprise me if the clasp is also made by the same maker.

[Mike Yokum]

Thanks. I learned something new, even the spelling.

Good info!

[streptile]

I am not sure if we can call this cross a "Schinkel" (not Schinkle).
Because IMO there is no such thing for Imperial crosses.
The term Shinkelform generally refers to an early variant of the 1939 Iron Cross that is made in the demensions of the 1914 crosses and named after the designers name.

Hi Mike,

It's a very nice set, especially that Spange, which is one of the nicest I have ever seen.

I agree with Luud that this cross is not a Schinkel.

I define a Schinkel as follows:

a 1939-series Iron Cross that was made with either a) leftover frames from before 1939 (when the new size for the Iron Cross was mandated), or b) tools and/or dies left over from before 1939.

In my opinion the precise wording of this definition is absolutely crucial, because if you say that a Schinkel is "made in the demensions of the 1914 crosses," you assume that there is a standard dimension for a 1914 cross, which there was not. Thus a Schinkel can be 44mm, if the frames themselves were struck on dies made before 1939, and happened to be 44mm. Also, part b) above is necessary to account for one-piece Schinkels, which are very much a part of the Schinkel family.

A short way of saying all this is: the interesting thing about Schinkels is that they are early, not that they are small.

Thus, of course, any cross with a 1914 core can not be a Schinkel.

I also wonder what makes you certain this one was made after WWII? These are certainly known from the WWII era, also, although I don't doubt your ability to distinguish.

[Mike Yokum]

I also wonder what makes you certain this one was made after WWII? These are certainly known from the WWII era, also, although I don't doubt your ability to distinguish.

Please DO doubt my ability Trev! EK's are by far my weakest area of knowledge!

I honestly, must leave the determination as to period of manufacture to you EK experts! I simply compared some characteristics (paint, core details, etc.) of this cross to some of Daniel's (Grueni1208) crosses seen HERE, HERE and HERE and drew some loose conclusions. If it is not from the 57er era, please instruct me. A little public humility is good for the soul!

[Mike Yokum]

I forgot to mention Trev, that the repeat spange was an indicator I went by in judging the date of manufacture, but I know full well that's not conclusive evidence.

The short life of this thread has already been a great learning experience for me for sure! I knew that the cross's design was from Karl F. Schinkel (though I spelled it incorrectly ) I did not know that the determination as to whether or not the piece is a Schinkelform was determined more by date than shape. I thought, incorrectly, that the shape of the cross's arms determined it's type. Oops! EK's just haven't been my focus.

[grueni1208]

IMO a Third Reich 1914 EK II by Deumer and a 57 clasp (maybe by Deumer, too).
I would say the quality is to good for a post war production.

Regards

Daniel

[DavidM]

Hello

Two very nice items, but made in different times. The 2nd class bar is a very nice and early 57 version - by whom, I don't know. The EK is not, in my opinion, a post war made piece (there are, of course, no 57 versions of the WW1 EKs as they never carried any proscribed symbols), but is possibly from the late 1930's or very early 1940's. I would agree that the EK is by Deumer.

Regards
David

[Nigel N]

Hi Mike, well thats a beautiful EK, even if its neither a Schinkel, or even a postwar ww2 cross!!!!!!
I think the seller described it as a postwar cross?? And when you saw the pics, the condition looked like it must be a later piece, but it turns out not!!
It appears to be super minty, and a really nice example!!!
Could you post a comparison shot of it alongside a standard 57 EK2 please Mike, that would be great!!!
The spange looks to be a pretty good quality one, with a decent painted core and shiney highlight too?
Any reason to doubt that these two pieces have been together a long time??
Certainly make a good looking set!!
I think i called my Imperial style EK1 a Schinkel design........ i got away with that one!!!
This 30's/40's Deumer cross was what i thought was on my recent medalbar, but i got that wrong too
I'm going to bring in an expert next time.....magoo-1.gif
-Nigel

[Mike Yokum]

Just a quick note sent from my phone...

I'm very grateful for all the expert input! Thanks gents!

Does anyone know if these two together would be out of place or unusual? They seem to be similar in wear and patina.

Thanks again gents!

[streptile]

Just a quick note sent from my phone...

I'm very grateful for all the expert input! Thanks gents!

Does anyone know if these two together would be out of place or unusual? They seem to be similar in wear and patina.

Thanks again gents!

Hi Mike,

I agree with Daniel, that this cross is more likely to be of WWII manufacture. I see absolutely no problem with them being a set -- in fact, I think it likely, given that the ribbon is also clearly of postwar manufacture. So I bet the ribbon came with the Spange, and the owner probably replaced his swastika-Spange with this one, ribbon and all, to his original (replacement) EK2.

This is a guess, obviously, but it seems likely to me.

[DavidM]

Does anyone know if these two together would be out of place or unusual? They seem to be similar in wear and patina.

Given that the WW2 bars to the EKs had to be redesigned and reissued, (the redesign being similar to the earlier Imperial bars), the logical answer is that this combination is niether out of place or unusal. After all, the WW1 veteran who also served in WW2, and was awarded a bar to his EK, might want to wear his EK and bar to the EK at reunions, and this would have been the only way that he could do it. Soa very nice set, but not unusual or out of place.

Regards
David