Classification of Awards EK2-1939

[boch_62]

I do not know why, but Trevor's thread regarding the classification of the EK2-1939 cross is closed :

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=554105&page=4

Below is the classification of the EK2-1939 cross from my book (a.d. 2018) - maybe someone will be useful ...

Classification of Awards EK2-1939
(basic classification without some varieties)

Deschler & Sohn (=1=L/10)
• B-Type (so called: Prototype B or Schinkel B)
• Round-3 with thin imperial frame
• Round-3 with typical fat frame
• unmarked early withtypical fat frame (and untipical date 1813)
• unmarked with typical fat frame (and tipical date 1813)
• marked „1” with typical fat frame
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 marked „1” with thin frame (post-war)
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 marked „1” with typical fat frame and with Round 3
in date 1813 (post-war)

C. E. Juncker (=2=L/12)
• unmarked with WFS frame (Wide Frame Schinkel) + no magnetic WFS core
• unmarked with WFS frame + magnetic WFS core
• unmarked with crunch bead frame (with 3-flaw) + no magnetic WFS core
• unmarked with crunch bead frame (with 3-flaw) + magnetic WFS core
• unmarked with crunch bead frame (with 3-flaw) + magnetic Junker’s teardrop „9”
core (so called: Full Juncker)
• unmarked with crunch bead frame (with 3-flaw) + magnetic W&L core
• marked „L/12” on frame with crunch bead frame + magnetic Juncker’s teardrop „9”
core
• marked „L/12” on frame with crunch bead frame + magnetic „L12” core
• marked „L/12” on frame with crunch bead frame + magnetic W&L core
• marked „L/12” on frame with common frame + magnetic Juncker’s teardrop „9”
core
• marked „L/12” on frame with common frame + magnetic „L12” core
• unmarked with common frame + magnetic „L12” core
• unmarked with frame Mix: one-sidedly crunch bead frame & one-sidedly common
frame + magnetic „L12” core
• marked „L/12” on ring with crunch bead frame (with 3-flaw) + magnetic W&L core
• marked „L/12” on ring with W&L frame + magnetic W&L core (so called: Full W&L)
• imperial duplicate EK2-1870 marked „L/12” on ring
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 with crunch bead frame marked „L/12” on frame
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 with common frame marked „L/12” on frame

Wilhelm Deumer (=3=L/11)
• schinkel magnetic
• schinkel no magnetic
• unmarked standard
• marked [3]
• marked [L/11]
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 schinkel marked [L/11]
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 schinkel marked [3] (post-war)

Steinhauer & Lück (=4=L/16)
• unmarked early – frame type 1
• unmarked – frame type 2
• marked [4] across on ring – frame type 2
• marked [4] along on ring – frame type 2
• marked „L/16” – frame type 2
• marked double: [4] and „L/16” – frame type 2
• marked [4] no magnetic (zinc core) (post-war)
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 marked [4] (post-war)

Fritz Zimmermann (=6)
• unmarked early with early core and frame „Deschler’s” type
• unmarked with early core and fat frame
• unmarked with later core and fat frame
• marked [6. ] across on ring with later core and thin frame
• marked [6. ] across on ring with later core and fat frame
• marked [6. ] along on ring with later core and fat frame

Paul Meybauer (=7=L/13)
• schinkel
• unmarked – variety of core
• marked „7” – variety of core
• marked „L/13” with „straight” signature (type „EK1”) – variety of core
• marked „L/13” with „fan-shaped” signature (type „EK2”) – variety of core
• double signature: „7” and „L/13” („fan-shaped” signature) – variety of core

Grossmann & Co. (=11)
• unmarked early – so called „Straight Arms” with rare ribbed of the frame
• unmarked early – so called „Straight Arms” with dense ribbed of the frame
• unmarked indirect versions 1 = „Straight Arms” frame + typical core
• unmarked indirect versions 2 = typical frame + „Straight Arms” core
• unmarked typical with irregular frame (like crunch bead frame)
• unmarked typical with regular frame
• marked „11” typical with irregular frame (like crunch bead frame)
• marked „11” typical with regular frame

