BTW, there are still plenty of Foerster EK2 Packets around

[R. Schmitt]

without words....

[grueni1208]

I guess: Carl Forster & Graf, Schwäbisch Gmünd

Regards

Grueni

[Fritz]

Please forgive me my ignorance....but aren't these of the fake style that is around since several years?

Cheers

Fritz

[R. Schmitt]

Good question - some think they're good, others don't trust them as far as I know. up to your personal judgment I guess, the collector's community is split when it comes to those as well. Fact is that they're more common than any other maker's packets. Personally, I don't have a problem with them ( = I think they're good oriinals), but they're just not very desirable to me because they're so.... available and in most cases don't match the crosses' maker

[grueni1208]

but aren't these of the fake style that is around since several years?

It's possible that you mean the packets without a maker?
They have another script style.

Regards

Grueni

[MH184]

In regard to the Graf packets, the only really contentious example is the Ldo warranty marked example and at that the packet is fine and I also confess the stamp looks good too.

It's only the reasons we know not for this.

I wouldn't mind betting a simple solution, like by the late '44 decree: ''all insundry of packets and cases are to be used for the lesser awards'' (words to the effect of), and that these were perhaps proposed for retail use and hence the unusual use of the stamp (found on genuine cellophane packets) on a typical generic EK 2 packet of latter sorts.

I don't know, but I will continue to try and find out. There is a thread of mine with a couple of thoughts and pictures of both examples of the Graf packet.

What are your thoughts ??

[MH184]

It's possible that you mean the packets without a maker?
They have another script style.

Regards

Grueni

Correct, these I had ink and paper 'age' tested some time ago now and there are positively post war made.

Left hand fold and devoid of maker, spaced numerals - a combination of the traits to remember which indicate this fake.

[grueni1208]

At the moment I know 2 packet versions from Forster.

First version is not to use, because the slitt on the back side is wrong positioned. The lettering on the front side and back side are to high, too.

Second version (I don't have this version) must be good. The packets haven't the mistakes from the first version.

Regards

Grueni

[MH184]

The maker name and designation are out of alignment, the fold and overall construction being off dosen't concern me.

Just one of those things that happens; similar can be seen on other forms of packets from time to time but of course not in such quantity as evident with this find.

I don't class this as a type as such, just a construction defect in the manufacture.




The Ldo warrenty marked up sort from the same hoard as the examples devoid of Ldo warrenties also.

[MH184]

Here's one link:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ter+Graf+study

[Kosmonauten64]

At the moment I know 2 packet versions from Forster.

First version is not to use, because the slitt on the back side is wrong positioned. The lettering on the front side and back side are to high, too.

Second version (I don't have this version) must be good. The packets haven't the mistakes from the first version.

Regards

Grueni

Hi Grueni.
Nice pictures.
I compared it to another package that i have and there's quite a difference between yours and mine:
Front:

Back:


Kind regards
Martin (who might be off topic here.)

[schönbeck]

there are three ways to stamp the packets.
1. Stamp a large sheet with several stamps, then cut it and fold/glue.
2. Cut, then stamp, then fold and glue.
3. Cut, fold, glue, stamp by hand.

All these methods will get perfect packets but with a slight difference between the position of the stamps.

The schrobenhansen-schrobenhausen issue is easy to solv, the u is just turned up side down making it a n. I think so since they most probably used metall/led letters to print with, they are used one by one. Just like you printed newspapers before.