The Assmann Schinkel
Recently, a few people have asked about the EK Schinkel that has come to be called an Assmann. In particular, an EK1 was posted here. In that thread, the question was raised: how can we say who the maker is? I also received a PM from a fellow collector, to whom I promised a longer explanation "one day soon." This may not be soon, but here is a brief explanation of why I believe the maker of this cross, seen here below in its EK2 form, to be Assmann:
A 1914 Type
The first thing I noticed when pondering who the maker of this cross could be is that there existed 1914 versions that are very clearly made by the same manufacturer:
Holding these crosses in your hand, one next to the other, there can be, quite simply, no question that they were made by the same manufacturer -- one with a 1939 core, and one with a 1914 core. However, since few of you reading this will be holding them as you do so, I will detour a bit to demonstrate this fact.
For one thing, the frame is the same:
The measurements are the same.
The 1914 EK2 (top) and the Schinkel EK2 (bottom):
The materials are also the same. The frames are some kind of non-silver alloy, and the cores seem to be thin stamped metal (these exist both magnetic and non magnetic in both 1914 and 1939 versions). Beyond this, the details of construction are the same. By this I mean, the soldering, the sloppiness of the frame strike, even the sloppiness of the design of the core details. The truth is, both these crosses are very poor quality -- the very bottom end of the spectrum of quality we see with Iron Crosses in our hobby.
The weight is virtually the same, and the minor differences can be attributed to the differences in the core designs, with the 1914 core having substantially more raised detail (oakleaves, crowns, cyphers):
This is especially notable since the weight is extremely low for an EK2. Most three-piece EK2s are around 19 or 20g. To find one under 16g is very unusual, and to find one below 12g. is, in my experience, virtually unknown -- except these two types. This simply can not be a coincidence.
Further similarities can be seen in the hardware choices available for the EK1 versions of this type. The 1914 version can be found with a fairly distinctive pin:
...or a two-piece screwback attachment:
The 1939 Schinkel versions both come fitted with the exact same types of hardware. These are both 1939 EK1s:
Of note is that the first class versions of this Schinkel also share roughly the same surprisingly low weight, measurements, etc., with their 1914 counterparts -- just exactly as the second class versions do.
As a side note, the design of the dates, while not identical (obviously, as they are different cores), are similarly weird. The tortured numbers, the high "3":
As I said at the beginning of this little comparison section, no one who holds these two crosses in their hand could possibly doubt that they are made by the same maker. They are so weird, so different from any other EK we know, and so similar to one another, that no other conclusion is possible. But I hope that by enumerating the similarities, and showing some specifications and photos, this has also become clear to those who do not themselves own both types.
The only real difference I have observed between the 1914 versions and the 1939 Schinkel versions is the fact that there exist real silver versions of the 1914 EK1 that I have not encountered with the 1939 Schinkels, all of which seem to be of non-silver alloy. Incidentally, I believe the 1914 type shown above to be from the 1920s or 1930s. Offering two different choices of material (silver or alloy) was fairly common in that period and can be seen in many catalogues, and indeed on many different EKs of the same type.
Maker
So, now that we have established that both these crosses were made by the same maker (if you're with me so far), the only question that really remains is, who made them?
My first thought was Friedrich Linden, Lüdenscheid. I believed this because I was in possession of a scan of the FLL catalogue that seems to show this exact core:
However, it soon became clear to me that multiple makers used this same core, and that a passing similarity to a catalogue photo would unfortunately not be sufficient to assign a maker with certainty.
One of the other makers, for example, who shows a very similar type of EK, is Assmann.*
As I looked closer at this photo, I noticed that the EK in the Assmann catalogue shows a very peculiar feature. The trimming die that cuts the outermost edge of the cross shape has slightly different proportions from the beading rim. This creates an interesting asymmetrical shape to one of the flanges. I will try to show what I mean with some montages below.
As can be seen, this same asymmetrical flange is present on both the 1914, and the 1939 Schinkel, versions of this cross. In fact this lack of symmetry between the beading rim and the outer edge of the flange exists (in both the catalogue photo and the actual crosses) in greater or lesser degrees on more than one arm:
This made me suspect even more that the cross in question could have been made by Assmann.