Frank & Reif (=12)
• unmarked Ubergroße (so called: Ritterkreuzgrosse)
• unmarked Little Brother (reduced Ubergroße)

Gustav Brehmer (=13=L/60)
• unmarked early
• unmarked – swaz without pedestal
• unmarked – swaz on pedestal
• marked [13] – swaz without pedestal
• marked [13] – swaz on pedestal

Christian Lauer (=14)
• unmarked
• marked [14]

Friedrich Orth (=15=L/14)
• unmarked with own core
• unmarked with Souval’s core type 1
• marked [15]
• marked „L/14” with Souval’s frame + Schenkl’s core

Alois Rettenmaier (=16=L/59)
• unmarked – swaz without pedestal
• unmarked – swaz on pedestal
• marked „16” – swaz without pedestal
• marked „16” – swaz on pedestal

Ferdinand Weidmann (=19=L/51)
• unmarked early = with own frame + S&L design core
• unmarked middle = with own frame + S&L design core on obverse and own core
on reverse
• unmarked later = with own frame + own core
• marked [19]

Gebrüder Godet (=21=L/50) / C. F. Zimmermann (=20=L/52)
• unmarked with early frame (from C. F. Zimmermann)
• unmarked with later frame (from C. F. Zimmermann)
• marked „21” – with later frame (from C. F. Zimmermann)

Boerger & Co. (=22=L/57)
• unmarked with core type 1
• marked „22” with core type 1
• marked „22” with core type 2 (in date 1813 isolated numbers and short tails in both
tennis singles)
• marked „22” with bulge – 93 – in date 1939
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 marked [L/57]

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Heeresbedarf in der Graveur – und Ziselierinnung (=23)
• unmarked with own core
• unmarked with Meybauer’s core
• marked „23” with own core
• marked „23” with Meybauer’s core

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Hanauer Plakettenhersteller (=24)
• unmarked without additional mark on rings
• unmarked with additional mark on rings („WB”, „+O”, „O”, „X”,„V”, „+”, „acorn in
a box”, „3 leaf clover”, „bunch of grapes”, „oak leaf” and others ...)
• marked [24] without additional mark on rings
• marked „24” without additional mark on rings – small or big signature „24”
• marked „24” with additional mark on rings („WB”, „+O”, „O”, „X”, „V”, „+”, „acorn
in a box”, „3 leaf clover”, „bunch of grapes”, „oak leaf” and others ...) – small or big
signature „24”

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Graveur-, Gold – und Silberschemiedeinnungen (=25)
• unmarked
• marked „25”

B. H. Mayer (=26=L/18)
• schinkel
• unmarked with LDO frame + Schinkel’s core
• unmarked with LDO frame + later core
• marked „L/18” with LDO frame + later core
• marked „L/18” + punc „800” with LDO frame + later core
• marked „L/50” with LDO frame + Schinkel’s core
• marked „L/50” with LDO frame + LDO core

Anton Schenkl’s Nachf. / Maria Schenkl (=27)
• unmarked with frame standard
• unmarked with frame „crossiale” = „#”
• marked [27] with frame standard
• marked [27] with frame „crossiale” = „#”

Eugen Schmidthaussler (=28)
• unmarked One-Piece, type S&L design, magnetic (weight about 28 g)

F. Linden (=33=L/61)
• Schinkel no magnetic – core type 1 (in date 1939 the peak of number – 3 – is directed
obliquely upwards)
• Schinkel no magnetic – core type 2 (in date 1939 the peak of number – 3 – is directed
straight or obliquely downwardly)

F. W. Assmann & Sohne (=35=L/64) (for a long time known as a „Variant 8”)
• unmarked

Berg & Nolte (=40)
• unmarked
• marked [40]

Jakob Bengel (=44)
• unmarked
• marked [44]

Gottlieb & Wagner (=52)
• unmarked
• marked [52]

Hammer & Söhne (=55)
• unmarked with thicker ribbed frame
• unmarked with rarer ribbed frame
• marked [55]

