EK 1939 Question, especially to Gordon Williamson

[martin3]

I was quite happy to find a fresh track of Gordon on this site because of a question I had for some time.

I didn't want to pm you unannounced so allow me to do it through the forum.

Of course everybody is more than welcome to jump in!

Dear Gordon, this cross is in my 'suspicious box' for about a decade.

Recently I was reading The Iron Cross of 1939 again, and of course: enjoying it again.

I was very surprised to find the same type of cross on page 152, at the top.

(The One Piece Construction.)

I was even more surprised that you declared it a genuine cross, because I always had my doubts (that is: after five years owning the cross, my suspicion rose).

My question: are you still convinced that this is a genuine cross, or has your opinion changed?

On another forum this was declared a recent Latvian fake.

I am not going along with the recent part, as I own this cross for at least 15 years.

Anyway: I am very curious to learn about this cross.

I still don't think it is good because a difference in left and right arm length and the heavy weight.

On the other hand: it would be nice if every one thinks it is good, as I didn't got it for free of course.

I hope to hear from you!

Regards,

Martin

[martin3]

Double post...

Sorry!

Edited February 22, 2008 by martin3

[martin3]

[martin3]

[martin3]

And the last one...

[DavidM]

Hello

I don't believe that Gordon did declare these as genuine. He says about the one in his book, "....such pieces may be original to the period." The crucial word here, in my opinion is "may". This implies that there is still research to be done on them, which, given it is some five or six years since Gordons book was published may have been done by now. Either way, to me it is not a declaration of originality.

Is yours a genuine period EK1? I don't know. My initial thoughts were that it lacks the crispness and definition that one would expect on an original EK, and I don't like the rim beading. If I saw this for sale I probably wouldn't buy it because of this, but obviously that in now way makes it a fake or indeed an original. As you point out, the one in Gordons book is a one piece EK, but it certainly seems to have the same reverse hardware as yours, but is yours one piece or three piece?

[martin3]

Hi David,

Mine is also a one piece construction.

And I share your concerns about the cross.

But when I bought it, I was untrained.

So when the seller told me this was a rare variation, I was an easy target.

"....such pieces may be original to the period."

I guess you are right, there is a grey area marked by the word 'may'.

Still there remains a little spark of hope someone can proof this cross good.

Where should we be without hope?

Best regards,

Martin

[joelhall]

Is yours a genuine period EK1? I don't know. My initial thoughts were that it lacks the crispness and definition that one would expect on an original EK, and I don't like the rim beading.

i agree with this. the sharpness of details is not great and the beading is poorly defined in places and uneven in size particularly on the upper arm, where it is more noticable. im sure that this would not be the level of workmanship tolerated from third reich craftsmen.

also i cannot understand what the purpose of this new construction would have been. if the maker had moved away from the standard approved method, surely this would be in response to some kind of problem, such as shortage of materials? if that were the case, it would involve new machinery pats for construction and lets not forget that the one piece would use more material overall. think about the thin frames soldered together compared to this solid thick piece. in my mind that defeats the object, and of course it would still be finished the same so why not simply use a different raw material in the original manner (as was done).

personally i would pass on these pieces, as i just cannot see the evidence of authenticity.

joel

[martin3]

and lets not forget that the one piece would use more material overall. think about the thin frames soldered together compared to this solid thick piece. in my mind that defeats the object, and of course it would still be finished the same so why not simply use a different raw material in the original manner (as was done).

joel

There you got me!

That was a thing that did not come to my mind.

I did notice that this cross was much heavier than the other crosses I own, but I did not conclude this also means more material.

Which not seems logical in times of big shortage.

Joel, thank you very much for some fresh thinking on this.

The cross just lost his medal stand.

(Only the good ones deserve a stand.)

Best regards,

Martin

[joelhall]

no problem martin

[ben bijker]

i agree with this. the sharpness of details is not great and the beading is poorly defined in places and uneven in size particularly on the upper arm, where it is more noticable. im sure that this would not be the level of workmanship tolerated from third reich craftsmen.

also i cannot understand what the purpose of this new construction would have been. if the maker had moved away from the standard approved method, surely this would be in response to some kind of problem, such as shortage of materials? if that were the case, it would involve new machinery pats for construction and lets not forget that the one piece would use more material overall.

joel

Joel, lack of quality is not uncommon.

Sometimes it almost scares you when you put crosses under magnification.

Don't forget it was no jewellers work, but mass production (more or less)

Rejecting crosses because of " lack of quality" means higher costs and lower profit.

One piece crosses do exsist, they are not late-war, but from the early years.

(Like the one-piece, convex schinkels)

And another thing, they come as magnetic and unmagnetic as well.

The main problem I have with the cross that is shown by Martin, is the pin.

So far I have only seen it on blatant fakes (ww1 & 2)

Regards,

Ben