EK II 1939 1st type clasp

[Flemming]

I have tried to combine the 2 spanges into "one" here:

What do you all think?

/Flemming

[Flemming]

The "1" in the date bar.

Flaw on the bottom of the first spange shown in this thread and the differences in the pebbling can be seen here.

So is it another or reworked die?

/Flemming

PS I know I still lack a lot, before I can make those super nice photos I see others do, when they compare two items.

[Peppe864]

here are some new pics, still trying to work out the settings on my new camera, but these are at least a bit better than the first ones. Easier to get good shots when you remove the ribbon.

Still having some issues with the focus function.....

[Peppe864]

2

[George Stimson]

You bent the prongs?!!

[Flemming]

You bent the prongs?!!

I wouldn't dare to do that either

They would break reather easily...I would advice you to never do that again.

/Flemming

[Peppe864]

You bent the prongs?!!

Yes I did You have to be very careful with any type of prongs, I made a couple of mistakes in the past........

[Douglas 5]

Peppe:
In Hockey you would have been tossed out - game misconduct - ' unnecessary bending ' ... or in soccer = a red card !
Never bend those prongs... rather sacrifice the ribbon as a last resort !

Hint for taking pictures of small areas or objects: As most average digital cameras have only 1 focus area or setting ....which to the screen size is fairly large and will incorporate the background beyond the object itself - average focusing ..... hit and miss to capture small areas .
For focusing purpose - when you can - place a card or sheet of paper- something rigid- behind it or just above it for the camera to focus on first - then remove it and finish depressing the picture button . Fooling the camera with an exstended plain focusing area - so the camera does not need to average any depth differences . One of the reasons mid to high end digital cameras once again have come out with exchangable- manual/automatic rotery fucus real glas lense attachments .... so you can chose what you want to focus in on .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Well done Flemming with your closeup comparison . There are deffinatly 2 different dies here . A EK2 Spange just like Peppe's has been posted here befor by member Milton .

Douglas

[Peppe864]

Peppe:
In Hockey you would have been tossed out - game misconduct - ' unnecessary bending ' ... or in soccer = a red card !
Never bend those prongs... rather sacrifice the ribbon as a last resort !

Hint for taking pictures of small areas or objects: As most average digital cameras have only 1 focus area or setting ....which to the screen size is fairly large and will incorporate the background beyond the object itself - average focusing ..... hit and miss to capture small areas .
For focusing purpose - when you can - place a card or sheet of paper- something rigid- behind it or just above it for the camera to focus on first - then remove it and finish depressing the picture button . Fooling the camera with an exstended plain focusing area - so the camera does not need to average any depth differences . One of the reasons mid to high end digital cameras once again have come out with exchangable- manual/automatic rotery fucus real glas lense attachments .... so you can chose what you want to focus in on .

Douglas

Thanks for the photo pointers...

[tinmantis]

love those pics Flemming!
yes, two dies so far: a 'fat vein' and a 'thin vein' I call them...
regards
jon

[Flemming]

I just have a hard time to believe in two dies for this early type.
IMO they were now awarded for a really long period.
And why the change, I have not seen a really failed type on these 1st pattern spange.

Only reason I can comeup with, would be they (Juncker) wanted to change how the pebbling looked like. But even that doesn't sounds really plausible to me.

I am still wondering why there would be 2 or more dies for this spange.

But I agree, but types looks nice.

/Flemming

[streptile]

I am still wondering why there would be 2 or more dies for this spange.

In my opinion both these dies do not have to be Junckers.

Remember how close (almost identical!) the Meybauer SP1 is to the Wernstein SP1. If we never found a marked Wernstein, we would assume they were two different dies from the same manufacturer, and wonder why Meybauer needed two dies. Some of us would wonder if one was a clever fake:


Scans taken from Maerz/Stimson The Iron Cross 1. Class 2010 -- the indispensable reference for EK and Spange collectors.

The same is true of a standard Juncker EK, and a standard W&L EK. They are almost identical. But they are not. They are different, probably from the same master engraver, and both perfectly authentic. But from different makers.

The same can also be said for other Spangen, and other EKs. For example, I think it would be quite surprising if all the so-called Boerger 1. Pattern SP2s were all made by Boerger. How many different dies are there now, Jon? Three?

So I think we have to keep in mind that just because a design is 95% the same, it doesn't necessarily mean the same maker produced it. Thus I think we could be looking at a 1. Pattern W&L Spange here, or perhaps a 1. Pattern Godet Spange, who knows? I'm not saying that I necessarily believe this to be true, but I also don't necessarily believe these have to be from the same manufacturer.

[tinmantis]

yes, early 'L/57's have a handful of dies

insane ramblings like this:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...8&postcount=86
and
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...8&postcount=87
make me feel better about slight differences in dies, within certain makers
masters, hubs, working dies...?
regards
jon