Jump to content

kasle

Active Contributor
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kasle

  1. These two pieces don´t belong together but I have very similar problem with them. I am not sure with correct interpretation of some ribbons. 1. What do you think, is it correct to describe this button as Reuss one, with combined Ehrenkreuz with and without swords (and at least one of them with the crown)? 2. This ribbon bar has interesting ribbon combo on the last position. Peacetime Saxonian FAM ribbon, partially covered with Prussian Long service ribbon in 8 mm width. Is it just a saving of the space, or is there some other explanation of this merging? Thank you in advance
  2. I would appreciate your opinion on this enameled version of Prussian LS clasp model 1825. What do you think, does this one represent 3rd class or 2nd class? Thanks in advance.
  3. Hello, I would like to know your opinion about this cross. Thanks in advance. It is three piece construction with magnetic core.
  4. Maybe not Turkish medal at all, as it doesn´t have typical Turkish suspension. But the date (if I read it correctly) says 1293, which would fit to 1877 Russo-Turkish war. Thank you very much in advance for any help.
  5. I am wondering which kind (or type) of Johanniter is this one. Thanks in advance for any help.
  6. At first, this is not full size badge, but miniature. Whether it is period miniature, hard to say. I would be happy with it, depending on the price. Btw, the badge from the first Gordon´s link is not wartime original either, but a postwar privately purchased piece. Just like this mini.
  7. " 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 a.) EK2 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. "and finally..." - 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?
  8. There are only three producers associated with production of clamshell EK1s: Deumer, Schickle - and Floch. No Finke. Some Russian dealer´s page is not enough to change my mind. I can show you page, where KO is still offered as Koeniglisches Munzamt Abteilung Orden. As I already said, all mentioned makers produced also 1939 EK1 clamshells. Where is 1939er Finke? And why his clamshell is on Schickle 1939 crosses?
  9. Otto Schickle used two core types and two clamshell types. The other core and other clamshell is - as far as I know - without any doubt associated with Schickle. I already saw these two cores and clamshells in all four possible combinations, which leads me to think that this particular combination is nobody else than Schickle. Mayer used completely different style of frame, very distinctive, with straight arms, either on Imperials or on 1939ers. Not even mentioning that this is the first time I see him associated with production of one-piece crosses. And Finke? Never heard of her Below photo borrowed from 5tefan (ek1.dna). Schickle used this clamshell also on 1939 crosses which is another proof that thread starter is - just an Otto Schickle, Pforzheim.
  10. Probably not a chance to ID winner of this bar, but still worth asking... It came with all medals represented (though Bronze Merit medal is damaged) plus EK1 1914.
  11. Are the metal parts (hinge and button) magnetic? Is the interior UV negative?
  12. Unfortunately, not only the core, but the frame as well can not be associated with Hansen. In my opinion, this cross, same as MH´s cross is the result of post production marriage. If it is period marriage or modern one, is another question. Btw, when we speak about "Hansen", we speak about three core types (different from yours) and four producers (Hansen had three subsidiaries + himself). So far, only two of them are known by name (Hansen Kiel and Koch&Bergfeld Bremen) and producing EK1s. The rest of them were seen so far only on Hansen type EK2s. But all of them used the same frame. So the only thing that keeps this cross with the Hansen disc together is the diameter of the threaded stud - and the tarnish. If it is enough for you, there is nothing more to say.
  13. I agree with Chris. That case is bogus type, never seen EK1 case with space for EK2 ribbon. But the cross is nice AWS piece.
  14. Another three: Oskar Dirlewanger, Hermann Höfle, Karl Hermann Frank.
  15. I would like to hear your opinion about this Soviet badge. It measures 41.2 mm tall x 36.5 mm wide. The only reference I have found says that it is Police Officer hat badge, model 1937-1939. Can you please confirm this? Thank you very much in advance
  16. Thanks for info. The left one looks really better, I must say. Is there also a price difference between these two variants?
  17. Enamelled minis are more common than enamelled full size EKs, but still harder to find ones. Nice pin!
  18. Hi, I would like to know your opinions about this Bavarian Sport-Leistungs Abzeichen in Silver. Dimensions cca 30 x 40 mm. Is it 1st version (Fassung) awarded only between 1949 -51, as I suppose? Thank you in advance for any info.
  19. Hello Elmar, Probably it is just a misunderstanding caused - again - by the level of my English, so I will try again: On period drawing, crown sweatband from both sides of the crown is not in the contact with the crowns in any point. As we can clearly see, sweatband on your badge as well as on Tifes one, is in contact with the crown at one point (in the peak of last curve). Photo of reverse shows it even better. This point of contact (red arrows) can´t be seen neither on period drawing, nor on my badge. PS: I do not want to doubt originality of your or Tifes badge. It is undoubtely accepted wartime awarded original. I just want to discuss my type of badge, and find her timeframe. Best Regards, Miro
  20. Picture below is showing upscaled and resized drawing of Karl Badge from Verordnungsblatt 47/1917. To the left of period drawing is accepted early type (probably in privately purchased version, but overall as well as detailed features are nearly identical). To the right is my type of Karl badge (photo taken from emedals, as I wanted to show both badges on white background as is on period drawing). For better orientation I will call the left badge "Yours" and right badge "Mine". 1.: Your Karl Type badge to the left has both ends of headband (sweatband) in contact with crown. On period drawing, the ends of headband don´t touch the crown. Same as on mine Karl type to the right. 2. On period drawing, as well as on mine type, the wreath under the right wing is visibly thinner (from outer side). On your type, it is approximately of same width there as anywhere else. 3. Right foot on "K" letter is visibly lower than the left foot. On period drawing, and on my type. Surprisingly, your badge has letter K visibly tilted to opposite side with right foot higher than the left one. 4. Laurel wreath under the left wing is wider, because of leaf "bending" to the inner side. On period drawing, as well as on my type. Contrary to this, on your Karl Type, there is just the cut to the leaves profile. 5. There are even more surprising similarities, but these are not clearly seen on these pics. For example, there is a fancy bow on sweatband under the crowns - again identically on period drawing and on my type. On your type, there is just a tight knot - and four strips of sweatband going to four sides (ok, maybe there is a small bow, but completely different shape). Of course, there is also one big difference: period drawing and your type have hooks, while mine is on needle. I am thinking of possibility, that Karl badge started with the pin and after a short time it was changed to two hooks. This is in this moment the only explanation for me, how Verordnungsblatt 47/1917 can speak about two hooks, but still show "my" type (just without the pin). Is there any chance that mentioned Verordnungsblatt 47/1917 is not about changing the FJ Type to Karl Type (and about changing the hardware in the same moment), but just about changing the pin on Karl Type to two hooks?
×
×
  • Create New...