Sometime back I started a thread, http://www.wehrmacht-awards.net/foru...d.php?t=134614, which apparently started a discussion about EKs with the mm 4 and with a hump. Another thread was started as a result of the one I started. http://www.wehrmacht-awards.net/foru...d.php?t=134800 is the location of that thread. It would seem my thread in a sense started a controversy. During the discussions positions were taken by some that any EK 2 with a 4 mm and a hump had to be a fake or a post war cross, with some posting photos of EKs with a 4 mm and no hump was some kind of proof positive of that. Since, after some initial dispute the general consensus seemed to me to be that the mm on my cross was indeed a 4; however, it also has a hump. Therefore, under the above theory one would have to conclude mine must be a fake. I do not accept that conclusion. I believe the cross to be 100% genuine, original pre-1945 manufacture (and whatever other words are now in vogue to indicate it is what it proports to be). I think it is time for me to state why I believe such.
While I was stationed in Germany between 1973 and 1976 with the U. S. Army, I met a gentleman from a village near where I lived. His name was Heinrich Singer. For some reason unknown to me, he liked me. He told me to call him what everyone else did........"Pop". I had long talks with Pop, and enjoyed my talks with him, and his stories of his days in service (mainly the Russian front). One day Pop gave me a little sack with what he had left of his own personal items, including the EK in question, along with some other items of his. Along with the EK was the Urkunde for it and his EK1, and his soldbuch. Pop told me the items were his personal items that were awarded to him, and I have no reason to call him a liar. Since I was face to face with him, it was easy for me to look at the photo in the soldbuch and see it was a photo of the same man......just younger. He tapped his artifical eye, and said "I lost this in Russia, that is how I got the Gold Wound Badge". Pop charged me the grand total of nothing for the things he gave me. If he was in the "business" of passing fakes in such fashion, I don't see how he could make money (the goal of all the passers of fakes of whom I have ever been aware). You couldn't even make it up in volume
.
I have tried again on photos, this time with my scanner. I do not see the dimple below the ring (which was thought to exist in one of the photos I took), and which was thought to be a spot where the ring had been earlier. I think that was likely an artifact of the light I was using to photograph the area. It is the dark spot on the obverse side of the frame, which appears to be merely an area of tarnish to me. In any event no such dimple seems to exist on the reverse side, and the mounting hole would go through both sides of the frame. Also in one of the close up scans, and photos, I have put in this post, shows the faint seam of the 2 frame halves (with hump). While, as I have said previously, there does appear to be a sloppy soldering job around the ring; it is not what produced the hump. Why is it sloppy? I don't know.....maybe the guy just messed that one up a bit in putting it together and it slipped by any inspection process...whatever that process was. I don't know why it is............I just know it is. Pop had a lot of wisdom. He might have address the hump and "4" this way....."If you went to a farmer's home, and he and his wife said they had produced 8 children with absolute certainty each of them was the biological parent of each of the children. They then asked their children to come out and introduce themselves one at a time. The first 7 children came out one at a time, and they each were blonde females...........what sex and hair color would the 8th child be?". Of course the answer would be.......you don't know until you see the child. You might want to look at the other 2 threads referred to above. Feel free to comment. My conclusion is this cross is not a fake, and I, after collecting this stuff for about 58 years now, also conclude that the more I learn......I learn there is a lot more to learn. One of the most wise comments I saw was something to the effect that we likely may never know the answer to the puzzle. The reason is also likely they were not making these crosses for the purpose of them becoming collector's items 60 years after the fact........and so they did not produce variations with that thought in mind and likely didn't keep detailed records of all the variations and reasons for them. They became collector's items, and were not manufactured as such to begin with unlike comemorative Winchesters or Bradford Exchange plates.
Take a look at the pictures, and comment on my thoughts if you so desire.
Thanks,
Ron
While I was stationed in Germany between 1973 and 1976 with the U. S. Army, I met a gentleman from a village near where I lived. His name was Heinrich Singer. For some reason unknown to me, he liked me. He told me to call him what everyone else did........"Pop". I had long talks with Pop, and enjoyed my talks with him, and his stories of his days in service (mainly the Russian front). One day Pop gave me a little sack with what he had left of his own personal items, including the EK in question, along with some other items of his. Along with the EK was the Urkunde for it and his EK1, and his soldbuch. Pop told me the items were his personal items that were awarded to him, and I have no reason to call him a liar. Since I was face to face with him, it was easy for me to look at the photo in the soldbuch and see it was a photo of the same man......just younger. He tapped his artifical eye, and said "I lost this in Russia, that is how I got the Gold Wound Badge". Pop charged me the grand total of nothing for the things he gave me. If he was in the "business" of passing fakes in such fashion, I don't see how he could make money (the goal of all the passers of fakes of whom I have ever been aware). You couldn't even make it up in volume
.I have tried again on photos, this time with my scanner. I do not see the dimple below the ring (which was thought to exist in one of the photos I took), and which was thought to be a spot where the ring had been earlier. I think that was likely an artifact of the light I was using to photograph the area. It is the dark spot on the obverse side of the frame, which appears to be merely an area of tarnish to me. In any event no such dimple seems to exist on the reverse side, and the mounting hole would go through both sides of the frame. Also in one of the close up scans, and photos, I have put in this post, shows the faint seam of the 2 frame halves (with hump). While, as I have said previously, there does appear to be a sloppy soldering job around the ring; it is not what produced the hump. Why is it sloppy? I don't know.....maybe the guy just messed that one up a bit in putting it together and it slipped by any inspection process...whatever that process was. I don't know why it is............I just know it is. Pop had a lot of wisdom. He might have address the hump and "4" this way....."If you went to a farmer's home, and he and his wife said they had produced 8 children with absolute certainty each of them was the biological parent of each of the children. They then asked their children to come out and introduce themselves one at a time. The first 7 children came out one at a time, and they each were blonde females...........what sex and hair color would the 8th child be?". Of course the answer would be.......you don't know until you see the child. You might want to look at the other 2 threads referred to above. Feel free to comment. My conclusion is this cross is not a fake, and I, after collecting this stuff for about 58 years now, also conclude that the more I learn......I learn there is a lot more to learn. One of the most wise comments I saw was something to the effect that we likely may never know the answer to the puzzle. The reason is also likely they were not making these crosses for the purpose of them becoming collector's items 60 years after the fact........and so they did not produce variations with that thought in mind and likely didn't keep detailed records of all the variations and reasons for them. They became collector's items, and were not manufactured as such to begin with unlike comemorative Winchesters or Bradford Exchange plates.
Take a look at the pictures, and comment on my thoughts if you so desire.
Thanks,
Ron
Comment