Originally posted by Douglas 5
View Post
-
Yes, Thise are the onde
-
Hi,Originally posted by streptile View PostVery nice presentation
Everything seems to be identical to a cross made over ten years after the war finished: same thin frame, same flaws, same core material, same very typical 1950s or 1960s hollow folded hinge construction.
My conclusion would be that the non-magnetic Deschelrs are postwar.
Is this not a better possibility?
Maybe I’ve been unclear here, but ALL Deschler crosses has a folded hinge !! EXCEPT the 2 non magnetic in question
Comment
-
Hi Douglas,Originally posted by Douglas 5 View Post
Yes you are right about the sequence , that is 7 and 8 fronts
First picture in tread show all fronts in same sequence as the picture of the backs
About the frame split . The cross with the split is 3 Reich cross , the non magnetic ones have no splitting at all
This kind of splitting is sometimes seen on Deschlers . I’ve got a few with that feature
But non of them has been tampered with .Comment
-
Hard to say if non magnetic are late war or post warOriginally posted by streptile View PostVery nice presentation
Everything seems to be identical to a cross made over ten years after the war finished: same thin frame, same flaws, same core material, same very typical 1950s or 1960s hollow folded hinge construction.
My conclusion would be that the non-magnetic Deschelrs are postwar.
Is this not a better possibility?
But post war has crossed my mind too
I’ve tried to contact Deschler company, but they have no records what so ever regarding this period
Comment
-
Marc - # 7 cross being a late cross -- it should be marked -- is the pin marked some where ? I am still looking at the flaws .
The pin is crimped on # 7 - but it has a solid anchor block .
A lot of early makers had cores made of various materials other than iron .
I have a very later Grossmann EK2 made of zinc .
DouglasComment
-
I her your points, but does not make sence in the Deschler timeline though , especially since “ Round 3” and Unmarked are defined as early crosses
Comment
-
Apologies, it was my misunderstanding.Originally posted by unimarc View PostHi,
Maybe I’ve been unclear here, but ALL Deschler crosses has a folded hinge !! EXCEPT the 2 non magnetic in question
I still think the Deschler non-mags are more likely to be postwar than late war, but of course this is difficult to judge from photos.
I would say that in either case they are interesting and rare.
I suspect Deschler would tell you nothing about Iron Cross production even if they had their records. None of these companies ever say anything, as policy.I’ve tried to contact Deschler company, but they have no records what so ever regarding this periodBest regards,
Streptile
Looking for ROUND BUTTON 1939 EK1 Spange cases (LDO or PKZ)Comment
-
Well guys ,
Do we agree the non magnetic Deschler is at least late war production, as I claim ??
Best Regards
MarcComment
-
I will say no ... looking at the flaw pattern your late war EK1 seams to be early .
Not marked
Core treated or plated
Frame has early R3 production die flaws
Early crimped pin anchor
DouglasComment
-
Hi Douglas ,
Im a little confused now
First , Im not sure the core has been treated or plated at all !
Hinge is a block hinge, not crimped ( as all other Deschler have)
The second class round 3 cross you show, does not have the “traditional” or “ normal” Deschler frame
so why bring it into this context ??
I have shown an early Deschler 1 class “ round 3” cross as number 1 in the line up !
It show severe flaws all round the 12 o’clock arm , totally different from its later family .
I have showed the development of die flaws from the early unmarked to late L/10 version , which has identical flaws as the non magnetic and ‘57 version .
The non magnetic and the ‘57 has IDENTICAL frames !
It does not make sence if a very early cross should have all the late frame flaws AND be identical ( except for core design) to the ‘57
Sorry but I 100% disagree
If anything, both non magnetic would be postwar ! But that does not correspond with other collectors examples that should have been brought back prior to May 1945
Comment
-
Hí Marc
I found a interesting type in the US
the condition not the best ,but interesting ,because on the frame has the EK2 so called hump on the top
I thought sharedComment
-
Thanks Sanya,
For sure very interesting indeed
Comment
-
Marc :
It may be easier to understand doing the flaw set up another way .
Certain flaws are indicators of particular master and or production dies . In case the 'crescent flaw' is a limited early flaw .... as the R3 core tells us .
We do have the early frame and 'standard' frame with the same flaw . As both frame types show the same flaw .... that flaw is copied down to the production die .
The Deschler book does state that the production 'master' can only produce 4 to 5 production dies - as an average - . ... before it has to be replaced .
Many factors come in play here how long a production master lasts . So - early R3 frames are found with and with out the crescent flaw .
That would indicate that the 1st (no crescent flaw) and 2nd production (minor crescent flaw) dies have the early frame features and starting with
the 3rd production die the frame design was modified to the standard type - but the crescent flaw is quit sever now .
The next used production master does not have the crescent any more but continues on with the common frame design to the end of the war .
DouglasComment
-
We do agree, that die flaws appearing as lines in the frame beading develops in the production die and not from the master, right ??Comment
-
Do we agree -- no :
We have 2 types of flaws -- more or less unchanging from the production master and progressive changing flaws of the production die .
This chart should help .
DouglasComment
Comment