EKI L15 Schickle

[Dietrich Maerz]

Is this the real deal?
Any discussion is always welcome!

Thanks,

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

The marking

[Dietrich Maerz]

The center (ah - round corners again...)

[Dietrich Maerz]

Top Arm detail with the very distinguished corner beadings.

[George Stimson]

My Floch "L15" does not have the "distinguished corner beadings" that yours does.

[Dietrich Maerz]

George,

this is the point. I did browse thru the old threads to check on this cross and determined it is a Floch or another fake. Some pictures were missing but three different kinds of L15 were presented so I thought - O.K. Fake!
As a final check I looked this cross up in Gordons book. Now the one shown on page 144 is - IMHO - the same I have. Thas why I think it is the real deal.

Dietrich

[Denis]

Hello
I agree with you that the "distinguished corner beadings" are different with those usually encountered on Floch EK1.
Moreover, the date seems to be "thinner" than Floch's.
Nevertheless, the reverse side (both hinge, catch, pin and maker mark ) is very similar to the Floch.
IMHO, this is a fake, maybe a variation of the Floch, but a fake.
What are other members opinions ?
REgards
Denis

[Jan Arne S]

Hi Guys !
I`m not any EK expert .
But wonder about something about Floch copies.
When Floch made he copies ( I Think : We have to agree that it is a very good copy ) . Why didn`t Floch make a perfect copy after a known original EK 1 , with correct makers marks , hinge pin and catch ?

Jan Arne

[Dietrich Maerz]

Denis,

if this L15 is a Floch or whatever copy (which could very well be) then Gordon is showing the same fake in his book on page 144 as a real Schickle. Maybe you have the book and can compare. You will see, it's the same cross.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Here's an "L15" that was offered by Detlev recently. It's hard to tell whether it has the same outer corner beading type intersecting as Dietrich's, but it definitely has different numbers than my Floch "L15."

[Dietrich Maerz]

George,

yes, it's hard to tell. The inner round corner (again and again...) seem to be the same, also the catch. The most distinguished feature, however, on mine is the corner beading. I guess you have GW's book. Please look up page 144 and compare in detail. This is were I'm coming from.
There are so many alleged real and unreal L15 that at this popint in time my fixed point to start is GW's book.
And I'm of the opinion, that the cross I did show above is the same as the one shown in the book. I also think, that Gordon did put this example in his book based on good reasons.

I think this is where we should start - maybe Gordon's assumption was wrong.

Dietric

[Denis]

Hello Dietrich
I won Gordon's last book and I will have a look this evening.
Is Gordon available ? We would need his opinion about this cross ?
Regards
Denis

[Tony Barto]

It's most definitely NOT of the Schinkle variety.

[George Stimson]

I get confused too....

Yes it's definitely not a Schinkel.
But whether it's a genuine Otto Schickle -- that's the $64,000 question here at the Crosses of the Wehrmacht Forum!

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

The "corner beadings" on Dietrich's example remind me of Souval. Has anyone made a comparison of the beading - and maybe the dates too (I can't at present - geographically impossible). If so, an L15 marking on a Souval piece just doesn't sound right, but also maybe raises some questions on Souval pieces.

Regards
Mike K