Robert Hauschild (=56)
• unmarked with full own core
• marked „56” with full own core
• marked „56” with mixed core = obverse „S&L design” core + reverse own core
• marked „56” with full „S&L design” core


Katz & Deyhle (=60)
• unmarked
• marked [60]

Klein & Quenzer (=65)
• unmarked with atypical core
• marked „65” with atypical core
• unmarked with typical core 1 (in date 1939 tail number – 3 – is the highest)
• marked „65” with typical core 1 (in date 1939 tail number – 3 – is the highest)
• marked „65” with typical core 2 (in date 1939 tails numbers – 939 – on one level)

Friedrich Keller (=66)
• unmarked
• marked „66. ”

unknown maker (=75) – possible maker: Franke & Co. from Lüdenscheid
• unmarked with rare ribbed of the frame
• unmarked with dense ribbed of the frame
• marked [75] with dense ribbed of the frame

Ernst Müller (=76)
• unmarked
• marked [76]

Paulmann & Crone (=86)
• unmarked early no magnetic with frame and obverse of the core „S&L design” and
own reverse of the core
• unmarked no magnetic with own frame and own core
• unmarked magnetic with own frame and own core

Richard Simm & Söhne (=93)
• marked [93]

Rudolf Souval (=98=L/58) – war-time crosses:
• unmarked with own core type 1 (deep „3” and big swaz)
• unmarked with own core type 2
• unmarked with Schenkl’s core
• unmarked with Orth’s core
• marked [98] with Schenkl’s core
• marked [L/58] with Schenkl’s core

Wächtler & Lange (=100=L/55)
• unmarked with core type 1
• marked [100] with core type 1
• marked [100] with core type 2
• marked „L55” (in the rectangle) on frame
• marked double: „L55” (in the rectangle) on frame & [100] on ring

Brüder Schneider (=106)
• unmarked with S&L design core on obverse
• unmarked with own core on obverse
• marked [106] with S&L design core on obverse
• marked [106] with own core on obverse

Walter & Henlein (=109)
• unmarked with frame standard
• unmarked with frame „crossiale” (= „#”)
• unmarked with frame Mix: one-sidedly frame standard + second-sidedly frame
„crossiale”

Hermann Aurich (=113)
• unmarked with core type 1
• unmarked with core type 2
• marked [113] with core type 1
• marked [113] with core type 2

Funke & Brunninghaus (=116=L/56)
• marked L/56 – signature type „EK2”
• marked L/56 – signature type „EK1”

Franz Petzl (=120)
• unmarked with own core
• marked [120] with „S&L design” core on obverse and own core on reverse
• marked [120] with Souval’s (=98) core type 2 on obverse and Schenkl’s (=27) core
on reverse
• marked [120] with own core

J.J. Stahl (=122)
• marked [122]

Beck, Hassinger & Co. (=123)
• unmarked
• marked „123”
• marked [123]

Eugen Gauss (=125)
• marked [125] – core „S&L design”
• marked [125] – obverse core „S&L design” + reverse core own

Moritz Hausch (=127)
• unmarked

S. Jablonski (=128)
• marked [128]

Franz Reischauer (=132)
• marked „132”

J.H. Werner (=137)
• unmarked
• marked [137]

Julius Maurer (=138=L/23)
• marked „138”

Hymmen & Co. (=139=L/53)
• marked [L/53]

Schauerte & Hohfeld (=140=L/54)
• unmarked
• marked [L/54]
• imperial duplicate EK2-1914 marked [L/54]

Otto Schickle (=L/15)
• schinkel One-Piece no magnetic haevy (weight about 24 g)
• schinkel One-Piece no magnetic light (weight about 19 g)
• schinkel One-Piece magnetic
• unmarked no magnetic with core type 1
• unmarked magnetic with core type 1
• unmarked no magnetic with core type 2
• unmarked magnetic with core type 2
• marked „L/15” (in the rectangle) no magnetic
• marked „L/15” (in the rectangle) magnetic

Petz & Lorenz (without number LDO or PKZ)
• unmarked One-Piece no magnetic heavy (weight about 20-25 g)
• unmarked One-Piece no magnetic light (weight about 12 g)

Unknown Makers (U. M.)

