Early EK 2 S&L 4

[Douglas 5]

Now size :
compared to an L59 , could have been any other cross ,.... larger ,see above measurments .

[Douglas 5]

A lot of work to get the EK 2 down to size , the one frame side of it .
Absolutly blunt tips !

[Douglas 5]

Picture shows arm end : different thickness in frame plancet and size ;
The front frame is thicker .
Corners filed down to meet the smaller frame tip !

[Douglas 5]

Same different angle , frame size and heavy filing .
Bead crown on back not as round as on front .

[Douglas 5]

A cross and its history . A few select pictures for now.
Thanks for waiting . Comments welcome .
Douglas

[Tiger 1]

Douglas,

What a beautiful condition EKII. Interesting variant of the makers mark.

I have a few thoughts on your cross and analysis.

Dies used for stamping metal do not show wear after just a few hundred strikings. The dies are hardened to resist wear and have quite a service life when stamping annealed metal planchets that are much softer than the die itself. Numismatic dies for striking coins or medals have a very long work life. Often in the hundreds of thousands of strikes before showing appreciable wear.

I don't see where two different dies were used to strike the front and back frames. The differences we see between the two sides is most likely the results of the different planchette thicknesses. Taking your measurements of 0.8 mm for the obverse and 0.5 for the reverse show that the front planchette was almost twice as thick as the rear one.

Now, how would this make a difference you might ask?

Dies are usually adjusted to match the thickness of the material being stamped to get optimum results. They are also set to not clash together when there is no planchette being stamped. Dies are expensive and there are safeguards during use not to damage them needlessly.

When stamping, the dies cause the anealled metal planchette to 'flow' under stamping pressure to fill up the recesses of the male and female dies. If the dies are set to properly stamp a planchette of thickness 0.8 mm then a thinner planchette of 0.5mm would not have enough mass to properly fill the die and therefore cause a weak strike. Weak strikes will not have all the details completely developed. I believe this is the cause for the differences in your front and back frames.

Just some food for thought.

Tony

[Douglas 5]

Well interesting indeed :
The preasure of the strike would have to be adjusted to get the same strike appearance with different thickness of planchetts.
As the picture shows fairly certain it is the same die used for front and back .
If I look at this correctly 2 things stand out :
The appearance and depth of strike differ from front and back .
And ... was not certain but thought the die would be to stand 1000s of hits like coin dies do .
Front planchette is thicker , strike is not as pronounced and the inside beading show as should the gaps from the medal not completely filling the die mold !
Back is thinner and very prounced extra beading 'pedestal' on the the rim frame , ...strike flow in the beading full and complete.
What is odd, ... the die cracks on the the back frame only , indecating a hugh gap between strikes ????????????
This would deffinatly support the 'bin' theory as indecated with RK crosses here as well, as a massive and extensive production run of frame strikes took place and then assembly took place. How else would these 2 different frame halfs( with die wear and size difference) have come together ??????
There then would have been many bins full of frames where many assembly workers were taking and assembling randomly frames out of any bin , ....to achieve this kind of combination ?? Well being war and all either restriction or economics probably dictated the thinner planchetts .??
If it helps any : as per the Army Vet own words and papers - he had received one of the very early awarded EK2's , which only accounts for the fat 4 marking , to which I have to say looks in some way 'ugly' and the dimple mark in the centre I can't see holding up very long , ....have not found another like it but many S&L cross pictures I could get did not show the mark that well ,if at all .
It should be noted that the cross was never worn by the receipient as he had The WW1 EK 2 as Hauptman on his ribbon bar in 1939 . At the time did not know that should have not been , ( Rank or maybe who he knew)whatever.
Received 1940 EK1 (maker 65) and have his LDO EK1 which is an early vaulted L59 one as well . Lost a leg in late 42 , gold WB and some other awards and was confined to office station for remainder of the war . Final rank Oberst .
Army parade Uniform, dagger and all documents sold for 3000.DM in1975 .
Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Tony :
2 pictures that show the above mentioned facts ;
First the incomplete beading that is only present on the front frame ; eventhough the planchet is thicker and dobble pedestal showing from strong strike ? as seen on next picture .

