EK2 Unfinished Condition? Maker?

[dc9]

Hello All,

Found this EK2 and like it because it clearly shows the 3-piece construction. I am wondering - would this have really been issued in such an "unfinished" state, or could this have happened over the years? Or, is it a bad repro? Has anyone seen this before?

As one can see in the pictures, the ring is unsoldered, and the frame has separated/was not soldered at the vertices of the cross. There is no evidence of the arms being bent or the cross damaged in any other fashion.

The core is magnetic. It weighs 19.6g and measures 44.00mm x 43.95mm. The ribbon is non-UV and was mounted. There is no MM on the ring - any idea of the maker?


Thanks,

Eric

[dc9]

Separation

[dc9]

Close-ups

[grueni1208]

Look's like maker 27.

Regards

Daniel

[Flemming]

They sure did use a lot of solder to attach the little ribbon ring to the cross. Maybe that is why they had nothing left for the frame ?

/Flemming

[Robert P.]

Good call Daniel.

Yes, these unsoldered crosses are a product of the Gablonzer production method. This new method of producing EK's was adopted later in the war to increase the production dramatically. A thin wire of solder was inserted between the frames and heated, rather than being hand soldered as the earlier crosses were assembled. This method left quite a few crosses in what appears to be an 'unfinished' condition. I have two Paulmann & Crone EKII's that have this same finish. They're actually a nice collectible. Many makers, both early and late war, left their ribbon rings 'open' or unsoldered. This is no problem.

[dc9]

Robert and Daniel,

Sorry for the late reply. Being a "27" MM, is it appropriate to display this with a Maria Schenkl tan packet I just acquired, or is it an Anton, or have I just opened an entirely new can of worms?

Assuming that Maria was the original name and Anton was the successor, and given the Gablonzer method was later war - my guess is that this would not be an appropriate pairing...

Thanks,

Eric

[Robert P.]

I am not certain.

BTW, my description of how the Gablonzer (AGMuK) crosses were assembled needs correcting. The frame halves were produced/formed by compressing a thin nickel silver wire under tremendous pressure, rather than forming them out of sheet material. Once the iron core was inserted between both frame halves, the cross was inserted into a die and compressed under much pressure using no solder. It's all explained quite well in Gordon Williamson's book. Forgive me for the confusion.

[Friedrich]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought that the firms name was Anton Schenkls Nachfolger, meaning AS:s successors.. And that Maria thus was a successor.. This is however only my interpretation as I know nothing about the firm itself..

[Steinar]

nice 27

[Douglas 5]

Very nice cross Eric and very interesting .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Eric :
Had a look at your cross , as Robert mentioned Gablonz Method . I know of S&L and Juncker having used them and that method , .... as large companies not surprising . The stats here -approximetly-do show more members own a 27 than a 4 !!! As no documentation has been found indicating who tried it and how many they had made .... it never took hold . The material savings and higher production did come with a drawback ... loss of quality ., appearance and durability . Getting the gradual pressure peak just right was the chalange,.. too much the frame would liquify and too little pressure the frame halfs would not fuse and eventually separate as yours seams to indicate .
As I am looking for characteristic features that come with this method and the poor frame fusion that took place with yours , I have a few questions .
There is no solder visable where the frame has seperated . Without stressing the open frame can you the core edge ? The reason I ask is ... the prosess description says ; The core is 'fixed' in so it cannot move ! These GM made crosses are hard to find and yours happens to be in a very unique seperating state , where one could peak in using a strong light , to see if the core was just tightly pressure fitted - crimped in - or spot soldered in to the frame ... to keep it from moving . ????
Myself I think just pressed in to the frame very tightly . Now the weak frame fusion and tight steel core expanding against the Nickle frame at a diffferent rate probably created so much internal tention .. splitting the frame !! Anything you can see that would confirm this ??? Less likely this happening with a soft zink core .
Also would be interested in a few low angle side shots of certain areas- circled in red- that may show evidence of the fusion process . If possible to send them at high resolution direct to me - much appreciated . Email in profile .

Many thanks , Douglas

[Douglas 5]

In picture of post 3 one does see the frame with beading has been coated, ... ???

[dc9]

Douglas,

I have pored over the cross with a 10X illuminated loop, various lighting, and other magnification tools and can offer the following observations:

• The core is solidly in place; although this might be because the four ends of the arms are still bonded.

• The core appears to have all of it's paint intact underneath the areas of the separated frame - I make this observation as potential evidence that the core was not soldered or mechanically crimped in place along the separated frame.

• There might be very circumstantial evidence that one of the vertices of the frame was spot welded to hold the frame together - see picture 1.

• There appears to be no evidence that the separated frame was ever solidly bonded together. Each inside surface of the frame is clear of any solder, and does not show that metal was transferred from one surface to the other. Each surface is fairly smooth. Maybe enough pressure was applied at the original time of manufacture, to "cold bond" the two halves together (or, at least hold them at the vertices), but as you comment, the difference in coefficients of thermal expansion between the iron core and silver frame, caused this very fragile bond to separate.

• The only post-processing filing that was done was along the edges of the ends of the arms and the inside vertices where the arms intersect (the edges along the inside radii of the arms were not filed after being joined). My supposition here is that maybe molten metal or solder only "leaked out" at these points. A more likely guess, given that there is no real evidence of material melting, is that there was a slight differences in size between the frames causing "overlap" that had to be corrected with minor filing once joined. See picture 2

• There does appear to be one small spot on the inside of the frame at the vertice shown in picture 2 where a bond was made by the joining/melting of metal. See picture 2

• There is one spot, of what appears to be solder, on one of the outer external edges of an arm. See picture 3

• There might be external evidence of a spot weld along one of the radii of an arm. See picture 3

I will send you detailed pictures as requested. Hope this sheds some further light.

Eric

[dc9]

Waiting for Attachments to be re-enabled.