What makes an EK-maker?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have raised this question already several times to no avail. I try again to open a discussion about this subject with a (hopefully succesfull) thread on its own:

What makes a maker?

In previous threads we have seen that some makers have different cores, pins, catches or hinges. Some crosses are marked, some are unmarked. Even marked crosses seem to have differences in core and pin/catch/hinge assemblies.

For me it seems pretty obvious that makers did share pins and hinges/catches, so that leaves me with the core and the rim. Did those companies outsource these parts also or were they manufactured inhouse?

If - for instance - a maker buys a core and/or rim from somebody (X) and marks it with his number, is it 'his' cross? Or is it the cross of (x) with a 'wrong' mark.

Cases so far are L15 (Schickle) with rims from Souval, an unknown core and pin EK1 with rim from Souval, also a "23" with a Souval core, some mixups with Orth (15) and a K&Q with a different core. We also have a S&L RK with a different core.

I find this subject very interesting and with all the members here I think this could be exploited in depth.

Your valued opinion and findings are very much appreciated.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Imo

If the final product of a manufacturer is the finished cross -- and not the individual components of it -- then I'd opine that the manufacturer of a particular cross is the one who puts his mark on it after its assembly.

[Dietrich Maerz]

George,

I would think so too, but this opens the door to a lot of 'weird' and 'questionable' pieces. It is like putting a VW sign on a BMW. Is it a VW then?

[George Stimson]

Not really like putting VW on a BMW

VWs and BMWs are much more complex and different than medals that are basically identical in appearance and are made of only three parts (excluding pins, catches, etc.).

[Dietrich Maerz]

George, this was an example the get the point across.

Let's assume, you have a clearly identifiable Meybauer core, a Souval rim and a K&Q pin with marking 65.
We all would be very suspicious and some would say (as has happened) that this is a post-45 'made-of-parts' no good example. But we have such a case with the L15 in Gordons book.

I just think the topic is too complex of just being solved by the maker mark alone as a determination factor.

By the way, I'm not after good-bad discussion. I'm more after tracing cores, rims and such between makers to shed more light into good-bad discussions.

[George Stimson]

Okay, but if you're going to use an analogy, it should be close to the circumstances we're discussing here. Right off, I can't think of one.
In any case, I think that the manufacturers of medals and badges were more concerned with producing an award within certain guidelines that could be presented to deserving soldiers than they were with making a consistent product that could withstand the ten-power-loupe scrutiny of collectors sixty years in the future.
Does that present problems for those collectors? Sure it does!

[Dietrich Maerz]

I agree, the mix-up we are sometimes facing today was of no concern to the manufacturers. They just wanted to produce the parts for the contract.

We happen to have a certain gospel-attitude, expressed by such remarks as "I don't like the pin", "I don't like the catch", "My XX has a different type of YY".

And this is what I'm talking about. Would we not dismiss a perfectly good piece from a very reputable manufacturer because this piece is not 'gospel', but we also know that the manufacturers shared parts.

If you look at the front of an EK1 and it's clearly a Souval rim and when I then turn it around and you see a "65" for instance on a clerly identifiable K&Q pin, what is your reaction:

a. very questionable, weird piece, or
b. a K&Q piece with a Souval rim for my collection!

[George Stimson]

I think that then you're getting into one of those areas where things can't be "proven" either way. And that's when you have to make a personal decision on a piece and its characteristics and whether you are comfortable with it in your collection.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Personal decission is always the final factor. But with all the knowledable people here and the huge amount of data available, I think we could make some of theses decissions easier by listing the borderline cases, or at least documenting them. I know this goes deep into the matter, but I guess we should also try to navigate into deeper waters and not only serve people to identify the type or the maker. At least the possibilty of cross-over crosses should be handled and documented.

[George Stimson]

I agree.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe one day Seba can open a new forum, i.e. "Research" or such were we can asign projects like EK1 maker and cross-overs. Something similiar is going on right now in the Imperial Forum for the EK2 1870 and the result will be absolutely sound and unique.

This forum is ready for the next step, i.e. even more scientific. The informative part has been covered very, very good and we are already at the borderline to unchartered waters. Let's do it!

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Personal decission is always the final factor. But with all the knowledable people here and the huge amount of data available, I think we could make some of theses decissions easier by listing the borderline cases, or at least documenting them. I know this goes deep into the matter, but I guess we should also try to navigate into deeper waters and not only serve people to identify the type or the maker. At least the possibilty of cross-over crosses should be handled and documented.

And this isn't unique to Iron Crosses, we recently had a good healthy debate over a paratrooper badge that an Assmann eagle and another wreath. Is it an Assmann? (the badge was unmarked, BTW). I said yes, but we had different opinions.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Then why not gather the willing people and go deeper into this matter. I think this is way too important to let it just live and die in one thread and then be buried and never found easily again?

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Then why not gather the willing people and go deeper into this matter. I think this is way too important to let it just live and die in one thread and then be buried and never found easily again?

So what, exactly, did you have in mind?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm already in contact with George about this. I envison a pictural data base of all known EK1 manufacturers with detailled pictures of front/rear/catch/hinge/pin on one standardized sheet each. From this 'gospel' data sheets we would work our way into the cross-overs. With the help of the members and some technical guidelines an very nice and comprehensive electronic data booklet could be created. It would be absolutely unique and would scare the living s**t out of the forgers. The same could be done with other items, such as badges or what have you.

I tried already to start with some scientific aproach with the rarity statistics.

It is really just a matter of help from everybody and putting it together. The data is on our hands already, we 'just' need to put it together. I'm willing to help and drive it.

Dietrich