Motorhead Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Here's a saturday morning question for you-can you find out the maker? With a pic of the reverse it would be too easy,but compare the frame with the "Silber" marked ones...not identical,but.... Micha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Gordon Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I'm thinking Zimmermann (20;L/52) but I don't have mine handly to confirm.Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 Ok,Gordon-any other opinions? Here are more than two EK collectors in this forum....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekhunter Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Thought I had it, fixing to rattle off a DRGM #, but noticed the 9's were a little different. Now I'm really curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biro Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Deumer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Gordon Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Well, done we get the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 I'm back-sorry for the week without an answer-I had to work somewhere at the black forest...no free internet at the hotel.Anyway,some of you might have thought"what's wrong with this idiot,why doesn't he show the backside of the EK?"I'm shure...ok-In my oppinion this iron cross is a fake.The complete backside: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 Some additional informations-this Ek is a 3 piece construction,but it's non magnetic!When I look at the frame I'mshure they used an original tool(look at the die flaws).Of course the pin doesn't match to anything right,and also the colour of the whole thing is strange enough tho let all alarmbells ring.Here's a closeup from the stamp(again good work) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 (edited) A closeup from the hinge(a really big one)-again something I haven't seen before on a 1914 EK1....... Edited May 20, 2006 by Motorhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 Here's another pic of the hinge....look at the pin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 The catch-flat wire in a strange shape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 Another shot of the hinge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 And the hooks......So in my eyes this one is a mutant! The core is not sofar away from a Godet,the frame was possibly made with an old,original tool.The maker mark was done also with a professional tool.But if I do all this work...why the hell have they used this pin and hooks? You can't fool someone who has done his homework and tell him this is a Godet with hooks.But with a "normal" pin and without this Godet mark this EK could be the first really dangerous copy at the marked.I would like to know what you are thinking about this strange one.....Micha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregM Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 I think I have to agree. This could be a very dangerous EK.The core is definately not a Godet core BUT how many new collectors knowhow to tell one crown from another? The hooks look good.The frame is what worries me. Godet has a very unique pattern to the cornerbeeding. This frame comes really close. Like you said. Maybe copied from an original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biro Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Most definitely not a Godet core - and the back is horrible.... but how does the core compare to the apparently 'postwar' one in this older thread Micha? - http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=6...indpost&p=60931Marshall [attachmentid=40167] [attachmentid=40168] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph A Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Another for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph A Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 reverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hunter Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Very interesting catch plate, Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregM Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 I like the fancy repaired catch.Here is the backside of a unmarked Godet with fangs[attachmentid=40275] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Hi Micha,That reverse image explains why I didn't like the obverse image!Imo no chance it is genuine. This is an example meant to fleece someone of serious money. I think the silver stamp combined with the obviously NON-SILVER frames is enough to kill this one for me. Even assuming the markings are a later add-on, I would find it very unusual that a normally high-quality modification was made to such a poor quality cross.Pretty sure I've seen (and passed straight by) similar on xBay.RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 Hi Mike,it was never the question that this mutant could be something original! But from the comments here and in another place- no one pointed it out as what it is! OK,it was a little unfair,but it shows how good it is(just the obverse,of course)This one in hand can't fool somebody who has done his homework.But with a different reverse,no hooks and maker mark I think this could be a dangerous fake! I'm shure I've seen something with a regular pin at Ebay,but unfortunately I deleted the pics! All in all the one I've shown is number 3 I've seen the last few month.....but I'm shure it's not the last!RegardsMicha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Hi Micha,Deumer was mentioned earlier and it actually may not be a bad call, in that the bad flaws on the frames of this (imo) repro are similar to 1939 and early 1957 Deumers - same with the beading. It's possible someone has got hold of some badly damaged original dies (not necessarily Imperial) and is starting to pump out repros. Out of curiosity, if the cross is in your posession, what are it's dimensions?RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biro Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 (edited) Hi Micha We all know and accept the back of your's is totally bogus... but every time I see one of these 'fat' and very distinctive crowns such as the one posted first, someone pipes up and claims 20's or 30's production.It's an era I know only a little about, and I - like the rest of you - am seeing more and more of them on ebay. So again - how does the core (not the frame or reverse) of your bad 'Godet' compare to the one I posted in #15... and indeed, to the core of your own 'flawed' clamshell EK1 that you've theorised may be a Deumer.http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=3087&hl=DeumerOr this one of Jans..[attachmentid=40317]Thanks mateMarshall Edited May 22, 2006 by Biro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorhead Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 Marshall,I'm not really happy with the piece shown in the linked older thread(you are talking about the first one?).....And yes-it seems to be that there is a relationship between the"bad Godet" and the so called "theoretical Deumer".And I agree with you totally about the "fat crown" pieces of the 20ies.But there are not so many different variations as you might think! But anyway-give me an hour or two for new pics to show the relationship between Deumer and the Mutant!Micha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 ...but every time I see one of these 'fat' and very distinctive crowns such as the one posted first, someone pipes up and claims 20's or 30's production...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?I agree that there seem to be a lot of this type on eBay recently. Many have very believable pre-45 hardware however imo some look like they have been created specifically for EK variant collectors (either out and out fakes or altered originals).One thing to keep in mind is that this "fat" crown was the sytle that dominanted in Third Reich times (plenty of genuine LDO marked examples, some slight variations as well) and into the 50s (and probably 60s) as evidenced by earlier 1914 type "57ers". All the fat crown crosses that I've been able to examine have been larger (43+ mm) crosses, commonly 44 mm crosses. If fakers have gotten hold of genuine dies, it is more likely they would be of this later and larger type (for both core and frames) as earlier dies are more likely to have been thrown out/destroyed.RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now