[Douglas 5]

The comparison :
Front thicker plachette showing stronger strike , dobble ledge?
Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Die crack lines between beeds only on the back in a few places ! Solid bead frame edging on the inside .
Are these 2 frames not made far apart ?
Regards Douglas

[Tiger 1]

Douglas,

In every mass manufacturing process there are acceptable minor variances.

In the traditional manufacture of Iron crosses there was a considerable amount of hand work required. Whether that be the placing the blank planchette in the press to be struck; into the shear press to remove the excess material; touching up any areas not cleaned up acceptably by mechanical means; hand assembling and soldering the pieces together; pickling the soldered unit to remove any flux and soldering residue; final filing of the edges, polishing and lacquering of the finished cross before packing it for shipment.

At any of these stages minor variances can and did occur. Variations such as slightly off center placement of the cores to misaligned frame halves are not unknown on perfectly genuine Iron Crosses. They were a mass produced item. the sheer volume would dictate that they would not be perfect matches to each other.

Later, when the Gablonzer process for pressing frames from thick wire stock was introduced, the amount of hand work was significantly reduced and the finished product became more uniform in fit and finish. Granted these later 'cookie cutter' EKs lacked the quaintness and individuality of the earlier 'hand made' EKs.

Another thing we have to keep in mind when looking at Iron Cross production during WWII is that the the total time of production was 5 years and not quite 9 months if we go from Sept 1, 39 thru May 9, 45. If we look at the volume of EKs made during that time we can only marvel at the fact that they are in effect quite uniform in apprearance given the numerous manufacturors.

Badges, on the other hand which are generally struck as a single piece do not have the influence of that much hand work or multiple assemblies to make possible the numerous minor variations we see in the Iron Cross series.

I guess what I'm saying in my usual winded fashion is that variations and minor anomalies on EKs while very interesting to collectors, catagorising the vast minor differences may be as difficult as untying the Gordonian Knot.

Badges, which are generaly struck as a single piece do not present

All the best,

Tony

[Douglas 5]

Bump :

[Robert P.]

The 'bin' theory was covered in another thread recently, and I think it was regarding the S&L RK frames, was it not? And it seems the EK frames were also made during 'production runs' and also placed into bins, the worst or flawed frames being used first to make the earlier crosses, them being at the top of the bin pile. Am I on the same page here, guys? Understandably, the varying thicknesses of planchetts, and the minor adjustments of die gap would produce some irregular results. I can understand their purpose for 'production runs'. Keeping things uniform was what it was all about to maintain the highest quality possible. But we can see in the examples, this was not always achieved, and the cull bin was seldom filled, but only for the pieces used to get the dies 'set'. Teach us more...

Robert

[Douglas 5]

At the top pinned is the RK S&L report that explains the bin theory researched by Dietrich , as well as the 4 different 'frosting' versions they used .
Over time ones general knowledge increases and that is when one notices things first missed , and other assotiations .
I see the 1st and 2nd core comparison picture is missing and the paint types S&L had , 2 for sure or a possible ( both black) and 3rd - late periode one to which I need more sample closeups and a hands on inspection as the color difference is not big . Still working on this .
Interesting early crosses have a very thick black paint with high( medium coarse) lead particles content that will break open on the surface as white 'dandrof' speaks of lead oxide . as can be seen on some of the pictures above.
2nd type :A fairly fine particle,slightly glossy black paint that shows a lot of 'spidering' and 3rd a very smooth black grey paint . That said .... most important other contributing factors involved is base medal and medal preperation prior to painting and paint bake-curing process . Mint crosses are the only ones that can be used for study . And some manufacturers took more care than others ! A very touchy task to say the least !
Douglas