An L15, EK1..what do ya thing?

[SwordFish]

I had purchased and posted this one a few years back. At the time, it was given the blessing of being Flock free and a period L15 Schickle.

However, this Ek has no dimple on the upper arm. It came in a D&B period case, fitting perfectly..but was subjected to water damage at one time...obviously from the photos.

Should I still consider this cross legitimate or have new bits of info come to light that should make me question it?

Thank you,

[SwordFish]

2

[SwordFish]

3

[all1knew]

fine

Hello,

I would say it is fine, even though it has a Souval frame....didn't know they were a firm that used them as well. Is that a Souval core as well, the date looks like a low-profile like most?

Ya learn something new everyday!



William Kramer

[ekhunter]

All1knew, yes they used Souval crosses, and look at the 3, that should answer question.

[SwordFish]

Thank you for the replies gentlemen.

[Frank Heukemes]

Quite a touchy subject, but in my opinion all these L/15 EK1s are fakes by Floch. Schickle was located in Pforzheim (Württemberg), one of the main centers of award/badge/jewellery production. Just as important as Lüdenscheid. If you look at all Schickle made awards in their catalogue, you will find that they co-operated a lot with BH Mayer, a major Pforzheim company, which provided the designs that smaller companies of the same area (Schickle and Frank & Reif would be examples) adapted.
Being part of the Pforzheim infrastructure of makers, there was absolutely no need for Souval made parts. Souval was from Vienna/Austria, many hundreds of kilometers away.

Now for the interesting part. Souval was from Vienna and so is Floch. In addition, these L15 crosses all resemble the Floch made fakes in many details, except for the Souval parts used.

This suspicion was confirmed for me when I received the EK pictured below directly from the son of a German veteran, in a grouping with the rest of his awards/photos. It is marked L/15 and uses a setup by BH Mayer, a connection you will also find when you look at other Schickle awards, like their PAB, GAB, etc.

I have no problem with anybody believing anything else, but for me, only these Schickle crosses are original. The ones that resemble the Floch fakes are also Floch made crosses for me. Probably earlier ones when he could use up some original (?) Souval parts.

[Frank Heukemes]

Obverse

[George Stimson]

Frank, that's a very interesting -- and plausible -- theory. What do you think of the "L15" EK 1s with the frames and cores identical to those of Friedrich Orth ("15") EKs? (Orth was also located in Vienna, BTW....)

[ekhunter]

George beat me to that question, which is a really good one. Frank may very well be right, and it all makes good sense. If so, then a lot of people will be crying, for they have early Flochs that they though were Schickle's because most of the "Schickle's" that you see are of this variety. But what of the Orth's?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I changed "Schinkle" from the above post to "Schickle" to avoid confusion and make later 'searches' more efficient.

[Steve Campbell]

Thanks I was going to ask about that.

[ekhunter]

Thanks Dietrich, I do that all of the time when discussing one or the other of the the two firms, don't know why. Anyway, I was looking at some examples of Floch's work and noted that if Frank is right, which he may be, then the quality of Floch's work really went down after running out of 'spare parts'. I hope someone out there can answer the F. Orth question, which is a good one, in that why would they use Orth with Mayers and others so much closer, and if they used Orth (which I believe to be true), then why not also use Souval.

[Kecon]

So?.......what about those "dimple" Orth frame L/15's? ...Good or bad?

[SwordFish]

Kecon,
I was wondering the same thing.