EK2 Zimmermann

[Tony]

Just wanted to confirm this EK2 is an unmarked Fritz Zimmermann.

Thanks,
Tony

[Tony]

.

[Snni]

Yep, a nice Zimmermann.

[Woolgar]

textbook

[Danny70]

textbook

Zimmermann yes, but am I wrong in thinking that this would not be considered 'textbook'?
I believe that Tonys cross is the re-worked frame version with alternate core (slim dates).
Any marked Fritz Zimmermann I have seen has the differing core type.

Please correct me if I am wrong (it happens a lot!)
Regards - Danny

[Danny70]

Another 'standard' marked '6' plus the re-worked version on the right.

[Woolgar]

You have a point Danny I see what you mean

Nick

[fabri-online]

Hello
IMO Tony and Nick showed the early type of Fritz Zimmermann, they are normally unmarked, cross showed by Danny is the late that many times is marked 6.

[streptile]

Hello
IMO Tony and Nick showed the early type of Fritz Zimmermann, they are normally unmarked, cross showed by Danny is the late that many times is marked 6.

I agree

[Danny70]

Hello
IMO Tony and Nick showed the early type of Fritz Zimmermann, they are normally unmarked, cross showed by Danny is the late that many times is marked 6.

This has me a little confused....

Douglas did an in-depth study on these crosses a couple of years back and came up with the theory that the wider bead cross (the one with the slim date style and wider beading) is, in fact, a re-worked version of the known marked Zimmermann cross.
Thus making the slim date version the later type. (That's what I understood from it anyway).

Any thoughts?

See:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=249552

also:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=249017

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=264401

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=392684

[streptile]

I read through the threads but I could find no evidence that the "fat beading" frame is a reworked (i.e., later) version of the "thin beading" frame. All I saw was that some of the beading patterns matched from one to the other, which is also evident in your comparative illustration above. This can happen for any number of reasons.

I believe the "fat beading" cross is a 6., and that it is earlier than the other because it is often found unmarked and in early-style Packets. The chronology, of course, is speculative, but our experience does show that unmarked examples are often earlier.

I would be happy to hear more about the "reworked" theory, if there is more to be said, and of course I would be happy as always to learn something new.