VERY EARLY PROTOTYPE Crosses EK2-1939 (always unmarked)
• Prinzengrosse EK2
(possible manufacturer: C. F. ZIMMERMANN – Pforzheim =20 =L/52)
• One-Piece prototype cross no magnetic
• One-Piece prototype cross no magnetic with „coral frame”
(Unknown Maker probably associated with Otto Schickle – Pforzheim)
• One-Piece prototype cross no magnetic with round inner corners (= r. i. c.)

TORNOW Prototype (looks like one-piece cross)
(possible manufacturer: Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Metall und Kunststoff = A. G. M. u. K. – Gablonz)
• unmarked, magnetic

ROUND 3 (always unmarked & magnetic)
• Round 3 thick (total thickness 4,90-5,00 mm)
• Round 3 with beveled edges
• Round 3 with swaz on pedestal + core pebbled
• Round 3 with big digit – 8 – in date 1813

LUG Variant
(Unknown Maker from Berlin connected with JUNCKER)
• LUG-core type 1 unmarked magnetic
• LUG-core type 2 unmarked magnetic
• LUG-core type 1 marked „Z” magnetic
• LUG-core type 2 marked „Z” magnetic
• LUG-core Juncker-WFS marked „Z” magnetic

LONG FLAW FRAME
(Unknown Maker from Berlin connected with JUNCKER)
• LFF-core type 1 unmarked magnetic
• LFF-core type 2 unmarked magnetic
• LFF-core Juncker-WFS unmarked magnetic
• LFF-core Juncker-WFS marked „Z” magnetic

SMALL FRAME
(Unknown Maker from Berlin connected with JUNCKER)
• unmarked, no magnetic (frame about 43,6x43,6 mm)

SCHINKEL UNKNOWN MAKER (so called: Halbschinkel, Halfschinkel, Schinkel
Intermediate, Schinkel Intermixed …)
• unmarked, magnetic

ODD DATE
• unmarked, magnetic

STRAIGHT 9 SCHINKEL (so called: Odd 9 Schinkel)
• unmarked, magnetic

SPANISH EK2-1939 (always unmarked)
• „schinkel” type, one-piece, no magnetic, core pebbled, coral small ring (probably
war-time)
• „schinkel” type, two-piece, no magnetic (probably early = post 1945 and years of 50th)
• „straight arms” type, two-piece, no magnetic (probably years of 60th)
• „straight arms” type, one-piece, no magnetic (probably years of 70th)
• „schinkel” type, one-piece, magnetic (!) (probably 70/80th and years of 80th)

Cross EK2 „FÜR RAUB UND MORD – 1941”
• unmarked, magnetic

It's all

Best Regards
Jarek

[Douglas 5]

Interesting lay out .
Would liked to have seen more variations . Some things I would have marked some makers differently... depending how far into detail one wants to go .
That's just me .

Douglas

[boch_62]

Interesting lay out .
Would liked to have seen more variations . Some things I would have marked some makers differently... depending how far into detail one wants to go .
That's just me .

Douglas

Thanks my friend for your kindness

It is a pity, however, that until now You these detailed options have not been developed and You have not made available for others collectors ... then there will be a basis for discussion.

Regards
Jarek

[kronn]

Is the book in English mate??

[boch_62]

Is the book in English mate??

Sorry no, generally the book is in Polish, although all the descriptions under the pictures (over 800 photos) and some parts of the book (for example, classification, but not only) are in English.

Regards
Jarek

[kronn]

I'm sure it worths buy it....I will order it tomorrow, where can I do?

[boch_62]

I'm sure it worths buy it....I will order it tomorrow, where can I do?

The book was published in 2018, and the circulation was limited.
At this moment the circulation is exhausted.
The only option is to buy book from a friend, a Polish collector.

