Ek-1 L15

[StefanK.]

How so you came along the same cross???

Did i say so? I only wanted to know hom much it costs.....



Stefan

[Anthony N]

Hi!

I absolutely agree with you Richard. If one dous his homework it's easy to see if it's a Floch or not. There are more than one point that shows that it's never a Floch.

All i can say is: "Read the Peters very informative and easy to understanding article about Floch-Copys!"

I quote myselfe. In the other thread about the "15" i wrote:

Regards
Andreas

Andreas, i have read that great Peter Wiking Floch article about 5 times (i have a bad memory) but i still am not sure. Not dismissing this cross completely but i would need a picture without the Swaz being covered as it also covers the beading around the Swaz.
I am glad you like it, i am always worried with L15's though & think myself not enough of an expert yet to say 100% good or bad
Ant.

[gasschutzgerate]

hello,
look at the 3, no resemblance to a FLOCH , this cross is beautiful original
regards
Roland

[Paratrooper]

But all those point have to be on a EK or one of
those is already enough to be a floch??

Hi!

You're right. Not all of this and more points must have a Floch.

The first point you said is important to know

• Not all the floch EK's have that little pellets from the soldering process.

Thats right. Sellers of copys who are clever take some traces away. For example they clean the cross from this little pellets.
Another point is the catch. Usually there is a "line" in the middle if the hinge on this copys. Many fakesellers files this line and so one cannot see it any longer.

Here are the points which are a MUST on this copys:

• One of the two pin-hinge-catch systems. Typa "A" looks nearly the same like the setup on the "15" Orth EK 1st class crosses. I could not describe the Type "B" needle. You muist read the article.
• One of the four kinds of date. Pics are in the article
• All Floch crosses have very flat swaztikas
• Floch crosses have all* the same framework with absolutely the same characteristics

*The point with the framework could maybe not longer true. As Peter had written his article all Flochs have the same framework. But i believe that they have now more than one frame.

I show you some pictures of a fake EK 1 "15". I think it's Floch, but the frame is not the same as the frame in the article.
One can see that the faker/seller clean the cross from the soldering traces.

Please tell me your opinions about this fake. We could maybe learn something new.
What do you think about the "other" framework which isn't diskribed in Peters Floch-Article?
Is it maybe a new generation of Floch-Crosses? Is it not a Floch?
IMO It's a Floch and we see a new generation of this fakes of Floch in Wien!

BTW: The cross was offered and sold by Phillip-Militaria.

Regards
Andreas

The needles end shows straight and not upward ike the original pin
It's the Floch "A" Type needle


One can see how flat is the swastika


Picture 1 schows the makers mark of the copy and picture two shows a typical makers mark from F. Orth "15". It's easy to see the difference. The frame of the mm of the Floch piece is exaktly square and the original ones are all square but with sligthlx round lines.

Picture 1


Picture 2

[Paratrooper]

Andreas, i have read that great Peter Wiking Floch article about 5 times (i have a bad memory) but i still am not sure. Not dismissing this cross completely but i would need a picture without the Swaz being covered as it also covers the beading around the Swaz.
I am glad you like it, i am always worried with L15's though & think myself not enough of an expert yet to say 100% good or bad
Ant.

Hi!

I can understand you absolutely. It's not easy sometimes.
I think the most important points to know is the absolutely flat swaz and the study of the two types of needles.

I'll send a PM to you!

Best Regards
Andreas

[Buuzert]

Thank all of you guys for the help especially paratrooper for the explaining.

After all the suggestions and reading the floch article a couple of times, I start also be more convinced that the cross is a genuine example.

What kind of photo's do I need to be 100% sure about this cross.
-needle-catch-swas-rimp ???

Thanks,
Eric Jan

[StefanK.]

Since it seems that this thread leads in a totally wrong direction i want do add my opinion on the cross in question.

The cross shown by "Buzzert" is by all means not the kind of EK we call "Floch-fake". The obverse is textbook "Orth" and the reverse (pin setup) is usually found on EK1 with "Souval" frames. This type of needle - as far as i know - never appears with another makermark than L15 (without slash!).

Maybe the pictures are too dark but if you compare Floch EKs with Buzzert's example you will see slight differences concerning the numerals as well as the curvature of the ribbed part of the frame (Flochs have less curvature then 15/ or L15 Eks with Orth frame).

