EK1 by maker '23'
We all know the maker '23' -- Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Heeresbedarf in der Graveur- und Ziselierinnung of Berlin -- made EK2s. Their early ones are unmarked, their later ones are marked '23'. In fact, they made a lot of EK2s. Indeed they are probably one of the earliest makers of the 1939 EK: Arbeitsgemeinschaft für das Eiserne Kreuz of Berlin appears as a maker on a list of EK makers from 1940. In all probability, this is the same company.
A forum search will turn up a large number of '23' EK2s. Here is a nice unmarked one, courtesy of Robert Pierce:
We have learned to identify unmarked '23' EK2s in the same way we identify any early, unmarked EK: by comparison with later, marked examples. In the case of '23,' we have learned that their frames are easily identifiable. They are shaped basically like Deumer's second frame, with a few little exceptions. The most obvious hallmark of the '23' EK frame is a large bead near the top of the 9 o'clock beading strand, the so-called '23 Bead'. Once one knows what to look for, identifying a '23' is simple. Here is a detail of the '23' bead on Robert's EK2, shown above:
Indeed, the '23' frame has never been seen on any EK2 marked with any number other than '23,' so it seems clear that '23' was the only company to use that frame. This bears repeating: the '23' frame is found only on marked '23' crosses, or on unmarked crosses considered to be by maker '23'. It is never found on any cross with any other mark. It was, then, the proprietary frame of maker '23'.
We have also discovered that '23' used many different cores. One particular core is thought to be their own, proprietary core. But many, many (perhaps even most) '23' EK2s use cores supplied to them by another maker, namely Paul Meybauer.
Here is a selection of Meybauer cores found in '23' EK2s, again courtesy of Robert Pierce:
HERE is an excellent discussion of the Meybauer cores used by maker '23'.
So it is clear that '23' had a business relationship with maker Paul Meybauer. This makes perfect sense. '23' and Meybauer were both located in Berlin, and '23' was an "Arbeitsgemeinschaft," or work group, usually understood to be a collective of jewelers working collaboratively under one name. It has thus been suggested that Meybauer may even have at some point been a member of the '23' work group, although that seems unlikely to me.
But '23' is not thought to have made any EK1s. Why should this be? They were probably one of the first makers to be granted a license. They made many, many EK2s. They made their own frames and had a fruitful business relationship with Paul Meybauer, who supplied EK components to them.
Please have a look at this EK1 I recently acquired:
Now have a look at the 9 o'clock beading strand:
This is clearly a '23' frame -- the overall shape like Deumer, the '23 Bead,' and a few other typical little '23' hallmarks and flaws -- and (I will say again) '23' is the only maker known to have used this frame.
The core, as may be seen, is by Paul Meybauer. This is hardly surprising, given that Meybauer supplied most of the cores for EK2s by maker '23'.
If, for the sake of argument, we assumed that maker '23' also had to source their pins and hinges from a supplier, rather than make them themselves, who would that maker be? My guess would be Paul Meybauer. After all, they already bought their cores from Meybauer. Why not their pins as well?
Here is the reverse of the EK1 shown above, showing an early Paul Meybauer-made pin:
In my opinion, this cross is almost certainly by maker '23', a maker not previously thought to have made EK1s.
Only two other possibilities exist: 1) Paul Meybauer sourced these frames from maker '23,' or 2) Paul Meybauer sold these frames to maker '23' for their EK2s. In both these scenarios, this cross could be by Paul Meybauer. But I find it unlikely, since, of all the EK1s with this frame I have seen to date, not a single one is marked with any number, although Meybauers with this pin may be found marked both '7' and 'L/13'. This makes perfect sense: why would this cross be marked with a Meybauer code, if it is not made by Paul Meybauer, but rather by maker '23'?
Interestingly, I don't think that these are particularly rare. I just think that they are always called (in my opinion incorrectly) Meybauers. A preliminary search by me turned up a few on this forum, misidentified (often by me) as Meybauers. I also found another one for sale on a dealer's site without even looking for it.
Finally, here is a side shot of this cross:
One collector to whom I presented this theory insisted that "only Meybauer used this pin." If that is so, I have seen no evidence of it. Yes, Paul Meybauer used this pin. But how do we know that he was the only maker to do so? I don't. If anyone has some evidence to this effect, please post it here or PM me.
