Opinions one EK2, Straight Leg?

[schinkel2]

What sort of cross is this?
I take it its not a Schinkel B but just a straight leg version its just a shame the frame is coming apart!
Should I do something with it or just lesve it alone?

Thanks in advance

Dan

[schinkel2]

2

[Biro]

A fairly contentious piece I'm afraid... Schinkel "B" type - Opinions!

Marshall

[schinkel2]

so its a definate fake then

[meriksson]

Dan!
Look at this tread http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=161424
Compare ur core whit the one Andreas shows, to me they do look same.
Mikael

[Biro]

so its a definate fake then

No... but it's definitely contentious...

Mikael....

Andreas's pictures don't show up for me - all I see is white boxes and red crosses.

Can you post one in this thread for Dan?

Marshall

[Hank C.]

I have the same cross. It was roundly and soundly called a fake. I tend to believe that. Unless this is 100% from a veteran with proof, I'd say it's fake.

Have a look at the Fake iron crosses forum in the Association Members forums.

best,
Hank

[schinkel2]

so no one actually knows if these crosses are fakes or not its just presumed that they are!!!

[Hank C.]

so no one actually knows if these crosses are fakes or not its just presumed that they are!!!

Hmm, let me see if I can phrase this properly: Nobody has any 100% documentation to verify that these crosses are of pre-1945 manufacture. They don't match characteristics of known authentic B-type schinkels.

If you choose to believe it is original, or have proof that it is, it is your right. You just may have trouble convincing others.

Hank

[schinkel2]

no no i dont like it, i think it is post 1945.
its just some guys on here just seemed to be unsure.

[meriksson]

Well this is a hard nutt, i did ask Andreas to post some more pic´s form his 2 halfs. Dont know wy some off you can see the pic´s in the tread i refere to, well now some from my mind. As i did say to Andreas i have seen this 1813 before, and this one is a copy. Then this one is not the one i did refere to? Any way this ek can be ok, or then we have 2 2Class that is way out? This Collecting is hevy hard stuff
Mikael

[schinkel2]

Well this is a hard nutt, i did ask Andreas to post some more pic´s form his 2 halfs. Dont know wy some off you can see the pic´s in the tread i refere to, well now some from my mind. As i did say to Andreas i have seen this 1813 before, and this one is a copy. Then this one is not the one i did refere to? Any way this ek can be ok, or then we have 2 2Class that is way out? This Collecting is hevy hard stuff
Mikael

So you think it MIGHT!!!!! be real!!!!!
Im lost!
Would any more close up pics help.
See the thing that I thought made it look good was the beading, it is quite good and I have never seen a fake or copy with beading like this anyone help me out any other opinions

Dan

[Biro]

Dan

Kinda frustrating I know, but the crux of the matter is there is no individual who can definitively say whether they are fake or not.. the best anyone can do is offer considered logic and opinion.

I think if you read this thread Schinkelform EK2 ? you will see why logic dictates there is at the very least something extremely fishy about these EK2's. In this thread Frank H offers pretty conclusive evidence why he considers them to be fakes... (see - among other things - the 1st class version quite obviously fashioned from a second class )

On the flip side, an example that looks VERY much liked the one you posted was sold recently by Detlev Niemann - certainly someone who's opinion should be considered relevant - which rather threw the cat amongst the pigeons. Although I'm personally a non-beleiver, the word 'contentious' and not 'fake' is more accurate.

You now have as much 'fact' as you're likely to get on this type of EK, so while there may well be plenty more opinions from folks here....the ultimate decision is one only you can make.

Me personally?... not for my collection.

Hope this helps.

Marshall

[Ludwig]

-

I don´t know, but it doesn´t feel right to me.
Well made, but very ugly. Just like the RK "rounders".
Under all circumstances, it´s just an EK2. Buy another one.
IMO it is not wartime.

[Paratrooper]

Hi,

I'm a little bit surprised about the discussion if these "two piece cores" iron crosses are authentic wartime pieces.
Since for a long time there are no doubts about the authenticity.
You can ask Detlev for example and other experts.
All have the same opinion: These type of iron cross is a good wartime piece.
That is proven since one piece was found in a deduction with serious provenance.
This "two core pieces" are one of the rarest wartime produced iron crosses.

If you have the opinion that these pieces are fakes you must think about why should the fakers use a method of manufacturing those is very expensive in contrast to the normal method -the three piece construction.
The production of the two part core is very complex. You need two hollow stamped parts.
If i want to copy a cross i would never make this because of discussions like these. To sell this crosses is a hard thing.

So we must ask: Why they were produced? IMO the only reason for manufacturing this sort of crosses can be the shortness of the material IRON.
To save this war-important material that construction would be good for.
To produce the dies is is more expensive but in the end you can save iron in a not low quantity.
You must tghink that there where awards for donate iron and every gramm that theycould save was important. But this is my thesis.

But he question about the autheticity of this crosses is clariyfied since a long time.

Regards
Andreas

PS.: I will make more detailed photos when the batterys for my digicam will be charged allredy.

The frameset




The two parts of the core