Now, at this point, I did not yet own the EK2 that I have been using in these illustrations. So I began looking for one so I could do some in-hand comparisons with my Schinkel. After about four months of constant looking on eBay and dealer's sites, my patience was rewarded with a cross that had the right core, the correct uneven flange, and the correct sloppy look. I bought it and waited, eager to test the weight, and make some precise measurements. When it arrived, the weight, the measurements, and the overall "feel" of the cross was a dead match to my Schinkel. This much, I expected.
What I did not expect was a mark. But sure enough, the ring was marked with a very small "A", the presumed Weimar-era mark for maker Assmann:
Now I became even more convinced. But there were a few more surprises yet.
While I knew what the photos in the Assmann catalogue looked like, I had so far neglected to actually read the text. As I mentioned before, this particular type of EK1 comes with two different types of fittings -- pinback and two-piece screwback -- and the 1914 versions come in non-silver alloy and silver. A quick look in the Assmann catalogue shows the types that Assmann offered:
We see they offer alloy or silver EK2s. For EK1s, the choices are also alloy or silver, pinback, or -- and this is specifically stated in the catalogue -- two-piece screwback ("Schraube und Platte" -- screw and disc). Two-piece screwbacks are not rare, but they are uncommon. As we have already seen, this cross under discussion here comes in alloy, silver, pinback, and two-piece screwback. For it to be a coincidence that a cross marked "A" matches the catalogue photo so closely, right down to the uneven flange, and also be offered specifically in silver, alloy, pinack, or two-piece screwback, is so unlikely that it borders on impossible, to my mind.
Conclusion
So, to sum it all up so far: I think that the evidence supports the conclusion that the 1939 Schinkel EK type, and the 1914 EK type, were made by the same maker:
Further, I think the evidence supports the conclusion that Assmann is the maker of the 1914 EK type:
Thus, I think the evidence supports the conclusion that Assmann is the maker of the 1939 Schinkel under discussion here.
I imagine some of the members here will not find this evidence sufficient. But I personally find the evidence compelling enough to call this cross an Assmann**:
Finally, it occurred to me that there was one more bit of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to consider.
As Dietrich Maerz has uncovered from archival sources, there were two EK makers who had their LdO licenses revoked for failing to meet the LdO quality-control standards: Petz & Lorenz, and Otto Schickle. But we do not know how many early makers of the EK never received a license due to poor quality. We do know, however, that Assmann sold (and maybe made) 1939 EKs in the early war years, but that no 1939 EKs have yet surfaced marked for Assmann. The most likely explanation for the absence of Assmann-marked EKs, is that Assmann never received an LdO or a PKz license to make EKs. Perhaps they never applied for one. But the more likely explanation is that their products were not up to the quality required by the PKz. Given these suppositions, in looking for an Assmann EK, we would be looking for a low-quality EK that -- because they were probably not made after 1940 -- would also be fairly rare, and would not be marked either with an LdO or a PKz number. The EK we are considering here is precisely this: a low-quality EK, that is never known marked, and that is quite rare.
I welcome your comments, and any debate.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long thread.
*Assmann used two different core types for their EKs. In their catalogue, the EK with the same core as my EK2 happens to be the EK1. But this is unimportant, as both cores were used in both classes for this type of EK.
** I do not discount the possibility that Assmann did not manufacture this cross, but rather bought it from another maker and marked (and marketed) them as Assmanns. To me, this is functionally the same as being an Assmann. It also seems possible to me that the FLL catalogue shows the same cross, and that FLL bought from Assmann, or that both Assmann and FLL bought from a supplier.
