Here is a side by side. George´s known Floch EK1 to the left and the posted EK2 to the right. Note the corner detail.
I would say they are dead on the same.
Cheers.
Peter Wiking
I would say they are dead on the same.
Cheers.
Peter Wiking
-
Last edited by Peter Wiking; 09-18-2004, 11:26 AM. -
"I would say they are dead on the same."
They are.GeorgeComment
-
Peter,
Does George's EKI have a die flaw on the right arm of the swaz?? Is that also present on the EKII?? Might just be my eyes, but sure looks like a raised area at the end of that arm.Comment
-
Jim,
If you're talking about the little bump at the base of the end of the swaz arm, it apparently did not exist on the "49" EK 2 that I had.GeorgeComment
-
OK, remember I'm a novice here. Are we saying these 2 pieces, shown side by side in Peter's photo came from the same dies? Frames and cores??
I'd like to see another side by side, showing all four inside corners and the swaz. Even taking into account wear, the beading on George's looks better, deeper grooves, but George's looks older. Does that make sense?
Anyway, just like to see another comparison. Not arguing, wanting to learn, because I probably would have bought this cross.Comment
-
When I still had my "49" EK 2 I compared it with my "L11" EK 1 extensively with a loupe. The frames and cores were absolutely identical, no question or doubt about it.GeorgeComment
-
Note the coils (((((. Look at the corners. It is the same design.
Cheers.
Peter WikingComment
-
Thanks Peter. Nice photos, or should I say set up.Comment
-
For what it's worth, these were discussed awhile back...
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ighlight=felix
I came across one of these '49' marked EK2s with packet and tissue awhile back at a military show in Nashville. It just didn't look right to me - especially the finish.
Calvin-Calvin Hall, repressed Appalachian American.
Desperately seeking a Juncker Knights Cross ribbon loop and well used Knights Cross ribbon!!!Comment
-
here my flock ek i posted a while ago!Comment
-
and heres a close up of the corner! it looks as if it mactchs up with the one already posted!Comment
-
Hi,
I turn the computer off for a while and look what happens!
To answer one of Trents questions, the packeted cross was originally purchased in Feb 1987 at a Melbourne militaria fair - I can't make out the dealer's signature on the receipt (initials ? P.S. ?) but the two other items I bought from him that day (both KVKs) are original.
I won't go into all the details of the sale to Trent (he has my word on a money-back guarantee) only to say that some questions were raised during the sale and that the link mentioned by Calvin was highlighted (I had missed that thread). I had some offline discussions with one of the contributors to that thread who seemed to be having second thoughts about some of the conclusions - maybe I misinterpreted him and if so, I apologise to him and to Trent as I would not have sold the cross knowing it was definitely bad. To me, the cross looks good, however so do the Floch EK1s. Dez's points on where Floch got his dies from becomes relevant - did he obtain genuine JFS wartime dies? In which case wartime JFS crosses would be indistinguishable from his current repros.
For Marcus, your comments on packets/cases are always welcome! From memory, there was no response to black light. If I get hold of the packet again, I will double check.
A question for George. How can a double-sided EK2 have the same core as a single sided EK1? I am not saying this is not possible (I have a theory) but would like to hear your thoughts.
Trent, I'll be home today (Sunday), tomorrow and probably Tuesday if you want to wander down for a refund.
Regards
Mike KRegards
Mike
Evaluate the item, not the story and not the seller's reputation!
If you PM/contact me without the courtesy of using your first name, please don't be offended if I politely ignore you!Comment
-
"A question for George. How can a double-sided EK2 have the same core as a single sided EK1? I am not saying this is not possible (I have a theory) but would like to hear your thoughts."
By using the same obverse die to strike both cores (with a reverse "1813" die for an EK 2 and a "flat" reverse die, and possibly thinner piece of iron, for the EK 1), wouldn't they be identical?GeorgeComment
-
George
Would that not leave trade marks?. All the so called flocks that I have looked at to date, are very close in match, but it appears that their are very fine mismatch traces as well, for example it was pointed out that the cross you posted had a slight bump on the right hand side of the swas, and the one I posted does not, I am throwing questions at you here because I am learning as well, but it is something that had and is noted about your post?.
Also in the four inner corners on the beeding there are slight flaw changes, is this the casting or are they different all together?.Comment
-
I don't know what you mean by "trade marks." As for the swaz flaw, that is on a Floch EK 1 that I still have in hand, and it could easily be accumulated paint. As for the inner corner flaws, they might appear different in the pictures, but when I had the "49" EK 2 in hand it was absolutely, unquestionably identical to the "L11" EK 1. That was enough to make me uncomfortable about the EK 2 and send it back.
If you want to believe that these "49" EK 2s are good, then that is your opinion and your right. And you wouldn't be alone, either! But I don't think they are. They are just too similar to a known fake. (Now, did Floch do his restrikes with real "49" dies post-war? We don't know. That would be an explanation, though. I wonder if anyone can come up with a "49" EK 2 with provenance?)GeorgeComment
Comment