Juncker Schinkel, different core-finish

[Tiger 1]

My definition of a Schinkel is a 1939 EK made with frames/dies that was made before 1918.

I believe the definition I was refering to was made in the quote above. By this definition all 1914 and earlier EKs would then be Schinkelform. Like I said.......Cool.

Getting back to some serious things to consider as not all has been considered.

I believe a very important issue has not been addressed, that being the original award pieces versus period copies or duplicate pieces as used on medal bars and displays. I believe the German term for these contemporary copies or duplictes is 'Schnallen Stucke'. If you are serious about dating these crosses then this issue of genuine versus period copy should also be discussed.

The 1870 EKII with the noncombatant ribbon is from my collection. The ribbon is properly dimensioned as a period 1870/75 example per the dimensions shown in Heyde. I know that ribbon has been with that particular cross since it was aquired back in the late 1940s by the collector who owned it before I bought it from him. This cross and ribbon is as I got it other than to remove it from the ring as to prevent any further damage and deterioration to the fragile ribbon where it was gathered or folded to go thru the ring. I know the provenance to this cross back to the end of WW2 with me being the third owner/caretaker of it since then. That's going back now 66 years.

Just some thoughts and more questions to add to the ongoing study of these intreging decorations.

All the best,

Tony

P.S. Just so some of you know that I'm not a wet behind the years newbie at this. I've been a dedicated collector of EKs for over 45 years. It's a great hobby and at times very interesting. All the best.

[streptile]

My definition of a Schinkel is a 1939 EK made with frames/dies that was made before 1918.

I believe the definition I was refering to was made in the quote above. By this definition all 1914 and earlier EKs would then be Schinkelform. Like I said.......Cool.

Hi Tony,

Carl's (Roglebk's) definition says plainly that a Schinkel is a 1939 EK, so I don't see how "all 1914 and earlier EKs" could be included ...

...a Schinkel is a 1939 EK...

[Tiger 1]

Trevor,

If you read the sentence as a whole the '39 EK is mentioned, as is the qualifier of frames made before 1918.

Now by connecting the dots in reverse, reverse engineering if you will, any frame made before 1918 would also be Schinkel form. It either is so consistantly or it's not. It's not like a frog that starts out,as a tadpole and evolves into the frog as time goes by.

Are we having fun yet?

All the best,

Tony

[streptile]

Hi Tony,

By this definition all 1914 and earlier EKs would then be Schinkelform.

You wrote that by Carl's definition, all 1914 EKs would be Schinkels.

But Carl's definition specifically states that all Schinkels are 1939 EKs.

I am positive that Carl meant quite specifically to write, "1939 EKs." So the notion that his definition would include 1914 EKs is not correct. I am just trying to be precise.

[Tiger 1]

Hi Tony,


You wrote that by Carl's definition, all 1914 EKs would be Schinkels.

But Carl's definition specifically states that all Schinkels are 1939 EKs.

I am positive that Carl meant quite specifically to write, "1939 EKs." So the notion that his definition would include 1914 EKs is not correct. I am just trying to be precise.

Trevor,

I wrote a bit more involved description than that.

I'm also trying to be precise. I formulated my thoughts based on the ground work that has been presented here by you and others. I'm not being arguementative just to be counter productive here. I'm presenting my thoughts because if the frames that are used in the '39 Schinkels happen to be the frames that were originally used pre 1918 then logic would require that those same frames also be Schinkels irregardless of what dates were on the cores.

Think about it a while. Facts are facts, and if the facts get in the way of a good theory then the theory needs some modification to include the facts.
All the best,

Tony

[streptile]

Hi Tony,

It took me some time for me to understand what you were saying.

I believe you are suggesting that it is not possible for a definition of "Schinkel" to be limited to 1939 EKs. And yet here, correct or incorrect, is one:

a 1939 EK made with frames/dies that was made before 1918.

Let me try to put it another way. According to this definition, a Schinkel must have two characteristics:

• a 1939 core
• a frame left over from the 1914 production run

If a cross does not have both those characteristics, it is not a Schinkel.

I believe you are stuck thinking of the shape of the cross, and not able to see this definition for what it is. Not every cross that has a specific shape is a Schinkel, according to this definition. Now, you may agree or disagree with it. But to suggest its internal logic is flawed is untenable. It is a perfectly logical definition that very clearly delineates what the characteristics of a Schinkel are.

But is it correct?

Let's hear from the fellows who coined the term:

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):

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.

