EK1 Brass Core Rare?

[5tefan]

This debate -- which has played out ad naseum in other threads and on other forums -- will not be solved until some new evidence appears.

Stefan has some good points, but the bottom line for me is that this type of cross has more ticks in the fake column than the real column. If someone discovered a cross with a Floch frame and core, but a variety of authentic S&L hardware and marks on the back, would we call it authentic? That's a directly analogous hypothetical situation.

To me, this is a questionable-at-best postwar parts cross until someone can demonstrate otherwise.

Hi Trevor,

I registrade your doubts and I know you have a very big knowlege about 1914 and 1939 EK1 and I'm wondering that you are not nominated as EK1 Expert. But in this case I'm not in line with your opinion. What do you else need to convince you? I have two recipient names incl. the information that they are certified 1942!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[streptile]

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for your nice words. Experts do not always have to agree

Hi Trevor, What do you else need to convince you?

I've always said precisely this:

Show me this frame used with a standard B.H. Mayer core and pin, and I will believe.

Best,
Trevor

[5tefan]

...Show me this frame used with a standard B.H. Mayer core and pin, and I will believe.
...

Hi Trevor,

maybe I will never fulfil your request to provide you the needed confidence level by showing you the Early Mayer-Frame with the Mayer Core and Pinsetup! Pinsetup should be no problem - see the following link
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=660381

I will do the following now. I will show you some more BHM diversity.
And ask you finally, why this variant is in your opinion damn as fake?

This question should not only reserved for Trevor and I hope there are some more opinion At the moment I'm feeling like don quichotte is fighting against windmills! Hope there is someone supporting me Why it is not possible that BHM use more than one tool - see KVK1 different Core Design?






FAKE / Outlaw ?

[streptile]

Stefan,

With all due respect for your tireless work cataloging and sharing superior images of EK1s, and your conviction that this piece is authentic, I must simply disagree.

I really can't say any more than I've said in many other threads. The frame doesn't make sense in the timeline. I've expanded on this at great length elsewhere, so I'll just copy (and edit) a bit of my own comments from another thread:

There is some speculation that the makers of the "333" fakes got a hold of original dies and tools to make their fakes. If this is true, and if the die tools came from B. H. Mayer, then it is possible that ... the cross that started this thread, and Stefan's cross, are all good L/18 variants, and the "333" fakers inherited the core dies, among perhaps other tools.

For this to be true, we would have to accept that at some point during the middle of the war, B. H. Mayer changed their frames and cores for a very brief period for no discernible reason. The original frames and cores were not damaged that we can tell, and (as we will see) they were put back into use shortly after this time. But anyway, let's assume they did change frames and cores simultaneously. They didn't simply buy another maker's materials like every single other maker, but rather designed a brand new, ugly, asymmetrical and terribly flawed frame die. Also they decided -- for just this brief moment in the middle of the war, precisely when the LDO and the PKZ were instituted to ensure cores were made of steel -- to use only non-magnetic brass cores. Then Mayer changed their pins only for a very brief period to make the two L/18 marked examples you show above, then changed back to their original frame and core dies, and also changed back to their original pins (which had been in use after the core and frame dies were changed, but were then themselves changed briefly), and their catches. At no point (in this scenario) did Mayer mix and match cores and frames -- both were changed at precisely the same moment, and then changed back again at the same moment. Between these two moments in time Mayer decided to experiment with different pins, as well as mark some crosses yet leave others unmarked. From that point on they made the traditional L/18 or 26 marked Mayers we all know and love. Somehow in all this, they also managed quite cleverly to make the rest of the Mayer timeline (progression of hardware, marks, flaws and finishes) make perfect sense without this brief irruption of the "333 frame," so that if you removed the "333 Mayers" from the timeline it seems actually more logical, not less. Finally, after the war, they would have sold their (briefly-used) core dies to fakers making the "333" fakes some 30+ years later.

These chronological contortions strike me as very unlikely.

