EK-1 L15 help!!!

[Eklipse]

Where is the proof that backs up that statement?

Rich, may be you are new in this forum of crosses...just to explain you this matter has been already discussed in another threads...you can use the "search" function to research it.
If you are interested in iron crosses, I would recommend you the book from Dietrich and George (The Iron Cross 1. Class), it deals with this matter of L15 marked crosses, but the Floch crosses are called "Austrian fakes".
My advise is don't buy an L15 cross if priced as original, may be the parts are original leftovers but it is postwar assembled.

[Rich G]

Rich, may be you are new in this forum of crosses...

You are a funny guy.

[Eklipse]

You are a funny guy.

Thank you...I've tried to be kind to you.

"Don't worry, be happy" (Bob Marley)

[Rich G]

Thank you...I've tried to be kind to you.

We certainly are grateful for your kindness and overwhelming knowledge of L15 iron crosses. I don't know how we have coped all these years without you.

[Eklipse]

We certainly are grateful for your kindness and overwhelming knowledge of L15 iron crosses. I don't know how we have coped all these years without you.

Rich, please, could you clarify me if you are you speaking in your own name (using a royal pronoun) or in name of WAF?.

If you have questions about the L15 crosses, I'll try to explain you my point of view; but really as you already know Dietrich and George were who spoke with Mr. Floch about this matter. To me, their word is reliable and trustworthy. Anyway, the whole story makes sense with the physical evidence; for years the L15 problem has been a dead end till their decisive contribution.

Rich, if you have new unpublished info about this issue, I'll be glad to learn from you.

[Rich G]

I personally feel there are the obvious fake L15's and theren there is a grey area. Here is a quote from another member:

Mr. Floch was this year 2012 @ the WBK "Miltiaira Show Kassel /Germany"!

Latest Statement from Mr. Floch:

He found a lot of EK1 component from Orth.
He did not build any additional tools for L15!
Frame, Backplate, Core and Pinsetup out of original tools left over and waretime made! He just need to assembled more or less the EK1!

And additional we don't know the reason for the L15 pin. Maybe a mix between L for LDO + PKZ 15!

Final Floch assembled some L15, but if all EK1 L15 even KVK1 was assembled by Floch is unknown!!! But at least we have a variant with Souval Frame und Orth Frame which is suspect and rated very low as authentic EK1! And on the KVK1 sector I'm not sure about the ratio!

So what is not clear is:
1) where the L15 mark originates from. Floch says he didn't make it so it must have been an original wartime stamp. Ergo there must be originals marked the same.
2) If Orth made these and Floch continued to make them from orginal parts that Orth never used or...?

Another aspect is quality of construction and finish. If Floch made all these why do some have wartime quality of fit and finish yet the obvious fakes are poorly made and finished. If all were made by the same person the quality and finish would not differ.

So, I dont see such a clear black and white approach that you see. There is very much a grey area.

Rich

[5tefan]

After all I have seen, I would say that the first shown cross is authentic and war time! But the price is not so high because the doubts about this maker mark

[Eklipse]

I personally feel there are the obvious fake L15's and theren there is a grey area. Here is a quote from another member:



So what is not clear is:
1) where the L15 mark originates from. Floch says he didn't make it so it must have been an original wartime stamp. Ergo there must be originals marked the same.
2) If Orth made these and Floch continued to make them from orginal parts that Orth never used or...?

Another aspect is quality of construction and finish. If Floch made all these why do some have wartime quality of fit and finish yet the obvious fakes are poorly made and finished. If all were made by the same person the quality and finish would not differ.

So, I dont see such a clear black and white approach that you see. There is very much a grey area.

Rich

At very first Floch did not built new parts and reused leftover parts from Vienna producers (Orth used own parts as well as Souval and Schenkl parts), we agree with that facts....but he commissioned the assembly of the parts to another company, which name is unknown.

We also know the LDO number L15 is fake, there are not known examples made by Otto Schickle marked with it, and Schickle could do it only for a few months, so he no needed for a different maker mark than the L/15 in a box he used in the original pieces during that few months.
The evidence shows us that when the original parts began to run out they used newmade parts that are the same we can find in the typical Floch fake.