Recently, a few people have asked about the EK Schinkel that has come to be called an Assmann. In particular, an EK1 was posted here. In that thread, the question was raised: how can we say who the maker is? I also received a PM from a fellow collector, to whom I promised a longer explanation "one day soon." This may not be soon, but here is a brief explanation of why I believe the maker of this cross, seen here below in its EK2 form, to be Assmann:
A 1914 Type
The first thing I noticed when pondering who the maker of this cross could be is that there existed 1914 versions that are very clearly made by the same manufacturer:
Holding these crosses in your hand, one next to the other, there can be, quite simply, no question that they were made by the same manufacturer -- one with a 1939 core, and one with a 1914 core. However, since few of you reading this will be holding them as you do so, I will detour a bit to demonstrate this fact.
For one thing, the frame is the same:
The measurements are the same.
The 1914 EK2 (top) and the Schinkel EK2 (bottom):
- 42.4mm (h) X 42.6mm (w)
- 42.5mm (h) X 42.6mm (w)
The materials are also the same. The frames are some kind of non-silver alloy, and the cores seem to be thin stamped metal (these exist both magnetic and non magnetic in both 1914 and 1939 versions). Beyond this, the details of construction are the same. By this I mean, the soldering, the sloppiness of the frame strike, even the sloppiness of the design of the core details. The truth is, both these crosses are very poor quality -- the very bottom end of the spectrum of quality we see with Iron Crosses in our hobby.
The weight is virtually the same, and the minor differences can be attributed to the differences in the core designs, with the 1914 core having substantially more raised detail (oakleaves, crowns, cyphers):
This is especially notable since the weight is extremely low for an EK2. Most three-piece EK2s are around 19 or 20g. To find one under 16g is very unusual, and to find one below 12g. is, in my experience, virtually unknown -- except these two types. This simply can not be a coincidence.
Further similarities can be seen in the hardware choices available for the EK1 versions of this type. The 1914 version can be found with a fairly distinctive pin:
...or a two-piece screwback attachment:
The 1939 Schinkel versions both come fitted with the exact same types of hardware. These are both 1939 EK1s:
Of note is that the first class versions of this Schinkel also share roughly the same surprisingly low weight, measurements, etc., with their 1914 counterparts -- just exactly as the second class versions do.
As a side note, the design of the dates, while not identical (obviously, as they are different cores), are similarly weird. The tortured numbers, the high "3":
As I said at the beginning of this little comparison section, no one who holds these two crosses in their hand could possibly doubt that they are made by the same maker. They are so weird, so different from any other EK we know, and so similar to one another, that no other conclusion is possible. But I hope that by enumerating the similarities, and showing some specifications and photos, this has also become clear to those who do not themselves own both types.
The only real difference I have observed between the 1914 versions and the 1939 Schinkel versions is the fact that there exist real silver versions of the 1914 EK1 that I have not encountered with the 1939 Schinkels, all of which seem to be of non-silver alloy. Incidentally, I believe the 1914 type shown above to be from the 1920s or 1930s. Offering two different choices of material (silver or alloy) was fairly common in that period and can be seen in many catalogues, and indeed on many different EKs of the same type.
Maker
So, now that we have established that both these crosses were made by the same maker (if you're with me so far), the only question that really remains is, who made them?
My first thought was Friedrich Linden, Lüdenscheid. I believed this because I was in possession of a scan of the FLL catalogue that seems to show this exact core:
However, it soon became clear to me that multiple makers used this same core, and that a passing similarity to a catalogue photo would unfortunately not be sufficient to assign a maker with certainty.
One of the other makers, for example, who shows a very similar type of EK, is Assmann.*
As I looked closer at this photo, I noticed that the EK in the Assmann catalogue shows a very peculiar feature. The trimming die that cuts the outermost edge of the cross shape has slightly different proportions from the beading rim. This creates an interesting asymmetrical shape to one of the flanges. I will try to show what I mean with some montages below.
As can be seen, this same asymmetrical flange is present on both the 1914, and the 1939 Schinkel, versions of this cross. In fact this lack of symmetry between the beading rim and the outer edge of the flange exists (in both the catalogue photo and the actual crosses) in greater or lesser degrees on more than one arm:
This made me suspect even more that the cross in question could have been made by Assmann.
