1939 EK II - Spanish or Schinkel

[jmb]

Hello,


I'd like to hear your comments on this 1939 EK II.
Three parts and non magnetic heart.
The montage is obviously Spanish but the cross looks like a Schinkel one.
I found an old thread on the Spanish made crosses, but the picture showed a very crude made EK II.
So, what do you think about this one. Spanish or Schinkel or both ?

[jmb]

obverse

[jmb]

reverse

[George Stimson]

It looks like it's both.

[TerryG]

Ek2

George, do you think this was repainted or were they issued like this? I have seen this one "in the flesh" and there is a lot of paint on the beading. Are these one piece or the usual 3-piece construction? Do I assume that they were worn complete i.e. ribbon and cross at all times? Any idea of the current rate for these?

[stdub]

Are these one piece or the usual 3-piece construction?

Do original one piece constructions Schinkel exist?

[Dez H]

Do original one piece constructions Schinkel exist?

I cannot find any repos in my files that match this piece, the age and overall finish is convincing, although details are bad.

[George Stimson]

I can think of two dealers that offer one-piece constructed Schinkels fairly regularly. If I recall correctly the price is a little bit higher than a three-piece made version.

[Sonderkommando]

Has anybody thought how ridiculous it is to have "one piece" Schinkel crosses? The whole reason we have Schinkel crosses is that EK manufacturers were using up old stocks of WW1 frames and/or using the tooling they already had to manufacture WW1 size frames and put in a Third Reich style centre. To actually make punches and dies from scratch to manufacture a one piece Schinkel size cross would be very costly and a waste of time. Even the early round 3 crosses were of the standard Third Reich size.
Some people are of the opinion that there were one piece late war EK's and that they were manufactured this way to speed up the manufacturing process but to have one piece early war EK's just doesn't make sense as there was less demand early in the war for EK's and the manufacturers could easily keep up with that demand.
It just seems strange to me that we would have original one piece Schinkel EK's.

In regards to the above cross I would say it's a piece of garbage. Note the different widths of the outer flanges on all the arms, the crappy detail to the beading, the half inch thick paint job and the heavy filing to the lower reverse arm. Even if the frame had split and been repaired and the centre repainted it still doesn't explain the uneven widths of the flanges and the poor beading. Whether it's right or wrong I would get rid of it.

Regards,
Brett

[George Stimson]

Now that you mention it....

That's an interesting thought, Brett.

[Mark S.]

I agree with Brett as well, at least concerning a German made Shinkel EK2..

but arent we talking about a Spanish made EK 2? What is to be expected from a cottage industry source outside of Germany trying to fulfill a demand?

[stdub]

Isn´t that a possible reason for making one piece IC´s:

All one piece IC´s I saw until now were made of Buntmetall. You need much more tons to stamp Iron than to stamp Buntmetall (the reason why many repro Demjansk shields are made of Buntmetall). And do we know if all manufactures had these large (and expencive) machines in the first days of war? Okay, most of them may had them, but everyone ...?

Only my thoughts ...

Best wishes

Joerg

[Sonderkommando]

Hi Mark,
In response to your post I would like to point out that JMB described this cross as three piece construction and that would mean that there where at least two pairs of dies made, one set for the rims and one set for the centre. Now even though it may be a Spanish made "cottage industry" cross, I would assume that if they went to all the trouble and cost of tooling up for the manufacturing process that they would have cut the dies with at least some reasonable sort of detail to them and finished the frames off with equal widths to the flanges. Even the Japanese made crosses and the Soviet propaganda crosses have better finishes than the one above. My belief is that it is a repro that has been beaten around a bit to make it look old. You also have to remember that the EK2 was never even worn except on parades, etc. so why is it so beaten around and damaged and had extensive filing to the lower reverse arm and a dodgey paint job?

Just my personal opinion!

Regards,
Brett

[jmb]

Thanks for your inputs, but what I'd like to know is if this cross is a spanish made one or not.
In my opinion, it's not a shinckel one, even if it looks like, there's several differences and the main one is quality and finish. On this point, the cross is more spanish made than german made. I'd have liked to hear some comments from our spanish members as they did in an old thread where was shown a spanish EK II very crudely made. I'd like to know if someone has ever seen a spanish made cross like the one displayed.
I desagree with Brett when he says it's a repro. Or I'd agree with him if he could, or someone else, post a picture of a same cross clearly identified as being a repro. Quality is not an enough criteria (and can't be the single and main criteria) to determine if this cross is a repro. The mountage is spanish, the way the cross is made could be spanish, but it's not enough for me, I'd like to find solid evidence that this cross is spanish made or only a repro.
Even if I picked up this cross with some genuine german badges and medals, I prefer facts than stories from the flohmarket dealer from whom I got it to make me a definitive opinion.
Best regards,