The S&L / Godet R3 EK1

[Douglas 5]

Trevor :
Is this core a good original core from a R3 EK2 in the one I have posted ?
Considering it is a thin hollw struck core as the dents indecate ?

The fake you show : WW1 size or WW2 EK size ?

2 EK1 R3 variants . Why are ther so many R3 EK2 variants . ... or are ther some hidden new version 'German fake' variants that are sneeking in amongst the original ones now ? I picked up 2 R3 EK2s in the last month that are possibly fakes ? Will need to compare to what ? Do the new R3 EK2s have the same frame as the EK1 fakes ?

Douglas

[streptile]

Trevor :
Is this core a good original core from a R3 EK2 in the one I have posted ?
Considering it is a thin hollw struck core as the dents indecate ?

Obviously I can't say for sure, but yes, as I've said in all three threads you've started on this same cross, I believe that if it's a fake, it's probably made from a good R-3 EK2 core. If it is hollow, then perhaps it's not. But I don't know how you can tell if it's hollow from two dents.

The fake you show : WW1 size or WW2 EK size ?

WWII size. They all are.

2 EK1 R3 variants . Why are ther so many R3 EK2 variants

Presumably because the need for EK2s was much greater, especially early in the war, than the need for EK1s, and thus more makers were awarded contracts to make EK2s. Same reason there are so many makers for the EK2, and comparatively few for the EK1, in general.

are ther some hidden new version 'German fake' variants that are sneeking in amongst the original [R-3 EK2s] now ?

There are no even remotely fake convincing versions of the R-3 EK2 that I am aware of. The R-3 EK2 variants all have very easily identifiable frames: Schinkel-B, Heavy, Deschler, beveled edge, and one that is a match to the unknown maker R-3 EK1 -- all very distinctive, none of which resembles the "German Fake."

Douglas, I can only really say this (again) about your cross: I do not think it is an original, but of course I can't be sure. Not one cross even sort of like yours has surfaced in the collector's community (that I am aware of) for 65 years. Then, the same year (almost to the month) that a ton of new fakes with a disturbingly familiar frame and a wide variety of pins surface, so does this one. For me, that would be enough reason to return it.

Good R-3 EK1s are out there. If I were you, I would just hold out for one. But of course I may be quite wrong, and you may have a treasure.

[streptile]

Here, while it lasts on eBay, is another of these fakes, with yet another pin that is a terrifyingly good copy of a KO pin:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Eisernes-Kreuz-1-...item3efdf4085a

I just don't shop for 1939 EK1s too much anymore, but I know they are also made.

To demonstrate how good these fakes are, and just how much they resemble good, authentic S&Ls, please see this photo. One of these is a fake:
(Photo composite Motorhead, SDA)

[Douglas 5]

I had picked up a few items lately and pulled up the return policy I noticed I had saved the wrong one to this EK1 .
It goes as fallows :
>>>> The seller guarantees unlimited for the genuineness of this item and grant a sale or return within 31 days from the day of shipping.<<<<
Shipped on April 22 and just got it a few days ago . If I read his corectly - just not wanting it I can return with 31 days of shipping , but ..." unlimited for genuineness" ... as soon as it is proven not to be genuine then I still can return it anytime .

Douglas

[Roglebk]

Hi Douglas, studied the crosses and do not think it's a S&L either. Think you're right about the "thin plate core", it's hard to tell in the pics but in hand there's a special feeling of "hollowness" when handling the cross. Cross is also a lot lighter than a solid core one. This core is common on EKI's both in Imperial and TR time but never saw a R3 with it before.

Have 2 CFZ 'Prinzen size' 1914 EKII's that is made in the same way. Core is made up of 2 thin plates put together and blued instead of painted. They are very light and feels delicate.

It really makes sense manufacturing wise to strike a core on a thin plate of metal instead of a thick one, strike gets well defined in one punch and the die wear is a lot less. Problem is that it bends and gets dented more easily. Most vaulted crosses are made with thin plate core, easier to bend those.

Regarding your cross i think Trevor is very close to the truth. Buy it, handle it and ship it back works very good. Sometimes you need to get "the feel" of it before deciding.

[Douglas 5]

Well Carl I did buy : and have it in hand .
It is so unbelievable real - if it is a fake ....... weight and size matches even down to the patina ! Assembled once only..... which can be determed when holding/looking at it in hand ..... ? The chalenge is : made 39/40 or around Mid- 2009 ??
As Robert pointed out - it is not a S&L EK1 frame . It is a S&L EK2 1st frame die that was used and 3 inside corners are curled in more than usual . With the plain auto focus camera of mine - I connot get any good shots of the turned in corners . A manual auto focus camera is needed to get that small area sharp !
I have not given up hope yet . A 16 times loop gives me good closeup detail .
As metioned by Trevor - a S&L design was used for the German fake . This is what I am trying to make sense of . That peticular - one of a kind- working die would have been worn out 40/41-my guess- and long disposed of . Once a working die wore out - a new one was made . How was such an identical new working die now-2009- produced .??? If the 2 first frame die halfs survide - they would have surfaced long ago .
The other mistery is the pin set . What I see is an early Godet/Zimmermann pin combo ... yes a parts combination . For a modern fake ... it does not fit to " create an almost perfect frame and possibly original core - just to use/ create an unusual pin set ?