Regards
Jarek

[Dietrich Maerz]

Would liked to have seen more variations . Some things I would have marked some makers differently... depending how far into detail one wants to go .
That's just me.
Douglas

Douglas,

I think I mentioned it already in another thread but it fits again here - the question of variations. I have a different approach to the topic as one will see and read in the EK 2 book which will be out later this year.

Firstly, I think that the first determination of any Iron Cross, be it EK2, EK1, or RK, is the frame. If the frame is clearly different, it is a variation. If the frame has developed a dimple or another kind of flaw over the use of time, it is not a variation, it is wear. Best example is the B-Type of the S&L Knights Cross. One could make any number of dent row dimples a variation, but one doesn't.

Secondly, the cores are a sub-variation because they are subordinated to the frame. One has to be careful and use some common sense in declaring a "new core variation." Here is why: Some maker made for sure more than 100,000 EK 2, maybe even beyond that number. The collectors' community knows maybe a maximum of 200 different EK 2s of the more prominent maker, less of the smaller ones. This represents something in the area of less than 1% or even less of the total production run. To identify from that miniscule sample several core types is against any statistical logic. Now, that is not to say that there are not several core types within one maker and commom use between some makers. That is the case and it is clearly visible (and sometimes even traceable via original documents, as I will show). My point is that some of the more obscure core (and frame) "variations" are IMHO due to wear, material quality, paint thickness and paint constitution, and sometimes also attributable to photographic elements such as angle and light exposure. Shadows can give a numeral a complete different appearance!

Thirdly, I do not think that "variations" in markings are something that is of great value for the student. Sure, it needs to be mentioned and it needs to be shown, but a "double marking," or an "upside-down" marking is not something in which the student needs help. Help is needed in identifying unmarked crosses, that is the challenge and that is the area of interest. Also, because the unmarked pieces are the early ones.

We are in a period of variation and maker collecting, which is very good for the hobby. But before one really can dive into the more esotheric "variations," real or determined to be such, a solid basis for the makers itself has to be established. Just as it was done with the other medals.

As a side note: F. Linden was not a manufacturer of the EK2. Also, I am personally 99% sure that I have identified maker 75.

[Albert]

... the cores are a sub-variation because they are subordinated to the frame. ...

Hello Dietrich,

Could you please share the logic behind the above. Why not the other way around?

Thank You!

Al

[sanya13]

IMO , this the with lists ,always that is the problem, that many collectors think differently, in this topic and insists on that ,
but & unfortunately there is no unanimous agreement.
No debate, no argument , there are no good conversation ,helping each other ect......,just statement

Unfortunately the world has become so ,everyone makes a list ,or have a personal list ,but there is no discussion about it . ( of course me too have a list ,this is my list ,and but I never shared it and I won't )
IMO this is so not good ,but this have.
Unfortunately the on forums too only few the interesting topic,and always same 10 -12 member have it or less

IMO should help each other to convince, to argue, to talk ,
this possible that would be a good solution ,but this is only my opinion
respect

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Albert,
you use "logic" which implies a certain rational thinking behind the decision. But maybe it is more arbitrary and results from the way this topic was always treated, way before us. A so-called Schinkel cross is named such because of the style of the frame and not because of the design of the core. In the area of the Knights Cross we have the Klein & Quenzer, a cross that is defined by its shape of the frame. Or a Schickle Knights Cross, which is known for the ring, not for the core.
Additionally, I also think that it is far easier to determine an unknown maker of an EK1, EK2, and RK by investigating the frame characteristics than those of the core. Maybe it has - subconsciously - to do with the fact that the frame is marked and not the core. Maybe, also subconsciously, because others before me (us) have done it already in that style.
I would think that to create a classification based on the cores would be less helpful to the user. But again, in the final analysis it is arbitrary and not really logical. The important thing is that one sticks to the method one has decided to use in the beginning of a project.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dear Sanya,

I cannot quite follow your statement, that many think differently and that there is no agreement. Let's see what we have:

We have a list of makers of the EK2, documented basically from the very first days of the war and evolving into a numbered list by the end of the war. It is absolutely mandatory to use these names and the Präsidialkanzlei list as the basic skeleton.

