Originally posted by Biro
View Post
Increasing categorization is, I agree, a good thing. It both reflects, and helps us refine, our knowledge of the subject. I would, however, suggest leaving the word "Schinkel" alone, and coming up with a name for the slimline examples within the category (Maybauers, Deumers, etc.). In fact, "Slimline Schinkel" isn't too bad.
As far as the grey area between what is and what isn't Schinkelform? Well Bernie innadvertantly nailed it in one, simply by looking at the top row of Bens collection (below) and realising that, compared to the bottom two rows, there was a distinct and easily identifiable visual difference that didn't fit with his perception of a Schinkleform cross.
Let's try one thing. Bernie -- without seeing the cores, can you identify which of these crosses is a Schinkel, using solely the visual definition? Why?
Trevor - your points and concerns are excellent and well justified - there's a whole group of Imperial framed 1939 EK's out there missing out on their rightfull notoriety and collectibility.
Interestingly, I don't think there's a whole group of Imperial framed 1939 EK's out there that has gone unrecognized. They are quite rare. If you can find another one, please let us know. I myself know only six Schinkels (
) :- Meybauer
- Deumer
- Schickle one-piece
- Juncker/AWS
- Unknown Maker (previously known as an "Intermediate" -- only EK2s known to me)
- Unknown Maker (In my opinion either an L/54 or an Assmann, and the ones that started this thread)
As for "Prinzen Spangen" -- good luck on that one. I tend to call them "Reduktions."
Comment