Packet for EK2 Spange

[Kurt A.]

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off"><TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">Please check out the packet that I listed in the Crosses category. I'm trying to determine if the spange is original. Knowing whether or not the packet is original will help .
Thank you!
Kurt
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=141864
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Frank Heukemes]

The first thing that should be stated is that packet does not match the supposed spange maker. I personally like the packet's paper structure and find it remarkable that the subtle grammar rule when to use the straight, tall small "s" and when to use the regular small "s" is perfectly honoured. Even most modern day Germans do not know about it and make frequently mistakes with it when they create "old font" texts for webpages and similar purposes. Looks believable to me.

[MH184]

Hi Kurt,


Can I see a full view pic of the packet front and back. Is this by any chance a packet with a short elongated flap rounded at the corners ?

Odd how the spange word of the designation is more 'normal' and the rest of it in this unskilled hand written form as such. It has very similar traits to that of the EK2 packet with the maker mark Wernstein on them, but is not a exact match in style or type.

There are genuine styles of maker mark encountered along the lines of the example you show, so the maker mark I could forgive and would give room for thought on.

The desigantion, overall.....I couldn't say for sure if honest so I can't give a true opinion, I just don't know.

[MH184]

Without seeing a full view of the packet, I'm thinking it's like this one (as noted in regards to the flap), flap and size. So a possible match for the packet at this moment in time, and I see Frank has noted the paper too.


I've a U Boot packet just like these ones, and it's also encountered for the HSF normally marked Schwerin in a tidy little box on the reverse.

This Wernstein marked packet, has been deliberated on the forum, and it wasn't until in hand that I was fully convinced of it's authenticity. As terrible as the desigantion is, I like it !

The spange packet, grammar and all taken into account fair enough, but it's the dual use of 'spange' and then this other 'style' to complete the desigantion. It's a first of a kind of an anomaly for me I must say.

If the packet matches, and taking into account the Wernstein desigantion.......it's possible it could be okay, 'beleivable' as Frank indicates.

I'd like to look at it further and in hand. will you sell it seperately to me

[Allan P.]

As a coincidence I have an identical packet and spange which I was loooking at only last night!

I sure that the packet is OK, in fact I like it very much.

As for the spange, as mentioned in the cross's forum the 'jury is still out'.

However, looking at the spange with a loop, the detail and quality is very good.

Allan

[MH184]

rev

[MH184]

Al, can you put a pic up mate, I'd like to see these: Kurts and yours side by side....just out of interest, no paticular reason

[Frank Heukemes]

but it's the dual use of 'spange'

Not sure what you mean by that, Marcus? Why dual?

[MH184]

Rereading I didn't explain properly overall, it makes even less sense in the context of the quote mate, my bad English, two observations Frank:

Spange is in the correct format of fractur (gothic) proper the capital (upper case) S being the main observation and crux of identification (it's harder on non capitial letters i.e lower case) and at that it resembles in good definition that encountered on it's generic counterpart.


@ Before you read on guys, let me stipulate, for me and my interpretation of the way I see the packet in the picture is this: two styles of fraktur firstly {spange in classic fraktur and EK 2 Class in 'Nazi' adapted fraktur, faceted fraktur with an even modernistic upper case E on Eisernen, opposed the scrawled classic fraktur) and then secondly, the definition of the lettering is somewhat better overall than the 'Iron Cross 2 Class' part of the designation.......it's not a contention, just an observation and a pause for investigation and thought.

It's not overly incorrect, as Spange informs/labels its a 'bar' firstly, and EK 2 class, the specific classification as it were of spange. You do get a mixture of lettering, as the desigantion Verwundeten Abzeichen in latin formand the then classification say,schwarz will be a differnt composition of lettering, a form of fraktur etc for an example.

But as spange emulates the normal generic packet designation, then the obvious change into this other form of fraktur, makes it look some what disjointed......in my minds eye only.


.Kurts example in blue and a generic packet form, similar looking in intended classic fraktur style.

[MH184]

Then we have this part of the desigantion, non classic fraktur and the 'E' being modern or a latin form, mixed with a form of fraktur ? That is provincailly 'Nazi' latin/fraktur as per the Bormann decree, 'type' ?

Can you help on this one please Frank ? I'm unsure, but think it's incorrect perhaps. Does the limited tail and round top angle permit it as fractur form ? As in 'Naz'i derived fraktur and latin additional influence we have similar traits.

And the numeral 2, is it acceptable/correct to use arabic numerals with latin-Nazi derived fraktur (exactly as below compared to above) as such in this style of German writting (the Iron Cross 2 Class part), opposed to the Roman, '11' ?


Any thoughts and ideas ?

[MH184]

Two of several examples, of which I thnk the latter part of the desigantion devoid of spange resembles or pertains to be in this instance perhaps ? Frank your thoughts and indeed anyone else pelase comment.

[MH184]

Note the similarity on the beige EK packet 'E' to the spange packet, rounded top angle of the letter E and the bottom right angle of the letter.....clsoe, and attemopted I think on the spange packet perhaps ?


Two forms of fraktur perhaps, and the word Spange close to the generic produced pattern, why then opt for another style on the last part of the desigantion ? As before noted it's normally indicative by colour or class/grade to have a different style of writting, normally at that in a word. This tkes on a guise not seen or associated before to my knowledge, hence my apprehension to declare good or bad with conviction or in a manner.

I will say on a limb, I suspect it could be good, but would like to see further pic's, until then I don't know fully in my perception of the packet alone.

[Allan P.]

Here's my spange packet.

[Allan P.]

Reverse

[Kurt A.]

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">Here's the front and back of my packet. I appreciate all the input received thus far!
Kurt
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>