The as of today unknown maker can only be unmasked by solid investigation and facts, not just by "I think it is such and such."

Whether one classifies within a maker based on the frame or based on the core, is debatable. So far, everybody I know has decided to use the frame. So I think that settles it for that criteria for now.

From that, automatically I might say, the cores are sub-categories. Just as the markings are.

Now, IMHO, the only think left is to discuss when a frame or a core is a "different" frame or core. Is a dimple enough? Is different paint enough? Is different frosting enough? Is different wear a factor in variations? Different marking styles? Different core materials? I think I could continue with at least ten more "criteria!"

And that might very well a very nice playground for the top of the variation collector. For thew average collector it is not very helpfull in the beginning and for a book, such as that from Jarek, it would be very confusing.

So what do you think there is to discuss?

[Albert]

Hi Albert,
you use "logic" which implies a certain rational thinking behind the decision. But maybe it is more arbitrary and results from the way this topic was always treated, way before us. A so-called Schinkel cross is named such because of the style of the frame and not because of the design of the core. In the area of the Knights Cross we have the Klein & Quenzer, a cross that is defined by its shape of the frame. Or a Schickle Knights Cross, which is known for the ring, not for the core.
Additionally, I also think that it is far easier to determine an unknown maker of an EK1, EK2, and RK by investigating the frame characteristics than those of the core. Maybe it has - subconsciously - to do with the fact that the frame is marked and not the core. Maybe, also subconsciously, because others before me (us) have done it already in that style.
I would think that to create a classification based on the cores would be less helpful to the user. But again, in the final analysis it is arbitrary and not really logical. The important thing is that one sticks to the method one has decided to use in the beginning of a project.

Good morning Dietrich!

Thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts.

Best,
Al

[boch_62]

Dears

I knew that providing my list of producers of crosses EK2-1939 would be the basis for discussion and negation.
I do not expect everyone to agree with some of the threads in this list, though it's basically in line with the Trevor's classification.
So far, the only ones who could have been acquainted with this classification were the members of the Polish historical forum IOH and the readers of my book.
Anyone who has doubts and would like to delve into the details of the classification I refer to a book, that has 702 pages.
The entire content of the book (except the introduction) is in fact a detailed development of this classification.
I am always open to news and historical evidence. That is why I am waiting impatiently for Dietrich's book. I respect his opinions very much and I know that he has access to historical archives, about which I can only dream about.

Regards
Jarek

[Douglas 5]

Hi Dietrich :

As to your 'Firstly ... and Thirdly' ... I agree to the most part .
As to Secondly ....
In the eyes of some I do use the words "variation and type" correctly and but also in the eyes of others - I do not use those 2 words correctly .
In every day life the definition of variation and type changes with what item/subject it happens to be associated with .
A definition 'glossary' as a guideline what in this forum - associated to iron crosses - amongst others these 2 words represent and are used for .
That way every one can use these words in the same manner to make a correct presentation or description .
That said ... I still catch myself using the wrong word or re-activate old pictures and or write ups I did not proof read properly .
A new core .... yes - the 'core thing' . Deschler has a round 3 core and a flat top 3 core date . Is it a variation , modification, a new design , partial alteration , a variant or a different type ?? .... most members here will have a different definition of each of those descriptions .
Wear : Over the years I have made errors with worn cores calling them a different core type . Discussing differences like with Jarek , Sonya and others I have been able to share and improve my own knowledge . Jarek's help with the core classification was to include the front emblem !! This has helped to reduce the 3-flaw Juncker core types used from 18 down to 11 and maybe 9 . ... and yes K&Q has one less core type also now .
The sampling statistic I see differently is based on one or just a few collectors looking a hundred crosses . They are many foren and a lot more collectors that have looked in total at a lot more existing crosses .
All cores by now should have been found . IMO cores should/could be split into 'regular cores and supplemented cores " .

Regards Douglas