" new information comes to light all of the time. personally, i like to keep an open mind towards these things, hence my conversation with you."
- Me too, but it doesn´t mean I just take everything as it comes. For beginner, every new info is a groundbreaking find, but for experienced and knowledged collector, it is just a piece of puzzle, that either fits to already existing mosaic, or not. And if not, it should come accompanied with strong arguments equal to the strength of mosaic that it attempted to change.
For me, E. Finke piece of puzzle doesn´t fit to clamshell-part of my mosaic which I consider quite completed and crosschecked even from TR point of view. If it came somewhere to the white, blank, still incomplete space, I would have probably taken it as a fact. Here I have no reason, so far.
I am open to new finds, I was many times seen helping them to life with my own research, but I need to see or hear valid arguments. Which I still didn´t, in this case. "i showed you via the goldschmiede-zeitung that this firm did in fact exist..."
- I didn´t say this firm never existed. I wrote (first time in a form of joke, second time more seriously and clearly) that I´ve never heard about this firm in connection with EK1 clamshell. Pure existence of the company, or the fact that this company produced shooting awards (or maybe even EKs), is not a proof that it had something to do also with EK1 clamshells.
"...and i showed you a purported example of a cross marked to that maker."
Wrong. That "purported example of a cross" is
b.) Not marked.
Everyone, even those who don´t understand Russian, can check the ring. It is unmarked piece, attributed to E. Finke only in dealer´s caption. Without any explanation or source. The long text under the cross is only about the condition and about Iron cross in general (since 1813 until 1939). Which is not enough for me to just take this info as a fact.
"...the fact that you seem to reject an image based merely on the seller's nationality is a mistake, in my opinion."
- Wrong. The fact is that I reject an image based merely on the seller´s profession (dealer) and his insufficient caption. I am Slav (Slovak), reading and speaking Russian fluently, living in a territory with strong Ruthenian, Ukrainian and Russian minority, many of them are my friends, so - without further explanation - I reserve the right not to be accused from such BS.
"why is there no 1939 emil finke cross? i don't know, perhaps the owners of the firm emigrated around 1932-33?"
- Either you believe the Russian dealer who states that EK2 he offers as Finke was produced in 30s - 40s, or you can believe Finke emigrated in 1932. But to believe in both things together doesn´t make a sense.
"i ran the pertinent pages through a different translation service, and what the author states is that an unknown maker mass produced these unmarked crosses (in many forms--but often one piece, stamped or cast) for resale to retailers and other "producers", one of which is emil finke of berlin."
- Contrary to you, I don´t need translation services to read Russian. But we already went through this in the discussion about K.A.G. maker when you refused to show particular page. In that case you weren´t even able to interprete what is written there...
Why you wave with that Nicolai´s book when you don´t want to present extracts from it? Your answer that you want to respect copyright is just an excuse, but not the explanation. Copyright has no problem with conditions of "fair use", which allows you to presents extracts of the book for research, discussion, review of presentation purposes (together with giving credits to the book, page, author and publisher).
If you really like to keep an open mind towards new information as you stated, then you should have no problem to allow this right also to others and show the particular extracts of that book. Only then I am open to discuss what is really written there.
- The cross shown in your last link is screwback, but not the clamshell. I am saying it, not the first time, Chris was asking about producer of this clamshell. Correct me if i am wrong but it is you who claim (or interprete) that this type of the cross (core, frame, one-piece construction) was sold by many retailers with different hardware. So, logically, if we want to pinpoint one of them with clamshell hardware, we should focus on clamshell hardware and not show EK2s with ring "hardware" or EK1s with big washer and small screw. It does not matter they have identical core, frame and one-piece construction because these features are irrelevant in the case of cross with identical construction retailed by many "producers" with different hardware. Is it clear now?