What makes a Schinkel a Schinkel

[Bernie Brule]

I know the classic Schinkel form but in Ben's "meeting" of Schinkels, the crosses in the top row do not appear (at least to me) to have the classic Schinkel form. What makes them Schinkels?

[streptile]

Hi Bernie,

A Schinkel is: Any 1939 EK that was made with frames or dies left-over or adapted from prewar 1914-series EKs.

These tend to be smaller, and slightly differently shaped -- but are not always so. 1914-series EKs had a wide range of shapes and sizes, and therefore so do Schinkels.

In short, what makes a Schinkel a Schinkel is not its shape, so much as the origin of its frames.

You may hear some dissenting opinions following mine, and I'd be happy to hear them as well, but in my experience and firm opinion, this is the correct definition of a Schinkel.

Another way of saying this is, a Schinkel is not interesting because its shape or size is unusual, but because it is by definition an early, non-standard cross that does not conform to new design mandates (except possibly by happenstance).

[Bernie Brule]

I think I understand, Trevor: it's not so much the shape of the frame as the design of the frame, especially the beading. Right?

[Biro]

...You may hear some dissenting opinions following mine, and I'd be happy to hear them as well....

So be it!

I'm a little more old-school on this subject. I've noticed more and more new sub-categories creeping in to the identification of various iron crosses and spangen, and on the whole, I'm all for it!

The more we discover about manufacturing and manufacturers, the more we learn - and some crosses fully deserve there rightful new "sub-sets"..... but I have always struggled with the broadening of the 'schinkelform' description to include pieces whose frames are clearly of the proportions seen in 90% of third Reich produced crosses. That is, with arms that begin to 'flare out' almost immediately after leaving the centre of the cross (as can clearly be seen in the top row of Bens magnificent collection!).

Whether these 'new' schinkels use frames that can currently be attributed to WW1 manufactured crosses or not is irrelevant to me when used in conjunction with the word 'schinkel-form'.

And here's why....

I'm not sure who exactly first coined the term 'schinkel-form' - (it may well have been Gordon Williamson) - but the term - by it's very definition - means a frame whose form most closely resembles the shape of Karl Friedrich Schinkel's original iron cross design of 1813.

That 'form' - as can clearly be seen in the design of crosses from the 1813, 1870 and 1914 era's - is significantly more delicate than it's Third Reich produced counterpart, with arms that begin to 'flare out' much closer to the end of the crosses arms than the centre of the cross, and - with few exceptions - have significantly narrower rims.

To simply say 'it's a WW1 frame therefore it's a Schinkel-form cross", is not - in my opinion - the correct application of the term, because it's ALL about the shape and not the era...

That's been my take on it anyway, and while I admire the Top Row of Bens collection, I do not consider them to have the 'Form' worthy of the term 'Schinkel'.

But hey... Dosen't stop them being nice crosses!

Marshall

[StefanK.]

Bernie raises an interesting question. To me the term "Schinkel" is total nonsense because it is impossible to define it.
Neither Friedrich Schinkel's drawing of the EK 1813 nor (most of) the EKs of 1914 do resemble what we call "Schinkel" crosses.



Stefan

[streptile]

Hi Marshall,

First let me say how happy I am that this subject has been raised, since I think it requires real discussion. Second, I am pleased to have you as an interlocutor. I have a lot to say, but I will try to keep it as short as possible.

... I have always struggled with the broadening of the 'schinkelform' description to include pieces whose frames are clearly of the proportions seen in 90% of third Reich produced crosses... because it's ALL about the shape and not the era...

The difficulties of trying to tie the term Schinkelform to a specific shape are precisely illustrated by Stefan's comment just above mine. None of the crosses we collect really match Schinkel's design. So, if we think of a Schinkel that way, who determines what constitutes one?

I said (basically), "A Schinkel is any 1939 EK that was made with frames left-over from prewar 1914-series EKs." With that definition, a Schinkel has a specific set of criteria to which it must conform in order to be so called. Otherwise, it's a guessing game. Does it look narrow? Small? What about the degree or curvature of the arms? Or the flare? Where do you draw the line? Can a 1914 EK2 be a Schinkel? Are my 1870 EKs "Schinkels"? What about a 1939 L/56? It's got approximately the same shape as a traditional Imperial cross, after all. Unscrupulous dealers would (and already do) have a field day with exactly this type of ambiguity.

Whether these 'new' schinkels use frames that can currently be attributed to WW1 manufactured crosses or not is irrelevant to me when used in conjunction with the word 'schinkel-form'.