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Carl : looking at 'de-nazified ' EK1s there seams to be more solid strike cores than hollow ones ..... the vaulted Juncker EK1 of mine is solid .
The inspection offer still stands on this one .

Douglas

[Leroy]

Does anyone know to which companies S&L may have provided working dies?

[Douglas 5]

I take it you mean during the war . ?

Douglas

[Darrell]

" unlimited for genuineness"....
Douglas

Now there's a term I've never heard before.

[streptile]

Hi Gentry,

Nice to hear from you in an EK1 thread.

Does anyone know to which companies S&L may have provided working dies?

As you know, Bowen suggests that S&L supplied all of them. That is demonstrably untrue. But there are enough EK1s and EK2s that have S&L-type frames (basically, S&L frames or variations on them that are so subtle as to imagine that they were struck from duplicate dies, perhaps made from a pantograph) to lend some limited credence to Bowen's assertion. A few right off the top of my head include (in my opinion -- and this is a lot of opinion here as no one knows for sure) Rettenmaier 16, Bengel 44, Keller 66, and possibly Brehmer 13, Walter & Henlein 109, Eugen Schimthäußier 28, Hanauer AG 24 (who used a bigger outer trim die to make their so-called "wideframe" EKs).

I'm sure there are many more that never were marked, as so many unmarked EK2s exist with that frame that it has come to be called the "standard design." Of the makers I listed above, only Rettenmaier and Hanauer AG are thought to have made EK1s.

[Leroy]

Thanks, Trevor, that's a very informative answer!

I think one of the problems in reading Bowen's book is that he was not, frankly, a very good communicator. I believe that what he meant was not that S&L actually supplied all the working dies (although that's what he says) but that it supplied design information and samples to the many firms who desired to produce the EK, to insure conformity in the design. It probably actually supplied actual working dies only to those who wanted them (and who were willing to pay S&L for them). If you look, by example, at the very earliest Juncker RK's, they have the same curvature to the beading (when viewed from the side) as S&L crosses. Later, if you look at L/12 models, that curvature is gone. Clearly, that curvature was based on something Juncker was seeing in the initial design furnished to it.

To me, at least, S&L would have been the logical choice of supplier if a company wanted to make an Iron Cross but didn't want the expense of having to produce its own dies. S&L did the same thing, in reverse, on many of the war badges it later produced, acquiring dies from die-makers like Wissmann in Pforzheim.

[Douglas 5]

Well Leroy : interesting that this should come up .
I have not read Bowens book . I had asked the Professor I had met a question about one "mother or master die" ... which does not exist . As mentioned the curvature variation amongst crosses rules that out . The answer I got was very interesting .
S&L produced a basic design in a block of steel . This had the bead out line put into it . The beading was chizeled into this 'design mold' or 'template' , which was finished off with bead step and then this steel mold was hardened . This guide then could be used to strike and produce the male production die . In case of S&L EKs the out side corners were blank and the corner beading was added to the soft steel and so the working die finished off . This die half then hardened after which the reverse die was made . I was not given any details how this die half was made . An exspensive design mold if you could afford to have one made . Looking at S&L this accounts for the distinguisable frame dies as the finished corners are slightly different every time a working die is produced . With a design mold unlimited working dies can be made .
This would allow S&L to sell/ made working dies for other companies . Looking at Zimmermann , Souval , W&L and Deschler just to name a few ... the bead curvature , round inside corners and bead densitive etc .. .. that these companies had to have their own 'design mold' from which their working dies were made and cannot be copies off the S&L design mold . Did every different 'design mold' have blank corners ? Looking at Zimmermann - just to use one example - my guess is no . The high density bead corners being the same on every cross would indicate they are part of their design mold .
For a short while S&L and Juncker did 'work' together , and from this the Juncker forman would gotten this information . I have no documentation to this as it is only by word of mouth . The crosses in their appearence are the only evidence to this .

Douglas

[George Stimson]

"I believe that what he meant was not that S&L actually supplied all the working dies (although that's what he says) but that it supplied design information and samples to the many firms who desired to produce the EK, to insure conformity in the design. It probably actually supplied actual working dies only to those who wanted them (and who were willing to pay S&L for them)."

I believe this also. And if it's true, does it explain the existence of marked EKs with S&L characteristics by previously unacknowledged makers (for example, "5"), and does it mean that these crosses, which have been dismissed as simply S&L crosses with fake post-war markings, might, in fact, be "real"?

[streptile]

does it mean that these crosses, which have been dismissed as simply S&L crosses with fake post-war markings, might, in fact, be "real"?

I've thought the exact same thing, and thought about the exact same cross (the '5'). It may well be a rare, real '5' -- why not? The mark looks totally legit to me on one I've seen (Adrian's?).