Classification of Awards EK2-1939

[sanya13]

hí dear Dietrich

I agree with you the main line the frame type and the second the inner core ( different core types)
I just wanted say, that many collector, different thinking about one of piece

example : someone about this the type - Assmann
someone about this the type - Friedrich Linden
someone about this the type - Schauerte & Hohfeld

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?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I just wanted say, that many collector, different thinking about one of piece

example : someone about this the type - Assmann
someone about this the type - Friedrich Linden
someone about this the type - Schauerte & Hohfeld

Dear Sanya,

there are for sure areas where "belief" rules the opinion because no hard facts are available to make a solid determination. The example you gave, however, is no longer a topic for discussion. Trevor has shown conclusevly in this thread http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...smann+Schinkel that this cross was made by Assmann. Friedrich Linden could have never been a contender at all since that company never was on any list as a supplier of the Iron Cross.

[boch_62]

Dear Sanya,

there are for sure areas where "belief" rules the opinion because no hard facts are available to make a solid determination. The example you gave, however, is no longer a topic for discussion. Trevor has shown conclusevly in this thread http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...smann+Schinkel that this cross was made by Assmann. Friedrich Linden could have never been a contender at all since that company never was on any list as a supplier of the Iron Cross.

IMO from 2013, certain opinions and data have changed. In my opinion, Assmann's cross EK2-1939 is a cross so-called "Variant 8" :

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...hlight=assmann


Looking at the quality of his execution and the quality execution of the so-called Assmann's schinkel EK2-1939 from the discussion of 2013, I do not see any similarities. But it's of course IMO.
On the other hand - we currently know 53 types of crosses EK2-1939 marked with PKZ or LDO (not counting those not marked as PKZ or LDO) . How many of these producers did not appear on any early lists of crosses producers EK2-1939. At least a few, if not a dozen or so ...


Regards
Jarek

[sanya13]

hí Diertich
thx for the answer

I yet once wrote in the topic ,that IMO possible a Assmann type ( but many collector said no )
more database have this the maker than a FFL maker
because I found similarity this and the so called 8 variant between ,but there was someone who laughed
of course this is never not a problem to me, since I'm a EK collector

unfortunatly now not find thist he topic ,because I have to go to work .

Dear Sanya,

there are for sure areas where "belief" rules the opinion because no hard facts are available to make a solid determination. The example you gave, however, is no longer a topic for discussion. Trevor has shown conclusevly in this thread http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...smann+Schinkel that this cross was made by Assmann. Friedrich Linden could have never been a contender at all since that company never was on any list as a supplier of the Iron Cross.

[boch_62]

IMO from 2013, certain opinions and data have changed. In my opinion, Assmann's cross EK2-1939 is a cross so-called "Variant 8" :

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...hlight=assmann


Looking at the quality of his execution and the quality execution of the so-called Assmann's schinkel EK2-1939 from the discussion of 2013, I do not see any similarities. But it's of course IMO.
On the other hand - we currently know 53 types of crosses EK2-1939 marked with PKZ or LDO (not counting those not marked as PKZ or LDO) . How many of these producers did not appear on any early lists of crosses producers EK2-1939. At least a few, if not a dozen or so ...


Regards
Jarek

... and no I first see a Linden as the producer of EK crosses ...

Jarek

[boch_62]

...and

[von_georg]

Thank you very much for sharing, it's always interesting to see how can be done a EK2 list in different ways

Kind regards,

[Gew44]

I read in a weekly magazine of the time that only 3 companies were authorized to build the equipment, even for other manufacturers, but always after having received approval from the Reich Chancellery for the design of the decoration presented.
Also because having passed the "qualification" of the inspectors of the Chancery on the equipment (this is the place where the physical construction of the molds is called) where the same would have been built.

If I remember correctly :

Deschler (or Deumer)
Klein und Quenzer
Juncker

The core molding process requires presses with a high tonnage that only a few companies could have.
Keep in mind that the thickness must be measured between the reliefs of the 1939 and 1813 dates and considering that they were mechanical presses, even the large dimensions required adequate space and the cost was not available to everyone (as happens today).
So it is much easier to print the frames starting from a sheet of thin sheet that requires smaller presses and less investment by purchasing or having the cores printed by larger companies.
Some manufacturing companies do not exclude, but it is my personal opinion, they may have been just assembling companies buying semi-finished products, thus creating strange variations that in reality are not.
I also don't think the various oddities of the cores can be attributed to 2nd or 3rd type molds but to inclusions that could happen in punches or dies that created particular motifs but did not invalidate the general design of the decoration.
Each inclusion is then a fingerprint, there are no 2 molds with the same defect.
I am not even inclined to the different types of cores given for mold breaks, being the same constructed with hardened or Swedish steel of much higher hardness than the material itself to be cut, bent or drawn, but I would be more inclined to productions attributable to unknown producers and not attributable to lack of evidence.
I apologize for the intrusion, but I only wanted to make my thoughts known with what little I could understand from my personal research in documents of the time and from the personal experience gained in over 15 years of work in the mechanical field and as a commercial technician for stamped parts in the Automotive field.

Being industrial products as such they must be treated.

With respect