Gordon Williamson slightly reformulated his words, but not his ideas, for his 2002 book, The Iron Cross of 1939, p. 61:

"On tenders being issued for the manufacture of the 1939 Iron Cross, a number of "prototypes" were manufactured. To allow for the use of existing die stamping tools for the manufacture of the frames for the Iron Cross, a variant was manufactured which utilized the the frame tooling for the 1914 EK2. All that was required was for a die to be cut for the manufacture of a new iron core piece with the 1939 features... Such so called "Schinkelform" crosses are often encountered with the 25mm-wide ribbon."

These authors and collectors invented the term -- or were among those who did. Every single one of these definitions says essentially the same thing. A Schinkel is a cross that has two characteristics in common:

• a 1939 core
• a frame left over from the 1914 production run

You may have another, personal definition of a Schinkel -- one that relies on the angle of the beading or the curvature of an arm -- I have no problems with that But let's not throw out the original one, as some of us find its precision useful.

[Montgomery Burns]

infact the 1942 LDO shape is technical just a SCHINKEL in the end ,,,correct Tony .

not designed by ( or fore ) LDO ,,,, ....but chosen from existent designs fore the need off consistency off the shape off the ww2 Crosses .
by the standard off the nazie's

the Les curved armed and bigger sized ek are known as far back as 1813 ....so to what,,, shape's,,,, SCHINKEL rely put his signature to in the end can be discussable so far ..





as fore the AWS ,,the design off the frame leans Moore to a classic LDO ( ,bulkier Les curved arms design ) in my ayes then anything else ..
as fore the AWS ek1 examples 1914 that design finds its origin as far back as ,,,1914 as marked AWS classics Crosses,, so far my observations ...


but enyway ,,,you have to give those design differences a name ..

and that is what has being done throe the years ..

only the details to them,, variate a little as collector sections ww2 and imperial 1914 ,1870,1813,,work separated from each other.

and sadly being combined as equals every time a book about Iron Crosses comes out ....

error's are eminent


that is how I see it

regards kay

by the way ..fore you Trevor ,,
at 1933,, 25000 fighters off the war 1864/66/and 1870/71 where stil alive ...

[kriztof]

I’ve been following this thread and the previous linked threads, very closely and with great interest. Firstly I would like to say that the research Trevor has done is exceptional and, as usual, well researched, I understand completely the points you’re making and I agree with them.

I also understand and respect the standpoint of Tony, a collector that has bought a lot to the community over the years.

The question seems to be, should we now refer to all the TR type EKs that incorporate either pre TR or pre 1918 frames as Shinkels?

The term “Shinkel” was given to a special type of unique cross that is easily identifiable at a glance and differs greatly from it’s larger TR cousins.
At first glance, the cross that started this thread in Ben’s collection appears to my eye’s as an ordinary Junker TR EK. Granted, as Trevor has made apparent in his research, all things aren’t equal and these frames can be tied to pre 1918 dies.
Should we then label these as Shinkels? It’s my firm opinion that we shouldn’t.
My reasons..

1. It would add confusion to the existing term for a Shinkel type cross as we’ve come to recognize them and possibly devaluate the term.
2. We already know that what happens on the forums doesn’t stay on the forums and as Trevor has pointed out with his dealer example, some are already calling every EK a Shinkel.
3. An inevitable price hike simply by adding the word “Shinkel”

I firmly believe that the TR models that utilize pre 1918 frames should have their rightful place in the spotlight, but under a different name. Let’s leave the name Shinkel for those cute, frosted, little Imperials with the wrong cores

Thanks to all who’s efforts are propelling the hobby forward (I didn’t forget you Kay)

[Tiger 1]

Eeeeyow. My eyes and what I have left of a brain hurt!

Just kidding.

Okay then. Let me see if I have this right.

The '39 Schinkels would be using a left over Imperial frame with a newly made '39 core. Got that. Now these Schinkels using the earlier frame would then be smaller in height and width dimensions than the larger 44 x 44 mm size specified for 1939 EKs. Does the actual measurements bear this out?

Conversely, when I can get my Imperial EKs out of the safe I will measure them to see if there are some that would be the 44 x 44 mm Third Reich size. The measurements would either bolster the premiss put forth here and elsewhere or it may present stark questions that would then need to be addressed.

As for my good friend Gordon, and I say that because he is, has been known to be wrong on ocassions in what he has written. To wit the Rounder KC being included as genuine in an earlier book. Perhaps the one used as the source of the definition here. (Sorry Gordon, no offense intended ;-) ).

Extablishing something new is not as easy as it seems at times, especially when unanswered questions still remain.

All the best for now.

Tony