There have been a couple of nice Schinkelform "B" EK2s around recently. Thomas Huss just sent me the two attached photos, and would welcome discussion/opinions.
-
Last edited by Gordon Williamson; 08-30-2008, 11:56 PM. -
Reverse
Note how the 3 in 1813 is significantly different to the 3 in 1939. Also the flange around the bottom of the beading (something that can be found on perfectly original EKs, and not in itself indicative of anything being wrong, simply highlighted because it does rather jump out at you).
Thomas doesn't want to offer anything suspect so would welcome opinions from EK specialists.Last edited by Gordon Williamson; 08-30-2008, 11:56 PM. -
What strikes me is that the core looks so thin ?
I base that on what looks to be a large airgap between beading and core.
Peter WikingComment
-
I'm not an EK specialist, but I don't like this one. The things that put me off are the general lack of 'crispness', the familiar shape of the date figures (reminiscent of the dates on the RK fakes discussed here before), the low swastika, the 'open' shape of the ring retaining loop, the poor fitting of the rim to the core and the general condition. I know that none of these on its own would necessarily condemn the piece, but when they're all combined they are enough to put me off. However, as has been pointed out, attempting to pass judgement on originality or otherwise from photos alone can be problematic.Comment
-
Its not one of those Flock copies, is it ?
Peter WikingComment
-
Dear Gordon,
Pure fake for me. Not because it looks very different from my "B"-type Schinkel EK2, but because I have owned a fake EK1 many years ago with the exact same features. Look at the shape of the overall cross and details like the obverse date. And anotzher hint, that says all for the EK2 version of this fake:
Look at the area on my fake EK1 on the top center of the frame. This is where the ring for the EK2 version of that fake goes. I have had this fake in the seventies, actually it was my first EK1.
Cheers, Frank
Comment
-
reverse of EK1 fakeCheers, Frank
Comment
-
Frank is right. Franks cross has the same flaws in the beading as the 2 class one.
Peter WikingComment
-
Perfect Frank, without doubt from the same stable. Numerals are absolutely identical. I'll point Thomas to this thread.Originally posted by Frank HDear Gordon,
Pure fake for me. Not because it looks very different from my "B"-type Schinkel EK2, but because I have owned a fake EK1 many years ago with the exact same features. Look at the shape of the overall cross and details like the obverse date. And anotzher hint, that says all for the EK2 version of this fake:
Look at the area on my fake EK1 on the top center of the frame. This is where the ring for the EK2 version of that fake goes. I have had this fake in the seventies, actually it was my first EK1.Comment
-
Hi,
Please forgive me if i'm out of line but why is someone who writes books on iron crosses asking for oppinions
MerdockComment
-
a) Perhaps if you take the time to read the original post, you will see that I posted the pics and asked for opinions on behalf of Thomas, not on behalf of myself.Originally posted by merdockHi,
Please forgive me if i'm out of line but why is someone who writes books on iron crosses asking for oppinions
Merdock
b) Thanks to Frank's reply , Thomas can now see a known copy to compare his to.
c) Others on the Forum will also have a chance to compare and note the details for future reference.
d) If I had refused Thomas' request to post the images and insisted that all he needed was my opinion, there was no need for anyone elses, it would have been to say the least rude, if not arrogant.
Does that answer all your questions Merdock ?
Comment
-
I handled an identical one of these fake Ek2's last week, before I saw this thread. It really is a horrible repro.What you cant tell from the photo's is the weight of this fake it is so light in weight its ridiculous.
MacComment
-
Gordon; It almost looks like the core wasn’t designed for the frames.
Frank; The only time I have seen that 0 on the top arm is in 70’s ’57 EK pieces, can’t remember who it was but they used the same set of frames for both 2nd and 1st class pieces.Comment
-
Without wishing to needlessly sling muck, it appears that despite all the rather heavyweight 'negative feedback' above, this same cross is currently for sale on his site, described as 'rare and in condition 1',
That's ONE MONTH after being unanimously disapproved by the very people he requested opinions from!!....
And this because... 'Thomas doesn't want to offer anything suspect..........'
From the comments above, I think 'suspect' is an understatement.........
His perogative to disagree I guess, but if the intention all along was to sell it regardless, what exactly was the point of his exercise??Comment
-
I told Thomas I'd post the piece on the Forum for opinions. I didn't report back to him with the feedback as I assumed he'd read the thread himself. He may not have done, and assumed that when he didn't get direct negative feedback from me that all was okay, probably my fault for not pointing him directly to this thread at the time,so I have sent him a link to this thread now.Originally posted by Biro
I don't believe that Thomas would knowingly offer anything that was dodgy.Comment
Comment