EK1 screw back dated 1939

[John M B]

The RK and GC where dispossed very quickly and efficently, the artifical ageing and lay of the wreath on the GC being particulary interesting.

Here is a screw back EK1 of mine which is named and dated 27.08.39.

It looks well worn to me but maybe it is artifical ageing?

I look forward to your comments.

[Dez H]

I have never seen an original EK with beading like that before.

Not a piece I would have in my collection.

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hi John,

I have to agree with Dez on the beading. I also feel that IMHO that for the back to be marked .900 it does not diplay the metal charateristics of a Silver .900 marked piece . I am also concerned with the aging, does not look natural .



Of course the pics could have much to do with those two points. Not a totally a bad looking piece,BUT, one I would pass on. To many fine originals with no issues.

Best,

JD

[John M B]

Thanks for your info.

I have compared the beading on pictures of known real EK1's and understand what you mean. Do you know of any copies with this coarser beading for me to compare with?

[Dez H]

John; this piece reminds me of the junk from Poland that is usually spotted on epier, unfortunately I don't have a picture saved to show you. The Polish pieces are usually one piece construction.

I would pass on this piece, there are so many nice EK's out there, they can be hard to find, but the wait is well worth it.

[Frank Heukemes]

Well, it is easy to check up on this one. It says Gen.Lt. Folbricht, which is the rank Generalleutnant. It should be easy for somebody to help you out and see:

1) If this Generalleutnant Folbricht even exists
2) If he recieved the EK1 on that date

Cheers, Frank

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hi Frank,



What are your thoughts on the piece over all ?



Best,

JD

[Frank Heukemes]

I don´t know, unusual at least. But I would definitely check up on that engraved info. If it bogus, you do not have to waste any more thoughts on the cross.

Cheers, Frank

[Dez H]

Frank; whoever dreamed up this piece probably saw that name in a book or on a movie and added it to the piece. Regardless if the date is correct or not this piece is dubious to say the least. I would shy away from 100% genuine EK’s with inscriptions on the back, you just never know when it was added to the piece. This piece scream repo regardless of what the details on the reverse might prove or say.<O</O

[Frank Heukemes]

Dear Dez,

My point is: If the engraving proves to be BOGUS, there are no more thoughts to be wasted on the cross. That would be my first logical step, even if a cross is unusual or dubious.
It does not scream fake to me, it whispers "I am dubious, give me some more thought, a little effort and the benefit of the doubt, please". Put your ear to the screen, can you hear it?

[John M B]

A little more info which may be of some help as there is a question over its authenticity.

I actually own this piece. I spend a lot of time in Munich and took this piece to a local dealer who I know. He, like Frank, was dubious but did not write it off totally.

The core is iron and responds similarly to a magnet as know real EK1's.

However if the beading is totally incorrect surely this makes it a copy full stop?

[Rick Research]

Let The Homer Simpson Noises Commence!

I think you guys have all missed the Big Tip Off:

"27.08.39" ???


And the war STARTED on...

[Frank Heukemes]

Embarrassing, I missed THAT completely!

[Joseph D'Errico]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh.....................back to being grasshopper

Hmmmmm.........................Master Jedi Lundstrum, one special tuna wrap Mike Pinkus style for you at the next show

Well, I didn't like the piece anyway.

Best,
JD

[Dez H]

Duh!!!!