Ek1 l15

[George Stimson]

It's our (Dietrich's and my) opinion that these were assembled post-war. Our book, therefore, does refer to them as "fake."

[Dietrich Maerz]

Actually it is an opinion based on an interview with someone who should really know ..... It is a fake!

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Dietrich,

are only the L15 marked crosses postwar or all other L15 marked awards too?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I really can't answer that since I was only asking regarding the the EK1.

[Andreas Klein]

Thanks Dietrich would be an interesting question for the next interview.

Btw did he only assemble wartime parts together (so that an L15 marked setup would be wartime) or did he use new produced parts?

[George Stimson]

"Actually it is an opinion based on an interview with someone who should really know"

Yes, it was not an opinion pulled out of thin air.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Btw did he only assemble wartime parts together (so that an L15 marked setup would be wartime) or did he use new produced parts?

In the beginning, left over parts were used, after they were used up gone, new dies were made.
This does not make an L15 marked setup "wartime" IMHO. The piece was produced after the war (with partially original parts - the stamp is not original) not for actual awardees but for selling to ever so receptive US dealers (who knew what they were buying...).

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

Thanks for the explanation Dietrich

[George Stimson]

For me, this is the only acceptable wartime Otto Schickle EK 1 (here in its marked, pinback incarnation).

[fabri-online]

Hello

I would like to know if possible which are the non contemporary parts on the cross that started this thread. Thank you.

[George Stimson]

Fabri

The maker mark is non-contemporary.

[fabri-online]

Hello

I would like to know if possible which are the non contemporary parts on the cross that started this thread. Thank you.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The solder!

[streptile]

Could you please say which page in your book calls this one a fake?

The only thing I see about this type is on p. 156. The conclusions there seem to be that the type is "questionable," although certainly not a Schickle.

[George Stimson]

Page 168.