Announcement

**Peter J.** · 11-29-2009, 01:45 PM

Chuck, IMHO this is a combo with EK1 and EK2.

cheers
Peter

**vonStubben** · 11-29-2009, 09:22 PM

I have read in Gordon Williamson's book that the EKI and EKII were always the same size and that the RK was always larger when worn in conjunction with the lesser grades of the Iron Cross in lapel pin form.

?????

Chuck

**CMSgt** · 11-29-2009, 10:01 PM

Ek

Chuck

Can you measure the crosses? When the RK is mounted with the EK, the RK is 12 mm and the EK 9mm (from Detlev's book). Jim

**Peter J.** · 11-29-2009, 10:20 PM

Guys, all the above mentioned references aside, here's a short piece I wrote for a Swedish forum. I can't post the comparing images, if you're interested drop me a pm and I'll forward them to you.

Chuck, had there been one 11mm and two 9mm's, no problems, definately a KC.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CHP_ADM%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CHP_ADM%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CHP_ADM%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>SV</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="******45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style>  </style> "First I would like to clarify a few things. Most areas of the accumulation of material from 3.Reich are well penetrated, and plentyful info is available, both online and in reference works. In contrast, the miniatures (not organization-needles), most probably believe that it is still a lot to think about. This does of course I did and although I could create my own personal opinion on several aspects, there are still some question marks that have not straightened out. I would therefore like to clarify that what is here to read is just my personal opinion, including interpretations of any modern publications. I welcome any constructive criticism on my theory and hope for a fruitful exchange of views.

This post could go on forever, but to get a coherent whole picture, I must first explain a bit on the miniatures for decorations from before 3.Reich. I still do not have the precise definition of "general approval" from 1935, an expression which can be found in D. Maerz publication "The Knights Cross of the Iron Cross" and is related to who had permission to make decorations. In April 1941, however, clear rules on design, quality, etc., (including a marking current producers) were announced and came into practice. Everything that is produced after that date are therefore relatively easy to draw conclusions from, the exact interpretation of those rules is, of course, as in real life up to the viewer to do. These regulations weren’t always followed by manufacturers (eg, the absence of L / - label), but on the whole they give a rationale for possible conclusions.

Miniatures from the period 1914-18 was produced until 3.Reich resolution. A number of different sales catalogs from various manufacturers from the late 30's and 1940, with illustrations of the various versions of the 1914 EK-miniatures, are available. Although the most common sizes were 16 and 9mm, there was great variation from <7mm (A) and upward. When EK1 and EK2 combined, were both presented in the same size, typically 9mm (B), but also 11mm (C). Another common design was to make EK2 in 9mm and the EK1 in 11mm. Since there was no logical reason for this (both were equal in the original performance), probably this was purely aesthetic reasons, in order to enhance the status of the EK1.
There were also several different ways to assemble the two EK’s, such as same size, edge to edge, the same size overlapping in a straight line, same size overlapping with EK1 slightly below, different sizes with similar arrangements and so on. As for the size of single EK 1914 miniatures on a needle, it is stated clearly in the example St. & L's catalog from 1939 that both 13mm and 16mm versions are 1st class. 9mm version is listed as E.K. alone, as well as two EK 9mm together, but logic says that a simple EK 9mm on a needle represents 2nd class. That a 16mm EK2 1914 (D) with ring for hanging in chains or on the button will be 2nd class is obvious, likewise if it would be a 9mm (E)) large.

At the re-founding of the Iron Cross in 1939, there were some problems, when it was added an additional class i.e. Knight's Cross. It is precisely this period (1.sept. 1939-Apr. 1941), which I personally find extremely interesting, since I have not yet found contemporary documentation that can refute the common practice, similar to those that can be found in eg Doehle's recent publications. Assuming that the tradition of the earlier period was taken up, i.e. (the above assumptions), it appears that the by Sture illustrated combination represent EK1 and EK2. That this very precise design (top edge in line) would be a prototype, I do not know, but there are several variants in which crosses are of different sizes (eg Schickle's catalog, item # 802). "Straight Edge" was neither an axiom (F). A similar scenario can be found in the KVK's Knight's Cross of the needle (G). Here there was no reason to make an aesthetic difference of two cross in silver, as they both represented the 1st class. 2nd class was also in bronze. Thus, I think Iron Cross Knight's Cross on a pin can only be presented as 11mm in combination with two cross-9mm (H).

In the case of 16mm version for wear on ring (I) there are devided views amongst collectors, probably because of LDO's regulatory framework announced in Doehle's works. I will refrain temporarily from further developing this aspect, but ‘ll leave open the possibility that this version could actually represent the 2nd class, however, prior to 1941.

Finally, all the miniatures were designed to be worn on civilian clothing.

cheers
Peter

<o

></o

>

**AlikN** · 11-30-2009, 12:42 AM

I think this is the same type of stickpin as in Dietrich's M. KC book page 345 (top), ...by the book RK/ek combo.

P.S.
Here is the link to the one I have

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=254024

.

**Peter J.** · 11-30-2009, 05:35 AM

I've that book too, but I respectfully differ in opinion with my friend Dietrich. Like he says in the link provided, this is not according to regulations and IMO these combos are most probably made prior to 1941.

cheers
Peter

**vonStubben** · 11-30-2009, 10:53 AM

Peter,

Thank you for your input, I find it very interesting and to be well formed opinion.

For the record the large cross is 11mm and the smaller 9mm.

Chuck

**Scott C.** · 11-30-2009, 09:59 PM

IMO, the shear number of large and small EK combo stickpins that can be found at nearly any show leads me to believe the pin above is an EKI+EKII combo. The photo below is what I would expect to see if an RK were indicated: RK+EKI+EKII. These 3-cross combos are more scarce than the 2-cross pins. Again, just my opinion.

Attached Files

3 cross EK mini.jpg (8.5 KB, 200 views)

**Tim Calvert** · 11-30-2009, 10:04 PM

Yeah, 3 would be nice. For example, if it looked like this....you wouldn't have to ask!

Attached Files

Calvert crrz.JPG (107.2 KB, 200 views)

**vonStubben** · 11-30-2009, 11:50 PM

Here's the other reason that I have asked for thoughts. This stickpin came with this photo and newspaper clipping.

Attached Files

bruns.JPG (66.7 KB, 197 views)

**streptile** · 12-01-2009, 12:43 AM

Very nice, Tim. Any chance to see a larger photo of the single EK stickpin in the right?

**magnusmilitaria** · 12-01-2009, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Tim Calvert View Post

Yeah, 3 would be nice. For example, if it looked like this....you wouldn't have to ask!

I like this miniatures!

**AlikN** · 12-01-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by streptile View Post

Very nice, Tim. Any chance to see a larger photo of the single EK stickpin in the right?

I think it's L/11 stickpin,

....just like that...

Attached Files

l-11.jpg (161.7 KB, 176 views)

**Peter J.** · 12-01-2009, 12:15 PM

I believe I've brought it up before, but this is the only L/11 mark I've seen in relief. The other 8 types (at least) have all been stamped. With no intention to miscredit the above shown, has anyone seen a piece marked in a similar way?

cheers
Peter

Announcement

Mini Lapel RK & EK I

Mini Lapel RK & EK I

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread