DavidM

Hello Could you please show some photos of the reverse of the 1914 bar please. Many thanks.

Hello A nice text book '24'.

Hello Very nice. But how dare you make me drool over my keyboard. I mean, an Ubergrosse AND an RK side by side, as well as a nice Schinkle. All I need to catch up is an ubergrosse and and RK.

Hello It looks ok to me.

Hello Perhaps is just one of those things. Cross and plate are in silver and for whatever reason the actual screwdisc is of some other metal. Maybe it was silvered or silver plated at some point but this has worn off. I have seen screwbacks with silvered or silver plated screwdiscs, (the cross being in real silver), on which the underlying metal is brass or some other type. Just my thoughts.

Hello Could you post some face on, clearer, larger shots of the front and back please. There are bits I don't like about this cross, and some bits I do, but without better photos I wouldn't like to make a call. The case though, from what I can see in these shots, isn't an issue RK case.

Hello I've never had a copy of the first edition. That's why I've already got my order in.

Hello I saw the circle as well but was unsure as to what it was. I know that on the 57 re-issue versions of these, a circle is taken as indicating that Steinhauer und Luck made the piece. Based on the comment that this is the Souval circle, would all pre 1945 items like this with a circle be from Souval ?

Hello I'm no expert on these, but it looks to me like a nice, original short range night fighter clasp.

Hello I like it and think that the cross is good, and that the backing plate etc looks fine. Why bother changing it? It looks period and is a nice, unusual item. Just my opinion, but I would leave it as it is.

Hello I'm no expert on these (yet !!) but it looks good to me. As I've said elsewhere, one day I too will have a 39 RK. In the meantime I shall look enviously on from the sidelines.

Hello Thanks Igor.

Hello I did wonder about the roundness on the outer arms. Either I've been staring at the computer for to long or it's getting late, but my '113', your '123' and Bill's are all begining to look the same now. I'll come back to these tomorrow and do a close compare. Then I'll either be eating humble pie as I'm wrong or patting myself on the back for being right. Either way I'm enjoying the discussion. Speak to you later, it being Friday night I'm off to sample some refreshments.

Hello As I mentioned in my last post, the one in Gordons book also has the incuse marking and the slight narrowing of the stamp towards the '1'. this feature is exhibited on both yours and Bills. By the way, I forgot to say, welcome to the forum.

Maker Mark

Rear

Hello Nice EK. I still believe that Bill's is a '123'. The makers mark is an incuse stamp, as it is on yours and all the other '123's that I have seen, although they are on the '113's as well. From what I can make out in the photos the date numerals on Bill's and yours look the same. To properly compare closer in shots of yours would be needed to compare the beading etc. For comparison, here is my EK2 marked '113'.

Hello I disagree. This is a '123'. All other considerations aside, if you take the photo of the ring stamp and turn into a negative, (it helps make it easier to see the stamping), the mark is that of '123'.

Hello I have this book as well, having bought it about 16 years ago.

Hello Actually this isn't true. I made a request to the Imperial War Museum in London to examine all of their Iron Crosses, whether displayed or not. The request was granted and I was left with the awards in a room and able to photograph them, handle them and examine them in detail. I can't speak for other countries museums, but here in the UK what you did at West Point is certainly possible. Incidentally, the only RK that I was shown as being in their collection was a cased, unflawed, S&L. I'll dig out my photos and notes at some point, (they are still packed away somewhere having not long since moved house), as the one in the IWM has provenance from 1944 if I remember correctly.

And the enlarged views of the 6'0'clock arms.

Hello I'm no expert on these RKs, but I have studied the RKs as shown in post #22 and in my opinion, based on what I can make out in the pictures having enhanced them, the frames are diiferent. From what I can see in the photos the frame on the 57 RK has no flaws to the beaded rim, whereas the 39 RK exhibits flaws on the 3'0'clock and 6'0'clock arms. Assuming that what I see is correct, this would suggest that the two are different. Of course if I am correct, it could be argued that the 57 RK was produced on the same dies but is of earlier production and the 39 was made after the 57 set as the dies began to wear. Equally it could be argued that they are from different dies and time periods. I don't know the answer to that. But I am fairly certain that there are some minor flaws on the 39RK and none on the 57. Please see the attached enlargements of the 3'0'clock arms. The 57 is flawless whereas the 39 appears to have some small flaws evident on the beading. Best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year.

Hello From what I can make out in the pictures they all look good to me.

Hello Beautiful examples, in beautiful condition. Thanks for showing them.

Hello An absolutely superb, full set. The B H Meyer bars are one of the best ones out there in my opinion.