Otto Schickle made the one-piece Schinkels: A Theory

[streptile]

Note that the typical Schickle catch (just seen above) is used on this one, also.

Again, the pin and hinge are a perfect match to the hardware on some of the one-pieces. Below, the Schickle Imperial WB on right, and a 1914-series one-piece EK1 on the left:


.

[streptile]

So let's do a brief survey of reverse hardware we've seen so far. On the top we see hardware encountered on known Otto Schickles. And on the bottom is hardware seen on the one-pieces:


.

[streptile]

So that's the back of the crosses. Every piece of hardware -- the hinge, the catch, the pins, the screwback disc, the screwback nut -- that can be found on these “unknown maker” one-piece Schinkels and Imperial EK1s can also be found on known Schickles. With one since exception… and what is that one exception? The one usually found on the 1939 EK1, which looks like this:


.

[streptile]

But take a closer look at the hinge:


.

[streptile]

Doesn't it actually just look like this one, the same as the one found on the Schickle WB, but with a non-trimmed down base plate?


.

[streptile]

Note how the barrel on the left (facing) is slightly wider than the right barrel on both.


.

[streptile]

So, I hear you ask, couldn't the maker of these one-piece EKs have just shared a hardware distributor, or vendor, with Schickle? Yes, it's possible. So let's look at the fronts of the Imperials. Here is a TR-made three-piece 1914 Schickle:


.

[streptile]

Doesn't the core design, even though it's a magnetic three-piece core, look familiar?


.

[streptile]

Yes -- it's almost the same exact core design.

How do the second classes compare? A three-piece 1914-series EK2 made by Otto Schickle during the Third Reich is a bit of a rare bird, but I'll show one below (on the right) next to the one-piece (on the left):


.

[streptile]

And the reverse?


.

[streptile]

I think they are very close matches, even though one is a magnetic three-piece and one is a one-piece. The design similarities are unmistakable.

So here is what we know so far:

1. The same pin type found on some one-piece EK1s, is also found on known Schickles.
2. The same SB attachment hardware found on some one-piece EK1s, is also found on known Schickles.
3. The same catch found on some one-piece EK1s, is also found on known Schickles.
4. The same hinge type found on some one-piece EK1s, is also found on known Schickles.
5. The obverse core design on the one-piece 1914s is almost identical to known Schickle 1914-series EKs made during the TR.
6. The reverse core design on the one-piece 1914 EK2s is almost identical to known Schickle 1914-series EK2s made during the TR.

To be honest, I think this is almost a slam-dunk case already for Schickle. But, just a few short months ago, Gordon Williamson dug up an old prewar Schickle catalogue. I was confident that I was correct about Schickle being the maker of these crosses, but anyway I was gratified to see the following illustration in the catalogue.

The Schickle 1914 EK2 from their catalogue:


.

[streptile]

And compared:


.

[streptile]

To me, it's almost a 100% waterproof case that these are all Schickles:


.

[streptile]

There is a lot of evidence: hardware, design, catalogue photos.

If you have any questions, or need to see any more crosses or angles, please let me know. This is not the full extent of my photo archive -- a lot of
obverses are missing, because I thought they would be redundant.

I am very confident in this conclusion, but if you have doubts please share them with me, also.

[streptile]

-- END OF ORIGINAL POST FROM 2010 --

Unfortunately I can't recover the comments from the original 2010 thread.

Comments welcome.