-
sigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail" -
sigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
Heres what I am thinking at the moment...........
It seems to me, unless anyone shows an earlier example, that the extended box lines around the L/11 mark only appear on 57 era pieces, wether they are 57 or Imperial cored?
If this turns out to be correct, then it would tell us two things...
1. an easy way to tell a 57 period Imperial cored EK1 from a piece of any earlier production date.....
2.It would also show, that Deumer were making and marking these pieces into the late 50's/early 60's period, and not just using up leftover wartime parts!!
Also for the cross that started this thread.......
Vaulted, no extended box lines and earlier style core, should mean that it isn't a 57 period piece, but an earlier one, I guess the question then would be how early???????????sigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
That was my thoughts when I saw the box. But do you think that vaulting is such significant to say it is not 57er? I remember once I was outbid at vaulted Deumer L/11 with 57 core...Originally posted by Nigel N View Post
MiroComment
-
Not 100% sure at the moment Miro, 57 cored examples might be different from Imperial cored ones, and also, sometimes, without the cross in hand, it can be difficult to tell wether the cross was factory vaulted or hand vaulted!
I wouldn't judge any piece on just one thing, but try and look at all its different parts, then see what we can learn, if we keep digging, i'm sure we'll learn more!!
-Nigelsigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
I completely understand your opinion, Nigel. Just wanted to add that mentioned cross wasn´t hand vaulted, as it leaves traces that can be seen also on photos. Now I am even more sad, that I was outbid...
Best, MiroComment
-
This has been quit interesting Nigel ;
The forum sections may be separate fields - but interesting overlapping transitions . As noted there are distinct noticeable manufacturing and appearance of each period - like finishing parts and paint . The extended L/11 lines I see as a unique post war die .
Now I have been sitting here and trying to make sense of these extra extended lines left of this new L/11 mark . Why make a marking die so much wider than it has to be ?? A larger marking die requires a lot more pressure/striking force to leave an imprint . I wonder if that marking die originaly was a lot wider and possibly included something like the name : Deumer or DW ?? The strike would have been over all quit shallow ... so it was ground off . This could explain the faint lines to the left and at times lopsided strike .... just me thinking out load here .
Lastly something I noticed on these crosses are the catch placement lines . There are differences that might also corolate to a time period and or mixing of parts ??
DouglasComment
-
Others:Comment
-
.... and did this ever have one ?
Cheers, DouglasComment
-
Hi Douglas!!
As you probably read in the TR crosses section, Fabri also thinks the "extended line" MM is a postwar style, and not found on wartime or earlier!
It may be impossible to say for sure wether Deumer were using leftover wartime backplates etc. and frames too as far as that goes, or stamping out new ones using the old dies? but it would seem that they were marking these pieces with the L/11 into the 57 period.
Along similar lines, every single 57er Deumer EK2 I've ever seen has the "3"MM on the ribbon ring, this was always put down to the use of leftover wartime rings, but that must also be in doubt now?
All the EK1's I've shown here, with the extended line, have been 57ers, some have an over generous "blob" of solder around the catch, making it difficult, if not impossible, on some pieces to see exactly what placement marks they have!
But I will check them all again, and see how many lines I can find!!
-Nigelsigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
Any thoughts on what or why these extended marks are on the left side of the mark could be ?
DouglasComment
-
Not at the moment, Douglas, the first time I saw it, I thought it was a partial mis-strike or the stamp or back plate had somehow slipped during the stamping, but they are all the same..................
-Nigelsigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
Also, forgot to ask.........
If any of you guys have L/11 MM'd 57er Deumers, please show them, and if possible, a close-up of the MM, the more we see the better!!!!!!!!!!
-Nigel
sigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
Hi.
Interesting topic! Rate the period of production of crosses "1914" L/11
was often a problem.
Well, that is willing to consider it!
Below my examples.
Both have a long line rectangle around L/11 directed to the left.
Best regards.
Maciej G.
Comment
-
Hi Maciej!!
Thanks for the photo's, very helpful!!!
Interesting to see one is flatback, one vaulted, so it would appear Deumer sold both types in Imperial form, as they did with 57 cored EK1's!!
Can you also confirm that both of your crosses have the same core, and the same frame, with matching bead flaws etc??
Thanks again buddy!!!!!!!!
-Nigel
PS Come on guys, please show us your L/11 marked EK1's, lets see some more, 57ers or Imperial cored!!!!!!!!!sigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
Comment