Shinkleform EK's

[eindecker2]

So here is my dillema -
I have recently purchaced two shinkleform EK's - now I have an extensive collection of WW1 EK 2's and have read on numerous occasions that the "Shinkleform" EK's of WW2 were made from left over stocks of WW1 frames - how then do most all of the Shinkleform EK's that one comes across have a distinctly different frame than my WW1 EK's - I have chaecked my SHinkleforms against Detlevs and other known examples and all have the narrow arms that taper suddenly and for a long distance towards the center. Is it the fact that these are a variation of early EK's that were produced in the 1939-40 period and in fact were not made from WW1 frames. Also - would these crosses ever be marked on the rings? I have one that is marked '65'. Just some thoughts. I can post pictures if necessary
Thanks

[Hugh W. Brock]

I think in 1939 all the people involved in production thought they knew what they were doing, so they just made Iron Crosses. The results are what we are trying to sort out now. The Schinkel type and the variants in size, material, etc., should all stem from this. While it is possible WW1 parts were left over, the variants you refer to are probably made from new (1939) dies. I believe this is the central reason (the problems arising from lack of consistency) that caused the manufacturers to form the LDO and the government to set up the manufacturer control organization in the Praesidialkanzlei in ca. 1941.
I believe many if not most of the early pieces (1939-40) are unmarked. Hugh Brock

[eindecker2]

any other opinions - has anyone seen any of these being faked yet? I realize that everything has been faked to a point but the fact that the patina and construction, material (real silver) all match what I would consider war era. I see alot of fakes here in Budapest but none this good. the only thing that gets me is makers mark on the one. IF these are faked they are the best I have ever seen. Thanks

[Mike H.]

Between late 1939 and early 1941 - the period between the start of hostilities and the implementation of the LDO - there was no set standard for the Iron Cross. Some manufacturers did indeed use WWI stock, some conformed to the 1939 ideal, some were done somewhere in between. However, none of the EK's from this period should be marked since the body that issued the marks was yet to be created. Before the LDO, most makers used their name or initials as their mark.

Is the iron core loose? Does it move around inside the frame a bit? It should, as all pre-LDO 2.EK's should.

As to yours being marked '65' all I can say is that perhaps a previous owner replaced a bent or missing ring with one easily acquired, and didn't know about the mark - or rather the absence of them on pre-LDO examples.

[eindecker2]

the plot thickens

Ok well- now it gets interesting-
the core is not loose and if someone put on a marked ring then they knew what they were doing. I hope the pictures come through so here they are - please give me some feedback on these - if they are fake they are the best I've seen.

http://www.auction.2y.net/user/eindecker/ek265frnt.JPG

http://www.auction.2y.net/user/eindecker/ek265rear.JPG

the blob on the ring is a 65 mark - the pictures cant capture this well but it is clearly defined as such. SO good or good fake - or???

[Mike Kenny]

Schinkel or slightly undersized

Hi,

Something else to consider. 1914 EKs have dimensions around 42 mm (+-). Some 30s produced 1914 EKs are around 43 mm (+-), the same as for the early 1939 Schinkels. Regulations stated that 1939 EKs were to be 44.0 mm however variations do exist so anything from say 43.8 to 44.3 would be OK for a standard 1939 EK imo, depending upon manufacturer. Some dealers however present anything under 44.0 mm as a Schinkel, when it is clearly not, as Schinkels are worth more. Your EK2 looks fine for a standard 1939EK2 - what are it's dimemsions?

Also, I'd disagree that the core on any early 1939 EK should rattle as a hard and fast rule. I've seen some that don't and some of the later standardised "Gablonzer" method that do rattle. I do agree that most if not all early 39 EKs were unmarked - I don't recall ever seeing a genuine Schinkel or "Round 3" EK marked.

Regards
Mike K

[George Stimson]

eindecker2

Your EK lacks "balls" on the bottoms of the "9s" and "3s". I have only seen this feature on Schinkel-form EKs.
Has anyone ever seen a standard EK with straight number bottoms?

George

[eindecker2]

Hello -
Thanks for all the thoughts - I would put this in my not a standard 1939 EK2- When I compare this cross with my WW1 Ek's the frames follow the WW1 'shape' when compared to my WW2 Ek's - you can clearly see the difference. (thick frame, fatter shape, etc...) The measurements are 43.8mm x 43.8mm - so they are more like an eary 1939-41 variant (?????) As for the loose core - I just aquired a Detlev #106 that shook like LA. So quality is 'variant' on later produced ones as well. Yes - I put this thing into the 'strange' but 'true' file - anyone????
Thanks

[Mike H.]

Interesting. I've never seen a marked Schinkel before... Maybe Gordon could help us out here?

[George Stimson]

ring number

"65" is a Prasidialkanzlei Lieferant number, not an LDO number. As such, couldn't it be present on an award manufactured before the creation of the LDO in 1941 (e.g. a Schinkel-form EK 2)?

George