2 early Deschler ek1

[ben bijker]

Same type of ek, both have a non-magnetic core.
Size and thickness appear to be the same, but there is a difference in weight of
4 gr.....

Both crosses are 3-piece constructed.

[ben bijker]

pics may be handy as well ...

[Wik]

Nice crosses Ben! Are these yours, or some you are considering?

Could it be simply different materials used for the cross? For example cross one is made of silver while the 2nd is a nickel alloy? I don't know if these specific metals are in use, just tossing them out as an example.

Of course same could be about the cores as well, right?


Ryan

[Woolgar]

Two super examples Ben

Nick

[Oberbootsmann]

Hello. I'm absolutely new to EKIs and medals in general but I've spotted a difference between those two crosses which I don't understand as they have the same maker:

Why does the cross on the left side have painting on the outer frame and the other one not?

Regards

[Douglas 5]

2 interesting Deschlers :
The weight differance is alot .
I can see some differances in the 2 crosses that could account for some - and possibly for all of the weight differance . Not one item makes up the 4 grams but would think overall accumilative .
The left one could have been silver plated and coated with lacque - which now has turned black . Both frames/backs appear to be Ni-alloy base .
The one pin is Ni-plated brass - worn spot . Are both anchors and pin the same thickness ??
Front and back planchet thickness would be another source - but you have determined that both have the same 'overall thickness' . There could be a differance in the indevidual halfs though . Just for example : A EK1 with a 1mm front frame and a 1.5mm back plate will be a bit heavier than a cross with a 1.5mm front frame and a 1mm back plate .
And then we have the core materials and thickness that could make up a different weight . ... the thickness of the core would be the main contributing factor .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

OBM :
The frame on the left one is not painted but plated or lacquer coated that has gone black . I have a few that way .

Douglas

[ben bijker]

<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> @Ryan:
Thanks, they are nice indeed.
Both ek’s are from my collection.
Since both ek’s are from the same (most likely) short period I presume the materials are the same.

@Nick: thanks, you don’t see these ek’s to often, and as a Deschler-buff, wel….

@Oberbootsmann: I think Douglas has explained that, it looks like very thick black paint with a lot of small airbubbles , so something didn’t go as it was supposed to.
But as long as it is transparent, you won’t see it.

@Douglas: you may bre right on the thickness of the backplate.
For the rest the construction appears to be the same, as well as the materials.
Both crosses have a silver-plated core, so it will be hard to explain the difference.
4 gr is about 20% difference in this case….
I will measure them withh calliphers soon.

ben

[Douglas 5]

Ben : As one example or maker I have - some Junckers display this peculier feature on their early 3 flaw EK2s . ... where on one and the same cross - 2 different thick planchtes were used . Being pictures I took with an old camera - I ran a white line on the seam . Two strike batches produced on different planchet thicknesses - leading to this assembled combination .
One picture not marked .

Douglas

[DaveNZ]

Nice crosses Ben

Just curious: does this shed any light on whether my possible Deschler is original or not?

here's the thread

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=283270

cheers

dave

[ben bijker]

Hi Douglas,

I see what you mean, will check them out.
A thicker backplate will make some difference indeed.

@Dave: thanks!
Since your cross apperas to be the same, you have a nice, early Deschler as well.
A pity that it has been (half) castrated......

[fabri-online]

Hi Ben

lovely Deschlers ! a difference of 4 grams is really too much to have same material used for the core.

Hello Dave

but are you really not convinced yet ?? what do you let unsure ?

[Douglas 5]

The weight differance of 4 grams is possible between the 2 crosses .

We are looking at accumilitives amounts from differant parts of the cross --> .... like thinner back plate , thinner pin and possibly differant core material that even may be 'hollow' struck . ... which in the end just could make up that differance .

Douglas

[DaveNZ]

but are you really not convinced yet ?? what do you let unsure ?

hi guys

well just that in my thread you came to the conclusion it was a post war cross

however Ben sees it as an original

thats why I am still unsure whether to keep it as an original or throw it out

cheers

dave

[fabri-online]

The weight differance of 4 grams is possible between the 2 crosses.

Maybe 4 grams looks really a low weight but when a cross weights about 20 grams, as these Deschlers are, it 's the 20% of its entire weight !
and if we talk just about the core, difference in weight could be the 50% or more, so in my opinion material is surely different.

ok Dave. Honestly I don't see any evidence of a post war EKI so my opinion remains the same, that it 's a contemporary Deschler.