EK 1914 Question for the EK collectors

[Motorhead]

OK,here are the pics-the "Deumer" crown is at the left

[Motorhead]

The "W"-again "Deumer" at the left

[Motorhead]

The date-"Deumer" at the left

[Motorhead]

Frame 12 o'clock-Deumer at the top

[Motorhead]

Frame 3 o'clock Deumer at the left

[Motorhead]

Frame 6 o'clock Deumer at the top

[Motorhead]

Frame 9 o'clock Deumer at the left

[Motorhead]

Inner corner,upper left-Deumer at the left

[Motorhead]

Inner corner,upper right -Deumer at the left

[Motorhead]

Inner corner,down left-Deumer at the left

[Motorhead]

Inner corner down right-Deumer left

[Mike K]

SNAP!

Great comparison pics Micha.

Someone's been playing with original dies.

regards

Mike

Edited May 22, 2006 by Mike K

[Les]

SNAP!

Great comparison pics Micha.

Someone's been playing with original dies.

regards

Mike

Mike,

You don't need to have -original- dies to make copies of dies. There are ways of making almost exact copies of "new" dies from original items. Please don't ask for details (no reason to opnely tip off people who might be thinking about who to get a start in the "business"....), but there are ways to make a "new die" for either -stamping- silver frames and/or moulds for casting frames, that use an original item.

If someone used a damaged EK and removed the core that core could be used. In the past, heavy attention has usually been paid to the details of the cores, with less attention paid to the frames, frame/beading flaws,.etc. As a result, people making fakes have usually focused on the core details (not so with those people in Eastern Europe and the old muffin crowns), knowing that collectors usually didn't look at the frames. Collectors have awakened to the fact that frames can tell us more than we once thought...

I suspect what we're seeing here, is either a recycled old core either removed from a damaged original and inserted into a "new frame", or two newly made cores and frames that have been merged either by accident or intention to create a new "variant" to sucker dealers and collectors.

Les

Edited May 22, 2006 by Les

[Mike K]

You don't need to have -original- dies to make copies of dies.

Les, yes that's true, but this case could be determined fairly easily. If Micha makes some detailed measurements then that should solve the issue. There's no way I can see that a set of dies made from an item will produce an item of the same size - shrinkage will occur at some stage in that sort of reproduction process.

Further, in this case we are talking about Deumer. We KNOW their dies survived the war and into the 50s and probably 60s as they were still a going concern with the earlier 57er EK1 variants (also flawed). It would turn into another case like the wartime S&L 39 RK dies.

Regards

Mike

[Les]

There's no way I can see that a set of dies made from an item will produce an item of the same size - shrinkage will occur at some stage in that sort of reproduction process.

Mike,

Dies are normally used for striking items, and struck pieces don't necessarily shrink after being formed. Mould and dies are not the same, and moulded items used for castings, do have associated shrinkage.

Dies can be made without shrinkage, using an "original". Engraved original dies are seldom used for production work, instead a series of "hub" dies or copies are made that are often used in turn for making the actual production dies. "Shrinkage" does not necessarily occur as part of the die duplication process.

Can a die be made from a "original" ? Yes, not only in theory, but in practise. To provide a case in point, here's an example of one rarely used technique that I don't mind providing because it's "colorful" and other than being dangerous to use, destroys the original in the process..

Ever hear of a process called explosive die forming ? At one time, the process was used to make quick and dirty copies of items (usually coins for the counterfeit market).

Here's a crude explanation of the process: take a length of steel pipe and two steel blanks just wide enough to fit inside the pipe. Place the item you want to copy between the blanks and insert them into the pipe. At both ends, a small amount of explosives is packed. Set your fuses, scoot to a safe distance and detonate. The shockwave from the explosion (provided it is symmetrical) should slap the blanks together with sufficient force to impress a perfect copy of the coin in the blanks. As you may imagine the original item will be destroyed in the process. The blanks can then be used to die strike more of whatever the item was. An expensive technique and if the dual explosions are not timed just right, you end up with a destroyed original and no dies.

Whatever flaws or characteristics the item has, if the process is done correctly, will be transfered directly to the dies made by the process.

That's the "old" method. The modernized version of that process involves computer controlled timing that ensures two forces being applied equally from both sides towards the center of the "original" or item being used to form the dies.

The technology is there to make some copies that -look- identical, and may have the same exact measurements.

While Deumer's dies might have survived to the present, that doesn't necessarily mean the dies are still useable. Metal components in old firearms over time may begin to develop structural changes within the metal. For example, bolt stops and other parts on old broomhandle Mausers might look perfectly fine and "safe" but over a century or more, have sometimes degraded on a molecular level that firing an old broomhandle Mauser with all original parts is asking for trouble.

80 year old dies may look the same, but are they still structurally sound to take the force of trip hammer blows exceeding 10 metric tonnes and produce hundreds of strikes?

Maybe, maybe not. Engraving new dies would be expensive. Having new working copies of dies made isn't as expensive as you think, and doesn't require old dies being modified to fit new presses, etc.

Les

[Biro]

Thanks Micha - great photo's and superb comparisons. I really am convinced the obverse (and I'm talking frame and core) of your 'Gebr Godet' is good, but the back has been substantially messed with. Rather than 'fake' I would suggest 'tampered with'... to the point where it is worth very little...

Hi Marshall,

Just curious as to where you are heading. Do you think there is a problem with the fat crowns in general or the interpretation of their dating?

Regards

Mike

Hi Mike

No - I have no problem with fat crowns in general. After seeing so many being offered recently, I decided to try and educate myself and began checking all the 'fat crown' photo's I could find to see how the unmarked versions could be positively linked back to someone like Deumer who - along with S&L - is one of the main protagonists in the 'fat crown' area. Like I said, this between wars period is not a strong point for me - I have been unable to find a good picture of an L/11 marked TR era 1914 EK1 where I can make out the detail of the date, but maybe either you or Micha can help out.

There is a fairly distinctive feature appearing regularly on the oval section to the '9' in the date of many 'fat crowns', which I can only describe as looking rather like an 'upside down keyhole' - the pic below of various unmarked examples should illustrate what I mean.

[attachmentid=40546]

If it can be positively identified as also appearing on the core of L/11 marked T/R era versions of the 1914 EK1, then I think we have another definite feature to link these cores to Deumer for the unmarked versions whose manufacturer we cannot really be certain of.

Whether 'fat crown' 1914's are indeed 20's, 30's or even WW2 era is a slightly greyer area - for me anyway -in many cases clues are offered in the pin and hinge construction as you know, but it's not conclusive. This 1939 Deumer catalogue picture hints that certainly at the very beginning of WW2, 'fat crowns' were the Deumer style offered for these 1914 replacements whose frames were NOT of Third Reich proportions...

[attachmentid=40550]

It would certainly be interesting to hear from anyone who can fill this between wars gap in my education!

Marshall

[Biro]

Wondering also what era you guys would place this one in the scheme of things...

Marshall

[attachmentid=41788]

[gregM]

This might be an original, the master that all the fakes are copied from.

But I would guess that this was made fairly rescently. Here is a picture of a known

fake. Check out the similarities of the inner corners and the crown.

[attachmentid=41845]

Edited June 3, 2006 by gregM

[ekhunter]

Wondering also what era you guys would place this one in the scheme of things...

Marshall

[attachmentid=41788]

I would venture to say not issue, probably a little later, like the 90's, that's 1990's. Could be a little later than that.