Quiz: EKII Meybauer Schinkel Twins, which is early.

[Roglebk]

Which is the earlier one, left or right? Take a look at the pics and do the poll. None is repainted, both have similar soldering jobs and file marks.

There are hints to be found in the pics but not proved yet, more pics and discussion will follow later.

[jt327gir]

I say "right with matte paint". I don't know much at all about the Schinkels, but the cross on the right just "feels" earlier to me. The only difference I can see, aside from the paint, is that the arm tips on the right cross have been filed so that they are not as sharp as the cross on the left.

[streptile]

I said matte paint. Is all the evidence on display in the photos?

[Douglas 5]

Left one : glossy paint .

Douglas

[evilmike]

i voted left basing my guesstimate on the frame features

[Roglebk]

This is the right matte cross, no flaws at all found anywhere on the frames. Core is a very deep strike, paint got a kind of Craquelure texture to it.

[Roglebk]

Left cross, some "hairlike" die crack flaws can be seen. Seems like Meybauer had problems with the frame dies cracking up early, lots of EKI's and EKII's shows die crack flaws. Core is a more shallow strike than the right cross, just a coincidence i guess. Paint is really glossy, but more to the worn center parts than on the sides.

[Roglebk]

This is a third cross.

Showing more of the frame because of extensive die cracks. Some worn places on frame shows copper colored base metal.

Look at the core, they changed back to matte paint but not the same paint found on the right cross. Very weird, 3 different kinds of paint? Early matte, then glossy and back to matte.

Looks like the same frame die for all 3, no signs of remade dies.

Maybe they struck a lot of frames in WWI, mixed pristine frames with heavy flawed ones and used them all up in WWII. That would explain why the frames do not seem to match the paint job.

One thing i'm pretty sure of is that there's no such thing as a early cross just because of matte or glossy paint. Different makers seems to have used different paint in different times.

[Douglas 5]

I disagree , sorry to say . You have 2 different frame and core dies . Left cross is the earlier die .

Douglas

[streptile]

Maybe they struck a lot of frames in WWI, mixed pristine frames with heavy flawed ones and used them all up in WWII. That would explain why the frames do not seem to match the paint job.

Interesting, Carl. I see just one frame, too, but maybe full, large shots of both thread-starters would help me decide 100%. Core die looks the same to me, too.

[Douglas 5]

This shows clearly the 2 different dies .

Douglas

[Roglebk]

This shows clearly the 2 different dies .

Douglas

See what you mean Douglas. Think we need pics that are not whitewashed in that area to make a conclusion, will get more later.

There are other things that suggests that the right cross frames are not a remade die. Some die cracks that would be impossible to remove without showing on the new die for example.

Think you are right about the possibility of being 2 core dies. There's a lot of similarities on the 1813 numbers, shown in green. Also some differencies, see the red markings. The turquoise dots i'm not sure of, either a core flaw or lumps of paint.

Weirdest flaw is the "flat neck of 3" found on the glossy core, did not find this on other 6 crosses i have on file. Could be a accident when striking i guess, the "flat neck" is painted.

The "connected 1 & 8" flaw is found on all crosses i saw.

[Roglebk]

Seems like the thoughts is that the glossy/blank paint is the earlier one, i stand corrected!

[beuwulf]

Both crosses looks fine to me Carl, but I like crosses with the "matte paint"
always nice crosses to look at here.....
Regards:Chris...

[Bernie Brule]

I know this isn't scientific but since imperial EKs used glossy paint, it stands to reason that they would use that paint when making TR crosses at first just to use up what's left over.