Opinions on this Schinkel EK2?

[Andy B.]

Hello Everyone,
I might have a chance at this one and wanted to get some opinions. These are the best pics I can get at the moment. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance!!
Sincerely Andy

[Andy B.]

and the back.......

[Hank C.]

From these pics, I'd be hesitant, depending on price. It appears to lack quality. Might just be the photos though.

Hank

[Paratrooper]

Hi,

I miss the typical nose (Knob on the frame for the ring fits) on the frame for the little ring.
I never saw a Schinkel EK 2 without this nose.

Regards
Andreas

[Andy B.]

Thanks Hank and Andreas,
I noticed the missing "hump" as well, but I wasn't sure how crucial that point was. Another point I was concerned about was the size of the gap between the outer arm and the inner beading-seemed a little wider than I've seen. I could not find the fake that detlev had to compare it with (if anyone has that link, I'd appreciate it).
Thanks again for the input
Andy

[StefanK.]

it is a good cross!

[Paratrooper]

Hi Stefan,

gibt's die so wirklich? Ohne Nase f******252;r die Ring******246;se? Das habe ich bisher nur bei Kopien gesehen.

Gru******223;
Andreas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Stefan,

Are there really Schinkel crosses without the nose? I saw this until now only on copys?

Regards
Andreas

[George Stimson]

Here's the Detlev "Fake of the Week." (Photo courtesy Detlev Niemann)

[George Stimson]

But....

Andy, I think that yours might be a match to the one on the right in this photo -- which, as far as I know, is good.

[Andy B.]

Hi George, I appreciate you chiming in. Also thanks for the Detlev pic, I will save for future reference.
I think your right, it appears to be similar to the one you pictured on the right. The number "3" seemed to be the same.
Andy

[hagwalther]

I'd say it was good too even though it doesn't have a hump it has plenty of othe good Schinkle features.

My theory on these is that the majority were made by Deumer as I have a few TR 1914 replacements maked '3' and 'L/11' and the frames are identical to Schinkle crosses.

I believe others were made by Godet as they have been found with 'Godet' marked packets - of course, packet and cross could have been matched.

Regards ...

[Paratrooper]

Hi,

thank you George for showing your example. Theat makes me sure that the hump must not be there for 100%.
It's good that the form of the Schinkel without hump one can remember easely. And the big ring is also a good mark for this version.

That's a good example for me that one never finishes learning!

That's one of the facts they made the collecting never be boring.

Regards
Andreas

[Paratrooper]

Hi again,

Hagwalther mentioned the Schinkel crosses they was found in bags by Godet.
I thing the Schinkel cross on left side from Georges example is such an cross.
Tipycall for this version is the core shifted to 2 o clock and the swast is in nearly every example that i've seen until now shifted under the framework.
IMO they used old dies for the frames and because of that the beading is on some place only easily to recognize and no real "waves" more there.

Here are pictures for example. The firt two pics are from another old thread in this forum. The pics after are from i pice in my collection. Awrted in the first day in war. Because of that it's packed like any crosses from 1914 and there is no maker on the paper, but the cross is the same like this ones found in packeges from Godet.

Your opinion in addition would interest me very much!

Regards
Andreas

The one in my collection

[meriksson]

Imo the first one as this tread is about is not orginal
Mikael

[George Stimson]

"My theory on these is that the majority were made by Deumer as I have a few TR 1914 replacements maked '3' and 'L/11' and the frames are identical to Schinkle crosses. "

Here is Deumer's EK 2, as advertised in their wartime catalog.