We all know the maker '23' -- Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Heeresbedarf in der Graveur- und Ziselierinnung of Berlin -- made EK2s. Their early ones are unmarked, their later ones are marked '23'. In fact, they made a lot of EK2s. Indeed they are probably one of the earliest makers of the 1939 EK: Arbeitsgemeinschaft für das Eiserne Kreuz of Berlin appears as a maker on a list of EK makers from 1940. In all probability, this is the same company.
A forum search will turn up a large number of '23' EK2s. Here is a nice unmarked one, courtesy of Robert Pierce:
We have learned to identify unmarked '23' EK2s in the same way we identify any early, unmarked EK: by comparison with later, marked examples. In the case of '23,' we have learned that their frames are easily identifiable. They are shaped basically like Deumer's second frame, with a few little exceptions. The most obvious hallmark of the '23' EK frame is a large bead near the top of the 9 o'clock beading strand, the so-called '23 Bead'. Once one knows what to look for, identifying a '23' is simple. Here is a detail of the '23' bead on Robert's EK2, shown above:
Indeed, the '23' frame has never been seen on any EK2 marked with any number other than '23,' so it seems clear that '23' was the only company to use that frame. This bears repeating: the '23' frame is found only on marked '23' crosses, or on unmarked crosses considered to be by maker '23'. It is never found on any cross with any other mark. It was, then, the proprietary frame of maker '23'.
We have also discovered that '23' used many different cores. One particular core is thought to be their own, proprietary core. But many, many (perhaps even most) '23' EK2s use cores supplied to them by another maker, namely Paul Meybauer.
Here is a selection of Meybauer cores found in '23' EK2s, again courtesy of Robert Pierce:
HERE is an excellent discussion of the Meybauer cores used by maker '23'.
So it is clear that '23' had a business relationship with maker Paul Meybauer. This makes perfect sense. '23' and Meybauer were both located in Berlin, and '23' was an "Arbeitsgemeinschaft," or work group, usually understood to be a collective of jewelers working collaboratively under one name. It has thus been suggested that Meybauer may even have at some point been a member of the '23' work group, although that seems unlikely to me.
But '23' is not thought to have made any EK1s. Why should this be? They were probably one of the first makers to be granted a license. They made many, many EK2s. They made their own frames and had a fruitful business relationship with Paul Meybauer, who supplied EK components to them.
Please have a look at this EK1 I recently acquired:
Now have a look at the 9 o'clock beading strand:
This is clearly a '23' frame -- the overall shape like Deumer, the '23 Bead,' and a few other typical little '23' hallmarks and flaws -- and (I will say again) '23' is the only maker known to have used this frame.
The core, as may be seen, is by Paul Meybauer. This is hardly surprising, given that Meybauer supplied most of the cores for EK2s by maker '23'.
If, for the sake of argument, we assumed that maker '23' also had to source their pins and hinges from a supplier, rather than make them themselves, who would that maker be? My guess would be Paul Meybauer. After all, they already bought their cores from Meybauer. Why not their pins as well?
Here is the reverse of the EK1 shown above, showing an early Paul Meybauer-made pin:
In my opinion, this cross is almost certainly by maker '23', a maker not previously thought to have made EK1s.
Only two other possibilities exist: 1) Paul Meybauer sourced these frames from maker '23,' or 2) Paul Meybauer sold these frames to maker '23' for their EK2s. In both these scenarios, this cross could be by Paul Meybauer. But I find it unlikely, since, of all the EK1s with this frame I have seen to date, not a single one is marked with any number, although Meybauers with this pin may be found marked both '7' and 'L/13'. This makes perfect sense: why would this cross be marked with a Meybauer code, if it is not made by Paul Meybauer, but rather by maker '23'?
Interestingly, I don't think that these are particularly rare. I just think that they are always called (in my opinion incorrectly) Meybauers. A preliminary search by me turned up a few on this forum, misidentified (often by me) as Meybauers. I also found another one for sale on a dealer's site without even looking for it.
Finally, here is a side shot of this cross:
One collector to whom I presented this theory insisted that "only Meybauer used this pin." If that is so, I have seen no evidence of it. Yes, Paul Meybauer used this pin. But how do we know that he was the only maker to do so? I don't. If anyone has some evidence to this effect, please post it here or PM me.
Many thanks for the education guys
Comment