Early 'L/52' EKI, opinions please

[Danny70]

Thank you Robert.
I will be following this thread very closely indeed!

Regards - Danny

Is it a bad sign that I can get this excited about an unmarked, unknown cross being so close to being finally identified?!!

[Robert P.]

Thank you Robert.
I will be following this thread very closely indeed!

Regards - Danny

Is it a bad sign that I can get this excited about an unmarked, unknown cross being so close to being finally identified?!!

No! I think it's a good sign of an advanced collector wanting his just rewards for all of those unmarked, unknown crosses in his collection.
Glad to see you hanging around on this one. We need your level of expertice.

[Danny70]

LOL!
Thank you for the vote of confidence, but believe me, I just spend my time here looking up to you guys and trying to learn a bit in the process!

Regards - Danny

[Robert P.]

LOL!
Thank you for the vote of confidence, but believe me, I just spend my time here looking up to you guys and trying to learn a bit in the process!

Regards - Danny

My position exactly, Danny.

[streptile]

This cross intrigues me for more than one reason.

Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the L/52 mark is good (which I think it is).

What we have assumed about these crosses so far, both EK2s like Danny's and EK1s like Fabrizio's (and others') is:

a) They are early.
b) They are Godets.

There is compelling evidence to support both these conclusions, but this single cross challenges them both in one single blow:

a) An LDO mark indicates it was made (or marked) later than expected.
b) An L/52 mark suggests Zimmermann.

Incidentally, I am not including in this group the three (3) EK1s we've seen that have different pins. Douglas suggests strongly that he has hard evidence that those are indeed Godets. To recap here: these three have this frame (low bead-count, seen here on this L/52), the standard or accepted Zimmermann core, and an all together different pin. There is substantial evidence to indicate that these three (at least) are Godet pieces even without knowing Douglas' tidbit. The discussion on them can be found, again, here.

So, it seems we have four different kinds of crosses that used this exact frame/core combination:

1. An EK2:



2. An EK1 with a different pin, which evidence suggests is a Godet piece:



3. An EK1 with a traditional Zimmermann pin, unmarked:



4. As above (no. 4), but correctly marked with Zimmermann's LDO stamp:



One explanation that could accommodate all these facts is that Zimmermann and Godet began their 1939 EK manufacturing with this low bead-count frame. They shared parts from the beginning, except pins. Zimmermann made their own crosses with their own pins, Godet made theirs. Later, they both switched to the traditional Godet/Zimmermann high bead-count frame, and Godet ceased using their own pins and began ordering them from Zimmermann. This particular example we see here would have been an early Zimmermann left over for some reason until later, when it was found and LDO marked. None of this helps us attribute a maker to the EK2, however.

...and, finally, to quote Douglas (from this thread):

There are even earlier Godet EK1s and 2s that are from 1939 with the same bead style and layout - how ever in a transitional WW1 frame beading size - with a Godet and Zimmermann 3rd Reich Schinkel cores ... The existance of these also proves the partnership between Godet and Zimmermann existed prior to September 1st 1939.

[Roglebk]

The L/52 mark looks good, matches the L/52's i saw. Compare it to this from a 1914 EKI Screwback found in the Zimmermann burned factory.

So now we at least have a marked one that matches all the others. Well, not a perfect match since the pin is slightly different on some of them.

It also means that we finally have a EKII that can be attributed to C F Zimmermann in a way.

Will have a look at the EKII core found in the C F Z burned factory and see if i matches Dannys cross. We already matched it to a core found in Godet marked EKII's. Read a theory on the forum that maybe C F Z made EKII's for Godet.

What do we call a cross that was assembled in the C F Z factory with parts made by them but paid for, stamped with 21, and sold by Godet?

To me it's a Godet.

[Roglebk]

There's a pretty well proved theory that unmarked RK's with C F Z/Godet frames and cores only can be separated by looking at the paint that was used. Marked C F Z RK's have totally different paint compared to marked Godet RK's.

Would be interesting to do the same with the "unknown framed" EKI's and EKII's.

If the paint matches any of the RK's, perhaps we have a solution to this mystery.

[streptile]

So now we at least have a marked one that matches all the others. Well, not a perfect match since the pin is slightly different on some of them.

The ones with the different pins are supposedly Godets (Godet pins):

It also means that we finally have a EKII that can be attributed to C F Zimmermann in a way.

Well, in a way we've always had that -- with a '21' marked cross.

[streptile]

If the paint matches any of the RK's, perhaps we have a solution to this mystery.

That is a great idea!

Now who pays for the tests ?

[streptile]

There's a pretty well proved theory that unmarked RK's with C F Z/Godet frames and cores only can be separated by looking at the paint that was used.

By the way, there is some debate whether Godet bought assembled crosses from CFZ, or just the parts and assembled the crosses themselves. This paint theory would, if true, lend support to the latter theory, which I favor as well.

Some other info:

• For their first-run (Type A) 1870 EK2s, Godet also sourced cores from outside their workshops. This is a known fact.
  
• The cores they used in their 'G' marked 1914 EKs are also found in other, properly marked EKs. Who made them -- Godet or someone else -- is unknown.
  
• The dies for striking Type B 1870 core reverses, commonly called "Godet cores", were used later on 1914 crosses marked 'S-W.' So either Godet sold the dies, or never owned them.

There may be other examples, but suffice it to say that Godet had a well-established history of sourcing cores from elsewhere. In fact, no one knows for sure if they made cores for any of their iron crosses, 1870 - 1939.

[Roglebk]

That is a great idea!

Now who pays for the tests ?

The one that recently had a birthday! Good thing is that they can be easily separated by just looking at the paint. This better be done in hand though, with the EKI's and EKII's side by side.

[Sal Williams]

The L/52 mark looks right as rain. Same on the SC's

[Robert P.]

Here's a side by side...

[George Stimson]

The top half of the "5"s looks different to me. (Doesn't necessarily mean that one's good and one's bad -- just that they're different.)

[Robert P.]

Yes, George, they do look different. Enough so that it makes me suspicious of mine to the point of not liking it. I've searched the archives for 'L/52' SC's, 'L/52' EKI's, and found nothing like mine. I have to admit I have doubts, even though some have given it a . ??