I disagree, and I've already stated a general reason for this: "...a Schinkel is not interesting because its shape or size is unusual, but because it is by definition an early, non-standard cross that does not conform to new design mandate..." Show me some evidence that a cross was an early piece, manufactured with old frames once used for the Kaiser's cross but with a newly designed core, possibly as a cost-cutting measure and in defiance of the new mandates, and I am interested. Such a cross has something fascinating to tell me about the economic, military, social, and political history of Germany in the shadow of World War II. But show me that its arms are not flared to the same degree as an S&L, and I'm not that interested.

To simply say 'it's a WW1 frame therefore it's a Schinkel-form cross", is not - in my opinion - the correct application of the term...

I just couldn't disagree more. "A 1939 EK with 1914 frames" is not an "application" of the term, it is the definition of the term. I believe firmly that, with the definition above, the term Schinkelform is being returned to its original meaning -- that is, narrowed -- rather than broadened. This contention, really, is the heart of what I am saying, so I will repeat it: "A 1939 EK with 1914 frames" is the very definition of a Schinkel.

To really discover the accuracy of this claim, though, we would have to look through older literature and read some of the earliest definitions of the term. I, too, tend to think of the term as originally Gordon Williamson's. I'm not sure if that's true, but perhaps a look through his early book would be instructive. When I have a minute, I'll do it.

One last word from me on the subject. Any Schinkel, under the original definition, should exist in a lopsided ratio to it's Imperial counterpart. I find this to be true in every single case of a cross that I consider to be a Schinkel -- in other words, there exist on the market (and in collections) many, many more crosses with the same frame and hardware as a Schinkel, but with 1914 cores, than the Schinkels themselves. This is not a test of a Schinkel to me, but it is a nice piece of supporting evidence.

[vonStubben]

Perhaps off subject somewhat, but I have been wanting to ask a question myself about my early Schinkle. It has a core which looks like it is copper where the paint has worn off or been removed (ie: the swastika and date). I had read in the past that they used other metals such as zinc, brass, and copper, to make these cores but when I put a magnet to it, it sticks???



Chuck

[DaveNZ]

Perhaps off subject somewhat, but I have been wanting to ask a question myself about my early Schinkle. It has a core which looks like it is copper where the paint has worn off or been removed (ie: the swastika and date). I had read in the past that they used other metals such as zinc, brass, and copper, to make these cores but when I put a magnet to it, it sticks???



Chuck

My understanding is that it is because he type of cross you mention has a copper (etc) coating on top of the original iron core; hence it still being magnetic

cheers
dave

[Biro]

Hey Trev...

First off - "interlocutor" - GREAT WORD! Had to look it up...

I have checked Williamson's book and from his use of references such as "the so-called Schinkelform"... and "sometimes offered by dealers as Schinkelform"... it appears the word may well have pre-dated him as a descriptor. I think it's highly likely the term may have evolved (as many do) from this very forum in the days when he was an active participant here and he's run with it in his book.

Whatever, suffice to say he dosen't actually 'nail' the definition in his book, but the inference is most definitely that HE considers the narrower flare of the arms (reminiscent of the intention of Karl Schinkel's early design) the key to it. Indeed, on page 51, he goes as far as to illustrate a 1939 EK2 with - quote - "...a degree of curvature to the arms which is sometimes offered by dealers as a Schinkelform, though it is not..."

He does not elaborate as to whether it is his perception of the curvature or the fact that it is not a WW1 produced frame that lead him to make such a definitive statement.

Anyway, I appreciate this is not about Williamson, but what exactly we consider to be Schinkelform, knowing what we know now. Is the term outdated? Almost certainly... but whether we can come up with a side by side comparison of Karl Schinkel's drawing and a 1939 EK in a WW1 frame that graphically illustrate the point is somewhat secondary to the "mental implication" of the term over the many preceeding years, which is - and you must concede this - that the arms of pre-WW2 crosses show, on balance, less immediate curvature than it's WW2 produced counterpart. It's a visual term and if it is to encompass ANY WW1 frame irrespective of the curvature, then a new term must be found.

In that respect, I think Stefan is probably correct and that the current term is a nonsense given the huge potential for minisclule variation.

Curvature - it appears - is most definitely in the arms of the beholder...

