Help with Makers Please - Early EK2 & EK1

[dc9]

Thanks for taking the time to make the photos that much clearer with your illustrations - great job!

Eric

[Robert P.]

Thank you to both Douglas and Robert - very enlightening and interesting. The only problem is I am now wondering about the subtle differences surrounding all the other manufacturers!

Thanks for all the input.
best wishes
Tim O.

Dietrich Maerz and George Stimson are working on a book on the EKI's which should really be a fantastic work. I don't have any idea when it will be ready for the public, but I for one am really looking forward to buying and studying it. As far as subtle differences in EK's I think this book will more than satisfy this.

[Douglas 5]

Well Gentelmen ... thank you very much for your responce .
In case of these 2 W&L frames I only pulled out the 2 main reference points ... there are others I have not mentioned or gone over yet . It is all condenced in a seperate project that I will be posting soon .
I am aware of the book project and pushing to get all of these projects out .

I have been fortunate enough to get this 39 coin silver W&L EK1 with the first frame and a tombak core , the one Robert has seen and used in the above comparison . Most of the frosting is left - lacquered frame with edges worn off and the silver now turned dark . A very special date with a narrow 3 and small Swastika .

Douglas

[Robert P.]

A very hard-to-find and wonderful historical W&L piece. Thank you for posting it, Douglas. Seeing it is almost as good as owning it. Can you please post a reverse view?

[Douglas 5]

Can not find the flat back shot right now ... just others . It does not have the round catch as one would exspect . The same cross was made and can be found with a round catch too and not only with this massive flat one . Weight - noticeable much heavier :21 grams . Not mint as the surface wear shows about 50% of lacquer remaining on the back and sides of the cross as the entire cross was coated - including the entire pin assembly which is also coin silver !!!

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Worn with pride as the rub marks show on the back . The heavy catch has some markings or lines - 3- on it ... no idea what they are . One can be seen here and is not a tool mark .

Douglas

[Robert P.]

Yes, odd to see the flat wire catch on such an early cross. Possibly a first attempt at using the flat wire.

[Tim O.]

Hi Guys

I have recently received, and am now reading, Maerz's and Stimpson's excellent book on the EK1. One sentence from Page 47 leapt out at me in the context of the EK2 in this thread with zinc core. In this section of the book the authors are discussing regulations that came into force in 1942 prohibiting non-iron cores in EKs:

'So it should be clear to the learned collector that non-iron core Iron Crosses of both classes (and the Knight's Cross as well) are not "late" but rather "early" war examples.'

Where does this take us in relation to the debate on the EK2 at the start of this thread? As you will see it has a zinc core and is dated on the back for 1939 but the present conclusion considered it a 1943 replacement.

Don't you just love this hobby!

Tim O.

[fabri-online]

Hello Tim
in my opinion some things written in this thread are not really correct, Imy point of view is the follow:
The cross received from the recipient was not this one on the medal bar but probably was a one piece Schinkel or something similar.
EKII mounted on this medal bar was bought and mounted in a militaria shop.
About period, I think 1941 or 1942.
About non magnertic cores, George wrote that precious info years ago in the EK section of WA.com so it was known and we have to think that all non magnetic are about pre 06/1942. There are many indications about this point.
We have spent many words about the frame, it could be a reworked W&L, it 's not a frame that you find easily, but just a few about the core. I 've never seen this core in a W&L standard frame and yes many many times in a Juncker framed cross. It 's hard to think that Juncker supplied cores to W&L to me, so I think it 's a Juncker (that many times was "poor" of frames and cores for their EKs).

[Tim O.]

Thanks Fabri - interesting!

Best wishes
Tim O

[streptile]

Hi Tim,

I agree with Fabri that this thread has some outdated research in it. In my opinion your cross is a Juncker Schinkel, and was almost certainly made very, very early in the war. HERE is a discussion of the type. It seems perfectly logical to me that it's original to the bar.

[Tim O.]

Hi Trevor

Thank you very much for linking to your thread in the Imperial Forum and the extremely impressive piece of research you have done. I am biased because I want your hypothesis to be correct but it is a proposition I am happy to believe!

Best wishes
Tim O.