We know a very well-known maker of reproduction medals and awards called Göde bought B.H. Mayer's leftover tools and parts after the war. This is documented! So here's an alternate scenario: Göde or some faker used some leftover Mayer tools to manufacture EKs after the war. Frames and cores were not among the original parts and tools available to them, so they used new ones.

Period.

Occam's Razor?

I respect all views of this type, but I would never own one myself and I think the cross's presence on EK1DNA.com and also in Thater's EK1 book is a major flaw in both those otherwise estimable resources. This type is not in Dietrich and George's book. Why not? Because the cross itself does not make sense.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong one day -- we'll see. Until then, I advise my fellow collectors to avoid this type.

[streptile]

This question should not only reserved for Trevor and I hope there are some more opinion At the moment I'm feeling like don quichotte is fighting against windmills! Hope there is someone supporting me

Stefan,

I will also point out that almost every other EK1 expert in the community supports your view, not mine. Supporters of this cross include (tell me if I'm wrong):

• Stefan K.
• Ben Bijker
• Skip from M-B
• Frank Thater
• You

That is a veritable all-star team of EK1 experts. So it is I who am fighting windmills here.

[streptile]

Two other arguments for this type also hold no merit for me: provenance and patina.

How many fakes have we seen with provenance?

How can you distinguish a patina that is 65 years old from one that is 70 years old?

[5tefan]

Hi Trevor,

good arguments, but I'm personal not convinced of all your assumption!

But I see it as a draw result! Maybe we/I will come back to this item!
I will look out for new aspects, to give you more confidence.

You know me ;-) It will be a question of time that I will give you the necessary convident level. I will work on that, you can trust in that!

[5tefan]

BTW: The EK2 Sector is also affected!
Good to know that the fake is rollout in two areas!
Special the 333 variant!!! Hope it is not an orignal from Sedlatzek like the 800's variant which EK1 has no traces or silver content!

Nice to see the bad and flexible side of a fake!

But as I told you, I'm personal don't belief in that! I hope I'm not wrong!

OK, I buy all EK2 marked L/18 with this frame! There must more than 5 exemples, if this is a common fake!
I bet of all EK1 with this frame and core marked L18, condition 1-2 = 180 Euro
and for the EK2 marked L/18, condition 1-2 = 160 Euro

Pls, write me an email or a PN, I happy to buy all of this kind of fake (marked L/18 Variant)

If I'm wrong and if it is a fake, the penetration rate must be so high that I'm at least overstrained to buy all EK1 or EK2!

I hope I will manage all offers

[5tefan]

Additional News!!!
3rd unmarked EK1, certified Dec. 1941 !!!
And he won't sell this EK1

[streptile]

Hi Stefan,

Keep looking -- if anyone can find the evidence, you can.

One request: can you please show the reverse of the L/18 EK2 above? I wonder if it has the typical flaw (chip) on the top of the second "1" in "1813" as we see on this 333 EK2 below?

[streptile]

Hi Stefan,

Can you please show the reverse of the L/18-marked EK2 you showed above?

Thank you.

[5tefan]

Hi Stefan,

Can you please show the reverse of the L/18-marked EK2 you showed above?

Thank you.

Here you are ;-)

[streptile]

Thank you Stefan.

As you can also see, the date has the typical "333 fake" flaw in the second "1" of 1813.

If I had an EK of this type, Stefan, I would be thrilled to sell it to you for your offer of €160 or €180

But I see it as a draw result! Maybe we/I will come back to this item!

But you are right -- there is no conclusive evidence on either side. So we wait and see...

[5tefan]

Another One ;-)

Hi Trevor,

here is another BHM 2nd Frame marked L/18.
I know it is not exact the common BHM Core, but I still think that this is an authentic EK1 from BHM. Why there should be no other design possible, or was it from BHM an additional contracted maker? Now this is the 3rd variant, which does not make to me the impression of a usual fake production!