Marshall

[tinmantis]

just a thought...
easy to fake!

regards
jon

[Inspector Krogh]

Schinkel

Gentlemen,
Perusing my library, I find the following:
The earliest place I find the term used is in the book "Das Eiserne Kreuz 1813 - 1957" edited by Jorg Nimmergut, published in 1990. The description for plate 77 is as follows : Exemplar mit schmalem Hakenkreuz, auch als "Schinkel-Form" bezeichnet, so unmittelbar nach der Stiftung 1939 verliehen.

Adrian Forman uses the term along with "1st form" in the 2nd Edition (published 1993) of his "Guide to Third Reich German Awards and their Values" in his description of 1st and 2nd classes of cross. The first edition (1988) does not mention the variation.

My recollection of two German dealer catalogs (which I no longer have) of that time period did not use the term "Schinkel". One called it an "early form", the other a "first form".

G.

[streptile]

Hi guys,

Marshall, thanks for looking up Williamson's use of the term. I think you are undoubtedly correct that the term "Schinkelform," or "Schinkel" as it has come to be known, predated his writing. But I don't think it originated on this forum, because (as Greg also illustrated), the term was in existence in the very late 1980s (at the latest) since it was then that I first encountered it.

The oldest real description I have in any reference in my own library is this:

"The proposed design changes caused a vigorous but short-lived debate, as many in the medals manufacturing community believed that the style of the 1939 Iron Cross should remain the same as that of the earlier Imperial Iron Cross -- in overall shape and size at least. Tradition may have played its part in this view, but surely the fact that there were vast quantities of 1914 frame stocks still on hand played a much more significant role. It was argued that because the older Imperial frame dies were still available, a significant savings in both time and expense could be achieved if the manufacturers could produce the 1939 Iron Cross in the standard, traditional shape and size. Any change to the design of the frame would, by definition, require the creation of dozens of sets of new dies and render the already-existing stocks of older frames useless. In fact, several manufacturers did produce the 1939 Iron Cross 1st and 2nd Class in the old Imperial size and style, until these firms were eventually forbidden to do so. These "Imperial style" crosses are known today as "Schinkelform crosses," a name derived from the original designer of the Iron Cross."

This explanation is © 1994 by Andrew Biggers and Gordon Williamson in their book/pamphlet The Historic Iron Cross 1813-1957. In 1999, Stephen Previtera wrote this in The Iron Time (1st Ed. p. 240):

"A slimline version of the Iron Cross exists and is known today as the so-called "Schinkel" (named for its original designer Karl Friedrich Schinkel). The title is quite appropriate in a number of ways. All Imperial crosses followed the 1813 pattern closely. After the First World War, Imperial Germany ceased to exist, but stocks of old Iron Cross First and Second Class did not. When Hitler reinstituted the award in September 1939, manufacturers immediately jumped at the cost-effective solution of reusing old silver frames with a new iron core. Much to their dismay, the Führer wanted a bigger cross... Yet his orders had to catch up with the factories pumping out the old Schinkel form crosses. Thanks to the LDO, they did, and all production using old frames stopped. Today, when you find a rare Schinkel, treasure it. It was one of the few things done in Nazi Germany independent of Hitler's orders."

...the "mental implication" of the term over the many preceeding years, which is - and you must concede this - that the arms of pre-WW2 crosses show, on balance, less immediate curvature than it's WW2 produced counterpart. It's a visual term and if it is to encompass ANY WW1 frame irrespective of the curvature, then a new term must be found.

I basically agree with you that the term has come to be understood as a "visual term," a term used to describe any cross that looks like an Imperial-shape cross, but I think this is an unfortunate misunderstanding that has grown over time. To some degree, correcting this drift towards ambiguity -- the "mental implication" of the term -- is precisely what I am trying to do here. Thus, while I agree the term is inherently flawed because of the precise problem illustrated so well by Stefan, I do not think we need a new one. We've got the term "Schinkel," and in my opinion it means:

Any 1939 EK that was made with frames or dies left-over or adapted from prewar 1914-series EKs.

And (and here's the kicker), precisely because prewar Imperial EKs came in different sizes and shapes, so do Schinkels.

[Bernie Brule]

And (and here's the kicker), precisely because prewar Imperial EKs came in different sizes and shapes, so do Schinkels.

So this means that there are Imperial EKs that look more TR EKs matching these in Ben's pic. Can someone post one?

[George Stimson]

"So this means that there are Imperial EKs that look more TR EKs matching these in Ben's pic. Can someone post one?"

Would this be one?

[streptile]

Would this be one?

No, but nice photos of a nice cross

This one matches the rightmost three of Ben's: