Early Rettenmaier Tombac Core EK1

[Douglas 5]

As to your question Stefan ... Ben's does !

Regards, Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Nice one Gordon . With a chip ..... yes it would match the Rettenmaier frame .
I knew there would more of those out there . Is your core magnetic ? The odds probably are that most unmarked early ones of this type would have a iron core .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Stefan :
I redid the comparison that shows the 2 crosses without question used different dies . They happen to have a 'T' in the frame( so does S&L).... but are not from the same die .

Regards Douglas

[Rich G]

Nice one Gordon . With a chip ..... yes it would match the Rettenmaier frame .
I knew there would more of those out there . Is your core magnetic ? The odds probably are that most unmarked early ones of this type would have a iron core .

Douglas

Douglas it is non-magnetic. Rich

[Douglas 5]

Amazing Richard :
... so that makes now 2 EK1s with non-magnetic core . In both cases obtained as a S&L cross . As more read this thread I am hoping that more may surface .
Wounder why the unmarked brass core Rettenmaier is not mentioned in the book ? There should be more than just our 2 out there .
I ask all readers to check their S&L EK1s .

Regards, Douglas

[Robert T.]

Hi Douglas,

Would you please post a high resolution photo or scan of this portion of your cross.

Thanks,
Robert


[IMG][/IMG]

[Douglas 5]

Have to retake some of that corner again and reset lighting ... just one of that arm from the side I have right now .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Robert ;
A new closeup of that arm tip of the brass core early Rettenmaier EK1 .

Douglas

[Robert T.]

Robert ;
A new closeup of that arm tip of the brass core early Rettenmaier EK1 .

Douglas

Hi Douglas,

Your cross compares well with the early (5tefan) frame that we were discussing here: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=550774&page=3

Thanks, Robert

[Douglas 5]

Hi Robert .:
First off ... your last posted front comparison is correct ... the 2 early non-magnetic early EK1s match and I knew that they did and had to.
The one thing I was questioning and opposed to was 5tefan calling it a S&L based on just the 'T-frame' and pin set likness alone . The T-frame feature is something most S&L crosses have and in this case only indicates the supplier of the working master for Rettenmaier , who then produced themselfs all of their own working dies .
As Maerz and Stimson point out in their book the other constantly re-appearing die flaws on all Rettenmaier crosses which identify them as such .
No S&L cross has these other specific bead features at all - marked or unmarked .
As correctly noticed and you pointed out - die flaws and bead wear variations . The L59 crosses not having the same early bead/die cracking . A sure indication that more than one working die was being used . Each working die over time will or can develope their own unique wear and die flaws in addition to the ones they got off the master .
As shown in post 10 are the other 2 crosses a mm 16 EK2 and the L59 EK1 and in post 6 the unmarked early Rettenmaier --... I used
one of the 3 flaws that The identifies a cross as a Rettenmaier . I could have used the other 2 flaws but this one was the easiest to see and photgraph .
Even though on these unmarked early crosses (regardless of core type)- the 'T-frame' and pin would at first glance point to S&L ! I can only contribute
this to S&L supplying Rettenmaier with a master die so they could get their own cross frame production going independently .
The cores seam to be from S&L and the pins sets - well they used anything they could get - including from S&L as can be seen on these early crosses .

Douglas