Unmarked EKII - Maker Opinions

[Exile]

Hello all.

I just purchased this EKII from the e-stand in the last few days and would like opinions on a maker. I think I have narrowed it down to two possible makers and I am 95% sure I know which one it is... but would like a second/third/fourth opinion.

Apologies for the photo - I don't have the cross in my hands yet so I've had to re-use the original e-stand photo.

Thanks in advance ,

Matt.

[fabri-online]

Hi Matt
I think it 's an unmarked 11 or so looks to me from this pic.
Very nice with the glossy paint.

[Woolgar]

Here is my Grossman to compare

Nick

[streptile]

I think a better photo is needed, as I'm not sure it matches the "11". Could it be a "24"?

[Tiger88]

I think you're right Trevor. It has the really wide outer rims of a "24". Also the date and the öse seems to fit to this maker.

//Thomas

[Snni]

Could it be a "24"?

I think you are right. Good eyes, my friend

[Exile]

Hi All

Thanks for the replies.

Trevor - you are right about needing a better picture. I will post one as soon as I have the cross in hand. A picof the reverse will also help us a lot I'm sure.

In the mean time I'll throw in what I thought was the likely match based on the 'rounded' features, finish, and the date characteristics: 70 Lind & Meyrer

Comparison pic below showing cross against the Lind & Meyrer sample on the wehrmacht-awards.com list. The first '9' in the date seemed to be a better match than the first '9' in a 24 - but I could be mistaken.

Thanks,

Matt.

[fabri-online]

Now I think too probably it 's not a 11.
Maybe you all are right but I don't remember a 24 with the glossy paint. Naturally all can be.
Unfortunately I don't see the last pic with this pc..

[Exile]

So no thoughts on the comparison with the photo of the '70'?

[streptile]

Hi Matt,

I do not think it matches the cross you have shown -- it's close, but I think not close enough. So many of these makers look almost identical, that it's very important to see better photos of your cross before anyone will hazard more than just a guess.

Also, the cross you show (the "Lind & Meyrer") probably has a postwar stamp, or the "70" has been mis-read by someone. Marked crosses by Lind & Meyrer are not known at this time. I'd like to see the stamp on that "70".

The database here has some very good information, but also a lot that has been superseded by more up-to-date knowledge.

[Exile]

Hi Matt,

I do not think it matches the cross you have shown -- it's close, but I think not close enough. So many of these makers look almost identical, that it's very important to see better photos of your cross before anyone will hazard more than just a guess.

Also, the cross you show (the "Lind & Meyrer") probably has a postwar stamp, or the "70" has been mis-read by someone. Marked crosses by Lind & Meyrer are not known at this time. I'd like to see the stamp on that "70".

The database here has some very good information, but also a lot that has been superseded by more up-to-date knowledge.

Thanks Trevor. I will of course bow to your greater knowledge on all things EK - and indeed the '70' mark on the wehrmacht awards page does appear to be spurious. On closer look and comparing to the sample for '76' Ernst L. Muller it does look like someone has mis-read an incomplete '76' as a '7o'.





I would like to take the mark out of the equation and just look at the crosses and compare the cores though.

I have been playing with overlapping the images. Below are two versions: one with the estand cross as the 'top' layer; the other with the spurious '70' from the database as the top layer. The fit appears quite good.






And finally, now that I have a second sample (the correctly identified '76' from the database) I have been able to overlay that and again it appears to be a very good match.





I'd love any of your thoughts on this.

Thanks

Matt.

[streptile]

Hi Matt,

First, let me say that you will be a good addition to this forum. Anyone who takes the time to do independent investigations, overlays and graphic comparisons, is most welcome here in my opinion.

Now, about your cross. Yes, that's a "76" EK2 that was mistaken for a "70."

Your core may match the "76" -- I don't think so but I'm not sure. Better photos are needed.

But -- and this is a big but -- a matched core is not enough to say the maker is the same. Particularly with Imperial EKs, but also with 1939 EKs, cores were shared by many makers. One single example is maker "23" -- they had their own very nice core, but for some reason they also used Meybauer's cores a lot. The list goes on and on.

Many, many makers used a core we can call the "S&L style". Either the cores were supplied by, or the design was copied fairly identically from, S&L -- I personally don't know. "76" is one of these, in my opinion. So many of these S&L style cores are so similar, that simply having a core that looks the same as the "76" does not make your cross necessarily a "76."

To further complicate matters, many makers also used frames that are basically carbon copies of the S&L frame. So the details that set the cores and the frames apart from one another are so miniscule that I very seriously doubt that anyone can match your cross to a specific maker without much better photos of the front and the reverse. The reverse is crucial because for some makers, only the design of the "1813" makes it easily identifiable (e.g. 60).

There are some makers who are easy to identify because they used their own proprietary components: 2, 3, 11, 21, 23, 27, etc., etc. The list is long, but not endless. If your cross was one of these "easy ones," we would have gotten it by now. But it's not; it seems to use S&L style components. So we're just going to need very good pictures.

By the way, I still think it's a "24," who also used S&L-style parts, but left their frame flanges so wide that it makes it easier to ID them.

[Exile]

By the way, I still think it's a "24," who also used S&L-style parts, but left their frame flanges so wide that it makes it easier to ID them.

It has been a long time coming but I have an answer for you Trevor...

This photo removes all doubt as to the maker. Respect



Matt

[Douglas 5]

I was thinking along the line of a 24 ... because of the frame flange .

Douglas

[streptile]

I have an answer for you Trevor...
This photo removes all doubt as to the maker.

Nice, thanks