Also Andreas' cross - sold by Phillip is a 100% textbook, unquestionable cross by Orth, with the proper mark.



So what is the problem with Buzzert's cross?

If i was a collector who tries to get 1 example from each badge i would not buy the cross in question. As already said at the beginning these crosses are a bit controversial since we have no clue why they are marked L15, 15 or even L/58. It is not possible to distinguish between Orths an Souvals since both types (I call the cross with the tyical Souval-frame "Souval" and the cross pictured by Buzzert and Andreas "Orth") appear either with L15 or L/14 markings.
In other words, we cannot say if a cross marked L15 really was produced by Orth or not. We only can say for sure that the firms Orth and Souval worked together and supplied eachother with frames,cores,etc...
What makes the problem even worse is the fact that lots of Floch-Eks appear with the same L15 marking that is found on "Souval" or "Orth" Eks and even the cross shown by Buzzers resembles such a marking.



Furthermore we know that Souval produced EKs even after the war and we do not know by now if he used other tools than during the war (he know he used the same "frame"type but did he also used the same pin-setup?).


All in all these crosses are very interesting for EK collectors - and i would by this cross immedeately if the price was right - but i would stay away if i only wanted to buy a cross the complete the EK-series.



Stefan

[Robert P.]

Here's my Orth for comparison...

Robert

[Robert P.]

,

[Robert P.]

,,

[Paratrooper]

Also Andreas' cross - sold by Phillip is a 100% textbook, unquestionable cross by Orth, with the proper mark.

Hi Stefan!

I don't think you're right. I never saw a cross marked 15 with this frame and core. I do not believe this is an original Orth. As i asked maybe not Floch but also not made by Orth pre 45.
The "15" mark looks different than any others in my database. All maker marks of safe Orths looks like the mark on Roberts example in Posting #23
This is a "textbook" Orth with Orth frame and core. There are L/14 marked Souval SB crosses. All other pieces i would not want to have in my collection.

What makes the problem even worse is the fact that lots of Floch-Eks appear with the same L15 marking that is found on "Souval" or "Orth" Eks and even the cross shown by Buzzers resembles such a marking.

I don't know Souval or Orth crosses with with L15 marking. I only know Schickle crosses with L/15.

My opinion is:

• Buzzerts Cross is original Orth (as i wrote in my first Posting in this thread.
• The cross in my Posting #15 is fake
• Roberts cross in Posting #23 an #24 is a textbook Orth with the "round" swastika

Also Andreas' cross[...]with the proper mark.

Is this the same marking? No! Roberts F. Orth marked 15 is a 100% textbook Orth with the makers mark i know as the "textbook" mark from Orth. Looks totally fifferend as the one on "Phillip Militaria" piece.

Roberts example shows what i wrote in my posting with the signs of Floch pieces.

• The point of the needle shows upward and not straight like the Floch "A" Type needle.

It is not possible to distinguish between Orths an Souvals since both types (I call the cross with the tyical Souval-frame "Souval" and the cross pictured by Buzzert and Andreas "Orth") appear either with L15 or L/14 markings.

This opinion is o.k. but one should not forgett that it's your subjective opinion.
My opinion is: All NOT MARKED crosses with the typical Souval frame are "Souvals". But in the moment if there is a marking it's a cross from the manufacturer who has this makers mark.

Last as result with the marks:
L/15 is Schickle in all cases with all frames and setups
L/14 is Orth (Souval cross or "textbook Orth"
15 is Orth

Regards
Andreas

[Buuzert]

other question about the mm on the needle...
can there be a differrence made between horizontal or vertical stamped mm ??
sry no better pictures for now.

Maybe a stupid question but were is the difference between 100% Orth and texbook Orth???

[StefanK.]

Hi Andreas,


i agree with you, Buzzert's cross is original but the mm on "his" cross is not 15 but L15. So it cannot be an Orth in your mind ....


Further i cannot see any differences between your cross and Robert's. Where do you see differences? Look at the "3" in 1939. Its totally the same. Don't you agree?

Stefan

[Robert P.]

Hope this helps some...

Robert

[Robert P.]

Clearer view of the mm...true Orth...

Robert