unmagnetic L/59

[5tefan]

EK2 with T-frame but with core according 333 fake

[5tefan]

T-frame comparison to EK2 T-frame but bad core!

[5tefan]

[5tefan]

My Opinion ;-)

Grüni's EK2 L/18 fake is an uncommon 333 fake combination = IMO original frame and ring with original L/18 mm, but wrong core according 333 fake!

EK2 with T-frame is an uncommon 333 fake combination = IMO original T-frame, but wron core according 333 fake!

333 fake core number design doesn't match to Ben's none magnetic Rettenmaier, to the none magnetic Rettenmaier from Sweden and to the none magnetic L/18 marked EK1 with early S&L Pin.

Common 333 Frame mistake does not match to the early Rettenmaier & L/18 Frame.

IMO the 333 fake core was changed, or the 333 faker has use original frames.

All shown EK1 are original imo ;-)

Hope the pictures support my opinion. I'm open for your interpretation

[fabri-online]

really great work Stefan
I have to dedicate more time to compare pics but I 'm thinking that the 333 faker could have used original Mayer frames...

[Douglas 5]

Stefan ; great comparison ... and it shows also everthing I did not want to see !
Regretable to me it also shows that Bens unm 'Rettenmaier' and the L/18 are post war production using actual original - very worn out - war time Rettenmaier die !! Bens unm '16' core for me matches the 333 front core exactly .... the wear is the only difference .
Non of the 3 Rettenmaier crosses I have show the beading side flaw but all other Rettenmaier characteristic features .
Again to me the flaw is an one arm bead ' re-juvination ' attempt that went bad - due to allignment problems . As soon as one has either a bad core or frame ... the cross is bad ...EK1 or EK2 . The time line - 2 years apart - and dropped 333 just an attempt to 'improve' the fake - based on the feed back .
I see also by the use of 'more' reconnaisable original parts trying to draw attention away from the bead flaw that cannot be disguised in any way or fashion !

Douglas

[ben bijker]

Stefan has done a great job with these very clear close-ups.
IMO both L/18 and unmarked L59 are wartime-originals.
Rettenmaier made a lot of ek's and must have had several dies.

My guess is that some dies survived the war and are used by fakers to make new crosses.

@Douglas: while the font of the unmarked L59 and the fake are very similar, the numbers of the fake are flat and fat.
Re-worked die?
Must be hard to alter a hardened steel die.

I also would expect more of them to pop up.
In this thread are 2 Rettenmaier and apart from this L/18 I have only seen Stefan's L/18.
It doesn't make sense to make new cores and hardware if you put so little fake crosses on the market.

The 333 fake frames are either made from the original dies or from a pile of left-overs.

[Douglas 5]

Ben :

I have gone over your core and the 333 a few times - ending up ever time unfortunatly with the same results ; at first glance they appear to be different ... but are actualy still from the same die .

I am very sorry Ben ... I wish they were 'realy' different .

The number of these are low as they would be very labour intensive and as a trail .... waiting to see if some one catches it !!! This exsplains the low existing numbers and mixed in other partial original hardware variations . The makers of the 333 are learning and using an altered core EK1 version which eliminates the easy to catch chipped 1 on the reverse of EK2s !!

In the early 40s technoligy was quit different than to today ... where very fine work can be accieved . What the nacked eye does not notice .... but magnification does .
The pictures below demonstrates the connection of the 2 cores !!

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Closeups :

[streptile]

Hi Stefan,

Great photos, great comparisons.

All I can say for sure is that if the "Rettenmaier" EK1s are good, then they are made by B.H. Mayer and not Rettenmaier, and Grüni's L/18 EK2 is also good.

These crosses all use the same frame and core, after all, and the L/18 mark is the same as -- or very close to the same as -- the real Mayer mark.

But why would Mayer use a different core and frame halfway through the war, then revert back to their traditional frame and core? And why would this frame and core also be used by the 333 fakes?

In my opinion all the crosses shown here and elsewhere with the strange flaw on the side of the frame are probably fakes.

They are turning up much too fast for my taste also -- we've seen a few show up just in the last decade -- and especially in the last few months. But before that? Nothing.

Sorry, but I am not convinced.

There's one just posted on the eStand today for sale, by the way. Three in the last two months? Too many, all at once:

[Douglas 5]

More of a repeat ... and join also the thought of post war obtained worn original dies and parts to creat some of these . The beading side flaw to me as well indicates post war production .
Rettenmayer did have and used right from the start early on the same die all the way through the war . Did they have more than one die ? .... I doubt very much myself . ... in any case Bens brass cross does not match the one I have .

Douglas

[5tefan]

Hello ;-)

I'm back from vacation ;-) I'm wondering, that this item is still open, after two weeks holiday. Maybe, I have to drill much more deeper

I'm looking forward to get some assumption from our EK1 book writer

With the second type of the unmarked EK2 333 fake with T-frame, I was thinking that the doubts were destroyed, that the EK1 are 333 fakes, due to the number design is not flat!

IMO all EK1 are original ware time EK1. The number design of all 333 fakes are flat! And the faker need not to have the original tools. It could be possible, that they have found parts from the unknown 2nd

Tier supplier. That the reason for that they could not create EK1 with the different pin setup.

According Ben: It would not make any sense, that the faker, copy different pin setup!

IMO the 333 faker had only a lot of original frames (from early 2nd Tier supplier) which have ship there frames to L/18, L/59, L/13, L/16 and L/19 include stamped L/18 rings and w/o mm rings!

2nd: The faker use the 333 mm to give us a chance to identified this fake special the RS 1813 mistake (broken 1 nose) not to destroy the EK1 marked.

Otherwise all T-frame L/13, L/59, L/16 and L/19 EK1 needs to be rate as suspect too!

This could be a big crash on the EK1 sector!!!

Maybe, it would be helpful too, if Douglas 5 could demonstrate & allocate, why all the EK1 are Post War EK1.

Let me see, if you or I can cut the Gordian knot

[Douglas 5]

Hi Stefan ;
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing .
In questing ONLY are cross frames that have the partial offset beading - as on333 marked crosses - on the lower arm with different cores and pin sets .
Were these frames produced war time or later ?
Personaly I have say it something post war made/assembled . They just now suddently start showing up .
Just the fact that this frame has this strange feature on one arm alone points to an 'abbondoned' 'rejuvination' attempt. An actual manufacturer would not have done that to just one arm . Being that late in the war ... just kept on
using it until the die shattered all together .(Maybauer EK2s good example) .
I have to say a post war - attempted to rejuvinate - original die with obtained various original and possibly self made look a like cores and pin sets . Fakers attempt to push crosses with more original parts without the broken nose 1 and 333 on the ring .
Hoping that we would accept the frame this time around !! They cannot get any more 'spare' original frames and have to continue producing the flawed frame with anything they now make ! Trying their best to create doubt and acceptance .... if this offset beading is the only thing that does not match !! Evolution of a faker !
Now - non of the Rettenmaier crosses I have have this bead flaw .
Non of the S&L crosses or BH Mayer crosses have that bead flaw .

Befor I forget ... I would like to ask if you could not to use the exspression " T- frame " ... makes me think of Steak !
It is just a stratigicly placed 'connecting bead' .

Those who have the EK1 book please have a look at page 363 to 365 . It shows most of the very important identifying features of the Rettenmaier die .
The frame is the most important feature that identifies an unmarked cross , then core .... as with this maker pin set - anything they could get their hands on . The book demostrates the main (own) Rettenmaier cross/die combination . I am sure the authors of the book have reliable proof to this . Checking all marked and unmarked Rettenmaiers I have ... all demonstrated features are present .
An unmarked cross is a very 'iffy' thing to work with . I would like to see a closeup of Ben's unmarked - bead flawed - Rettenmaier to see if it has the chip at the corner . And yes the question ... did Rettenmaier obtain/buy frames from other maker ? .... possibly ... but don't know .
Rettenmaier did make crosses right from the start . Looking at the L59 marked crosses the die looks still fine . If - it were a war time die modification by Rettenmaier ... this would have happen closer to wars end . This would have produced a bland frame .
Ben's cross has a possibly silver plating on it ? Should not have that at all .

Regards, Douglas
(Plain Douglas ... the 5 was only necessary at time of registration as Douglas 1 to 4 were already in use )

[streptile]

Let me see, if you or I can cut the Gordian knot

Nice

Here is my reason for doubting these crosses:

We have three different kinds of crosses discussed here:

1. Textbook L59
2. Textbook L/18
3. "Odd Flaw" types (the ones in question here)

The Odd Flaw types are all the same: they all use the same frames and cores. All cores are non-magnetic. They are either fakes, or made by B.H. Mayer or Rettenmaier.

But here is the big problem:

Neither Rettenmaier or Mayer ever used this frame or this core during the war that we have seen, except (supposedly) on this type. But the makers of the 333 fakes did use this frame and core.

So what we have here are some EKs that use the same core and frame as the 333 fake, but not the same frame and core as the makers they look like, or are marked for.

I think to argue from these facts that these are legitimate wartime variants is next to impossible.

Combined with the fact that these are showing up in numbers only recently, I don't know how you can have confidence in them.





We all know that fakers are perfecting their craft daily. The 333 would have been a devastating fake, accepted by collectors and sold by dealers to this day, if not for the spurious markings. Do you really think it is not possible for fakers to improve on that near-miss?

[Snni]

We all know that fakers are perfecting their craft daily. The 333 would have been a devastating fake, accepted by collectors and sold by dealers to this day, if not for the spurious markings. Do you really think it is not possible for fakers to improve on that near-miss?

Good point, Trevor..