Hi,
Wondering if this is an EK2 or RK mini? Note the stipling in the core area.
Thanks.
Gary B
Wondering if this is an EK2 or RK mini? Note the stipling in the core area.
Thanks.
Gary B
-
ANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348 -
Close UpANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348 -
Nice piece Gary, I would say RK, due to the double ribbons on the button.
Andy B.Collecting minis and KVKsComment
-
Dear Andy,
Thanks for your opinion. I never even paid attention to the double ribbons. I was looking more at the loop attachement of the medal which looked like an RK piece to me.
Thanks again.
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
-
Rk.Comment
-
Yes, it is a Knights Cross!
Comment
-
I'd say probably, but not definately
cheers
PeterComment
-
Gary, IMO I think You hit it with the "Loop attachment" or the eye for the ribbon loop being on top of the 12 O' clock arm. RK mini.Originally posted by Gary B View Post
Nice little piece! Can we see a photo of the reverse?
KevinComment
-
Dietrich, IMHO we don't have enough info to conclude this being an RK rather than an EK2. For the record, 1914 EH2 was made with both types of jumprings, hence the ring alone isn't enough to determin the class. However if someone has Doehle's publications from before 1941, I'd be extremely grateful to hear from such an individual
cheers
PeterComment
-
Peter,
I certainly think we do. I could not imagine a better source than the Doehle. On page 175 of the 1945 edition (reprint) it says very clearlly that only the following war orders are allowed to be worn as a minature together with a ribbon:
- Knights Cross of the Iron Cross
- Knights Cross of the War Merit Cross
- Pour le Merite
- Prussian golden War Merit Cross
- some other earlier orders after special permission
I don't see how a EK2 of WW! enters into it. This is a 1939 edition cross and has the 1939 edition ribbon.
For me and based on original sources and publications it is Knights Cross and not an EK2.
DietrichComment
-
Hi,
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
-
Hi Dietrich,
No offense indented, but I'm a bit surprised to see an advanced researcher like you using a 1945 regulation as evidence for a fact. With the creation of the LDO in 1941, miniatures became regulated in many different ways, but even with those at hand, definite conclusions are difficult to establish, due to the contradiction found in those very sources. I've seen content of Dohle's 1943, 1945 and parts of 1941, but am still oblivient as to the publications prior to that date. As long as this information is unknown to us as collectors, it's rather meaningless to make definite presumptions. I could throw in all my thoughts on this topic in this thread, but that would take too long. However to illustrate some of those contradictions, here are a few examples, which are of course based only on the info I've available.
Apart from some sales catalogues from 1938-1940, there is that widely spread page from LDO's with prices from Nov.1944. If we focus on the EK, the only 16mm cross with ring is the EK2 (for chain), nothing mentioned about the KC for the metal button. One could of course argue that it wasn't nesessary, because the EK could be worn only on a chain and anything else would automatically be a KC. How does that correspond with your assupmtion that the EK2 is 15mm and the KC 16mm? And what happened to the KVK KC 16mm for button, had that been banned from the retail stores?
Same thing with the 9mm stickpins. The single pins are all 9mm (OL/OLS) and the KC alone isn't represented (DK 16mm). These minis are also labelled as 9mm's when combined with other minis, but I've never seen one of the two higher grades together with any other mini, so I wouldn't know. The KC in this constellation should be 11mm though or there wouldn't be any difference in size next to the two EK's. In your book there is one alleged 9mm KC/OL, but also an image with a similar mini next to a KC/EK1/EK2 combo. It's crytal clear that the two latter KC's are of the exact same size i.e 11mm! The question is if the single pins actually were 9mm or rather 11mm, which happens to be the size of the enclosed mini. I've an open mind though, perhaps you can confirm the size of the pictured mini in your book (p.345).
There are also things to be said about Article 8, but I save that for later. I'm not disputing the originality of the actual decoration presented in this thread, but I strongly suggest that this should not be a closed book, as we (or at least I) don't know the whole story in regards of documentation. Using "IMO" would be more appropriate than just hand out a without any reservations (IMHO
)
cheers
PeterComment
-
Peter,
honestly without sounding 'snippy' or so: I certainly regard the original documentation as the best source in all cases. What else should we use?
Attached is a scan out of the S&L catalog May/June 1941. The 16 mm EK2 is clearly shown with the ring attachment as it should be, i.e. rectangular to the frame. All the EK2 miniatures I have seen are made in that way ...
The RK/OL mini in the book has a size of 10.59 mm, the RK with the separate swords has a size of 10.8 mm and I have another one with oaks where the size is 10.4 mm. The EKs of my pins have a size of 9.02, 8.45, 8.9, 9.07 mm. The 16 mm size EKs has a dimension of 14.18 mm. For me this is all in good order and consistent with the publication in the Doehle.
I don't see it as a closed book, but when I see something that in all aspects fits to my documents and sources, I will give a. And that is and always will be the same as IMO.
Comment
-
Don't worry Dietrich, you're not perceived as "snappy".
I'm not sure that I'm getting through here though. The point I was trying make, is the fact that even contemporary documentation should be scrutinized, clearly proven by the measures you just confirmed i.e. the 9mm KC's are indeed a lot closer to 11mm than 9mm, I assume you can agree to this anomaly.
I also find it plausible that the rectangular type mini is intended as a EK2, but without knowing the common practice before May-41, I don't know. EK minis with ring could be worn only on chain (and in some rare cases as a mini medal-bar). I know that the button type was regulated in Dohle's 1943 edition, but I've no knowledge (and I emphasize again) about the pre-41 edition. There are numerous metal buttons with several different decorations available i.g. RAD, TD etc., which at one point in time were available. These would be ruled out, should I use the 1945 regulations. I believe there might have been another praxis in the early years and that the EK2 possibly also could be worn from a ribbon bow or metal button. Since the KC is illustrated only in Dohle's book and the EK2 only in sales catalogues, we can't be sure, but I concur your scenario is plausible and I don't think we'll get much farther today.
Cheers
PeterComment
-
Hello,
we are talking here about a loop mini which can't be compared with a normal mini. The IC2 mini was only allowed to be produced as loop version because you couldn't disinguish it as single pin version from the IC.
So a hanging cross on loop could be a IC2.
On the other hand it was allowed to produce neck worn awards like the KC as loop version.
To distinguish a neck worn award on such a loop from a normal one the loop had to simulate the original attachment of the neck worn award so that it looked like the bigger brother.
On the discussed mini we can see a hanging cross under the loop. Therefore the shown loop shows imo the KC as mentioned by Dietrich.
A IC2 on loop looks like this one:Best regards, Andreas
______
The Wound Badge of 1939
www.vwa1939.com
The Iron Cross of 1939- out now!!! Place your orders at:
www.ek1939.comComment
Comment