Now, at this point, I did not yet own the EK2 that I have been using in these illustrations. So I began looking for one so I could do some in-hand comparisons with my Schinkel. After about four months of constant looking on eBay and dealer's sites, my patience was rewarded with a cross that had the right core, the correct uneven flange, and the correct sloppy look. I bought it and waited, eager to test the weight, and make some precise measurements. When it arrived, the weight, the measurements, and the overall "feel" of the cross was a dead match to my Schinkel. This much, I expected.
What I did not expect was a mark. But sure enough, the ring was marked with a very small "A", the presumed Weimar-era mark for maker Assmann:
Now I became even more convinced. But there were a few more surprises yet.
While I knew what the photos in the Assmann catalogue looked like, I had so far neglected to actually read the text. As I mentioned before, this particular type of EK1 comes with two different types of fittings -- pinback and two-piece screwback -- and the 1914 versions come in non-silver alloy and silver. A quick look in the Assmann catalogue shows the types that Assmann offered:
We see they offer alloy or silver EK2s. For EK1s, the choices are also alloy or silver, pinback, or -- and this is specifically stated in the catalogue -- two-piece screwback ("Schraube und Platte" -- screw and disc). Two-piece screwbacks are not rare, but they are uncommon. As we have already seen, this cross under discussion here comes in alloy, silver, pinback, and two-piece screwback. For it to be a coincidence that a cross marked "A" matches the catalogue photo so closely, right down to the uneven flange, and also be offered specifically in silver, alloy, pinack, or two-piece screwback, is so unlikely that it borders on impossible, to my mind.
Conclusion
So, to sum it all up so far: I think that the evidence supports the conclusion that the 1939 Schinkel EK type, and the 1914 EK type, were made by the same maker:
- Same frame
- Same materials
- Same details of construction
- Same poor quality
- Similar and extremely unusual low weight
- Same measurements
- Same overall in-hand feel
- Same hardware options for EK1 versions (pinback and two-piece screwback)
Further, I think the evidence supports the conclusion that Assmann is the maker of the 1914 EK type:
- Similarity to Assmann catalogue photo
- Asymmetrical flange
- "A" mark
- Same hardware options as listed in the 1939 Assmann catalogue
- Same material options as listed in the 1939 Assmann catalogue
Thus, I think the evidence supports the conclusion that Assmann is the maker of the 1939 Schinkel under discussion here.
I imagine some of the members here will not find this evidence sufficient. But I personally find the evidence compelling enough to call this cross an Assmann**:
Finally, it occurred to me that there was one more bit of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to consider.
As Dietrich Maerz has uncovered from archival sources, there were two EK makers who had their LdO licenses revoked for failing to meet the LdO quality-control standards: Petz & Lorenz, and Otto Schickle. But we do not know how many early makers of the EK never received a license due to poor quality. We do know, however, that Assmann sold (and maybe made) 1939 EKs in the early war years, but that no 1939 EKs have yet surfaced marked for Assmann. The most likely explanation for the absence of Assmann-marked EKs, is that Assmann never received an LdO or a PKz license to make EKs. Perhaps they never applied for one. But the more likely explanation is that their products were not up to the quality required by the PKz. Given these suppositions, in looking for an Assmann EK, we would be looking for a low-quality EK that -- because they were probably not made after 1940 -- would also be fairly rare, and would not be marked either with an LdO or a PKz number. The EK we are considering here is precisely this: a low-quality EK, that is never known marked, and that is quite rare.
I welcome your comments, and any debate.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long thread.
*Assmann used two different core types for their EKs. In their catalogue, the EK with the same core as my EK2 happens to be the EK1. But this is unimportant, as both cores were used in both classes for this type of EK.
** I do not discount the possibility that Assmann did not manufacture this cross, but rather bought it from another maker and marked (and marketed) them as Assmanns. To me, this is functionally the same as being an Assmann. It also seems possible to me that the FLL catalogue shows the same cross, and that FLL bought from Assmann, or that both Assmann and FLL bought from a supplier.
seems that 90% of this mysterious cross is solved, or maybe solver.
Comment