About the finish, there is the same problem with Souval postwar crosses...some of these early postwar crosses show a very good finish, like the ones produced during the war...because were assembled by the same workers with the same methods.
But with the Floch case, fortunately we have the bogus mark to difference the postwar assembled crosses.

So no grey areas in this matter, L15 means postwar...anyway, if you feel yourself comfortable buying an L15 marked iron cross priced as an original one, it is your money, not mine!.

[Dietrich Maerz]

After all I have seen, I would say that the first shown cross is authentic and war time! But the price is not so high because the doubts about this maker mark

That seems to be the case and that cross is the same type (all parts F. Orth and marked l15) as described in the book "The Iron Cross 1. Class" on page 139. There is more to the "L15" than just "Austrian fake" as will be seen in the upcoming book "The War Merit Cross 1. Class and Higher" by George and myself (late Spring 2017).

[Rich G]

We also know the LDO number L15 is fake, there are not known examples made by Otto Schickle marked with it, and Schickle could do it only for a few months, so he no needed for a different maker mark than the L/15 in a box he used in the original pieces during that few months.

That is not proven. Do not confuse L15 with L/15. It is known that Deumer used 11 the corrected to L/11. Orth could have made a mistake and used L15 before realising it was incorrect and decommissioned the stamp and Floch located it along with all the other left over stock.

So no grey areas in this matter, L15 means postwar...anyway, if you feel yourself comfortable buying an L15 marked iron cross priced as an original one, it is your money, not mine!.

Again not proven.

I have been collecting long enough to decide what to buy and what not to buy. I don't need you to tell me.

Rich

[Eklipse]

That seems to be the case and that cross is the same type (all parts F. Orth and marked l15) as described in the book "The Iron Cross 1. Class" on page 139. There is more to the "L15" than just "Austrian fake" as will be seen in the upcoming book "The War Merit Cross 1. Class and Higher" by George and myself (late Spring 2017).

Dietrich, I understand tha you cannot unveil the content of your unpublished War Merit Cross book, but could you explain your opinion about the state of the question regarding the L15 iron crosses?.
Thank you very much in advance.

[Eklipse]

That is not proven. Do not confuse L15 with L/15. It is known that Deumer used 11 the corrected to L/11. Orth could have made a mistake and used L15 before realising it was incorrect and decommissioned the stamp and Floch located it along with all the other left over stock.



Again not proven.

I have been collecting long enough to decide what to buy and what not to buy. I don't need you to tell me.

Rich

1.- Yes, it is well known that Deumer marked as 11 (without the L) a few batch of iron crosses, Deumer was one of the main makers of iron crosses (possibly the mayor one); these crosses are dated from the first era of LDO marking (march 1941) and scarce pieces as soon the marking was corrected with the L/11. That is not the case with Orth, they used the L/14 marking for private purchased crosses from march 1941, and why to put an L from LDO in front of a PKZ number?.
Was it a mistake of the Orth die maker?...may be, but I believe it was not used in wartime production.

2-You can do with your money whatever you want, have a nice day.

[Eklipse]

The L15 marking is copied in the same style of the 15 Orth marking, but it is the same incuse relief style of other Floch marks like L11, L21, L73...note that usually this type of bogus markings are always with the L but without the /, it don't seems to be a coincidence but a pattern.
Using Rich's favorite words, "its is not proven" that any L15 maked item was wartime assembled.

[Rich G]

The L15 marking is copied in the same style of the 15 Orth marking, but it is the same incuse relief style of other Floch marks like L11, L21, L73...note that usually this type of bogus markings are always with the L but without the /, it don't seems to be a coincidence but a pattern.
Using Rich's favorite words, "its is not proven" that any L15 maked item was wartime assembled.

The style of marking could all have been made that way to copy the format of the L15. That still proves nothing.

[Eklipse]

Is there any L15 iron cross with ironclad provenance?