The S&L / Godet R3 EK1

[Douglas 5]

Starting a new thread after having a 'go over ' of the R3 EK1 I have .
R3s being early there should be an early maker involved , and the frame quit worn belongs to S&L . A one arm wear progretion shows this . I pulled a few features that are carried along .
Once again the R3 EK1 in question :

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

The core closeup of both and one arm - wear comparison :

[Douglas 5]

Full view of a mint S&L 1st frame -1st core and a worn S&L 1st frame with new 2nd core .

[Douglas 5]

The pin set of mine :

[Douglas 5]

The Godet Pin sets it comes closest to :

[Robert P.]

Hi Douglas,

IMO, I really don't think your R3 frame is an S&L. The bottom right corner just doesn't compare. Neither does the beading around the swasi.

Here is an early S&L, showing a key feature which should also be on yours, but is not...

Robert

[streptile]

Hi Douglas,

I haven't anything to add beyond what I wrote in the other thread, except to say that I have believed, since their introduction, that the "German Fake" frames were based on original S&L dies, so it does not surprise me that you would find some similarities between your cross and an S&L. HERE is another thread that hints at the difficulty involved in separating out these new "German Fakes" from genuine S&L frames.

R3s being early there should be an early maker involved.

Also, the current suspects for R-3 makers are Deschler (proven) and Assmann (my theory), both known to have been making (or at least selling) EKs in 1939. So there are early makers involved already.

[Douglas 5]

Robert .. what key feature is the arrow pointing at ?

Douglas

[Robert P.]

This intersection between the two beads is a dominant feature, IMO, of early S&L frames...

Robert

[Douglas 5]

The grove or valley indentation going across that bead , ... is that what you are refering to ? I have to check the few 1st frame S&Ls Ek1s and 2s I have .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Robert ;
First the early 1st frame S&L - is my hand frosted EK2 and 1st core . The general beading matches but the corners do not . With the heavy frosting not able to tell if that indentation was there or not . Or if S&L used 2 different and seperate 1st frame working dies - for EK1 and EK2 - or not ? Just to note here - that the cores are not the same die either . The 3 - midsection on yours is a very sharp ridge as on mine it is wide and flat . Actualy this makes the EK2 not sutable for comparison .
Only have one S&L EK1 with Tombak core , looking at next .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

After furture close up inspecting a few other additional features have come to light ... this for the record and have to be mentioned .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

So - on these German fakes , are they made from refurbished original S&L dies - or just real good and close 'look-a-like copies ? Does the same go for the pin set ? And the R3 core too ?

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Robert :
Did up a picture of the early S&L EK1 tombak core I have : .... it has the bead grove like yours and the same core as the EK2 of mine above .

Douglas

[streptile]

So - on these German fakes , are they made from refurbished original S&L dies - or just real good and close 'look-a-like copies ? Does the same go for the pin set ? And the R3 core too ?

Hi Douglas,

I'm not sure. I've never held one of the new "German Fakes," and I've also not spent enough time in close study of the frames. I will attach a good photo at the end of this post of one of these new fakes.

The imposterous R3 EK1s are then put together with a R3 EK2 core . .. on top of the existing core . This had to be ground down to fit the EK2 core on top of the old one . A new method to me.

No -- the Detlev fake was a good 1939 EK1 that had been opened, then resoldered with a new, ground down EK2 core. The method you describe would be, I think, far too easy to detect. If -- if -- your cross is a "German Fake," it would have been constructed from a new frame and back-plate, a new pin system, and a good EK2 R-3 core.

I have decided to send this cross to any member here willing to determine if it has been tampered with - incerted core - befor sending it back

I think sending this cross to a someone who knows their R3s and 1939 EK1s is a good idea, but no one will be able to detect an inserted core, or seam tampering, if the frame was a fake to begin with, and the core was inserted only one time (for initial sealing).

I have been careful not to say outright that this cross is a fake, only that : a) it does not match any known (accepted) originals, and b) it shares too many similarities with the new "German Fakes" to make me comfortable with it. There is also the issue of timing -- the "German Fakes" have been exploding across the 'net for six months now. The numbers and variations are alarming. We've never seen a R-3 like this before, and suddenly we do. It would just make me deeply uncomfortable with the cross. I hope you can reach a determination to your own personal satisfaction before your return period expires.

I don't have a chart of accepted R-3 EK1 variants. There are only two main ones that I know of, plus two that are (to me) questionable but likely authentic. I can show examples of the two main, authentic variants, just need to find a few minutes to do the work.

For now, here is a good shot of the new "German Fake." NB: the pin system variations on these crosses are numerous. This is just one example.