EK 1939 Schinkel Form EKs

[ben bijker]

Well, you passed on a nice original.

But don't worry, there are plenty of these around.

best regards,

ben

[robert pierce]

Here is a packet for a Deumer Schinkel type, posted by a member of another forum...

Robert

[naoki matsumoto]

I?m cruising the web for interestring items and I have foubd this X on swedish tradera.

A EK II Schinkel shaped cross i WWI type isue bag with no maker mark but claimed to be identified as a Deumer cross. It?s non magnetic. The price is 2 500 SEK (? 215, ? 263). Is something to think of or just an other piece of metal?

Thomas

You kan se the add on this link Tradera.com EKII Schinkel and ihave copied down pictures of the cross here

I

Looks good set Kreuz!!

One of my collections Schinkel kreuz.

[Jim R]

Just received this Schinkel EKI screwback (magnetic) today to add to my collection. Does anyone know who made it? I thought it could be a Deumer, but comparing it with one I already have, I don't think so as the "9" are different.

[ogfm]

Hi Jim,

a very very nice one piece made Schinkel EK1.....

The maker of these Schinkels is unknown at the moment.

King Regards,

Oliver

[Streptile]

Hello board members. My name is Trevor. I am new to

this board but not to collecting the Iron Cross. I've spent the last

week or so browsing this forum. It seems that there is quite an

accumulated store of knowledge here.

I have a few nice things in my collection, which (in theory) spans

1813 - 1939 (57), but there are one or two EKs that I simply have

never been able to figure out. I am posting some descriptions and

photos here in the hopes that one of you might be able to help me

identify.

The first head-scratcher is this one:

It seems undeniably genuine: unmarked, magnetic, 3-piece construction.

It's substantial - rather heavy and well-made. It measures 43.2mm x

43.2mm.

The swastika and date are very crisp and high:

Here's the RS:

Basically my confusion stems from the fact that I believe this to be a

Schinkelform A type. Below it is pictured with an Imperial EK2 and a

65-marked K&Q from my collection. It's evident to me that the beading

frame on the cross in question closely resembles the Imperial cross,

right down to its dimensions. But the flange is wider than I'd like to

see on a standard Schinkelform A EK2, making the overall dimensions

closer to the TR-standard 44mm than the Imperial standard 42mm.

Some time ago I did an experiment with this cross and "narrowed" the

flange with Photoshop (rather sloppily). It was driving me crazy that

I couldn't decide whether this was a Schinkel or not. Below is the

result of the experiment.

I guess my question for you all is, does anyone else have a cross that

matches this one? Is this a known variant? Can it be attributed? Would

you say it's a Schinkel?

In any case, I am very happy to have discovered that there is a forum

out there for people who are as interested in this

decoration as I am. My enthusiasm for collecting has waxed and waned

over the years, and I've had to sell some true gems that I wish I had

now, but I still have a small group of EKs that I am now trying to

build up again.

Many thanks,

Trevor

[ogfm]

Hi Trevor,

imo your Schinkel is fake cross, because this type is not known of original crosses.

And if you look on the frame, you`ll see many differences to originals Schinkels.

The frame has a different size (No#1), the date (No#2) is not known on originals.

The little ring (No#3) is not placed in the middle of the cross. The hole core with date and swastika do not match also.....

[ogfm]

Here is a pic of a standart Deumer. You will see the differences...

[ogfm]

One piece made

[ogfm]

rare intermediate

[Streptile]

Hi Trevor,

imo your Schinkel is fake cross, because this type is not known of original crosses.

And if you look on the frame, you`ll see many differences to originals Schinkels.

The frame has a different size (No#1), the date (No#2) is not known on originals.

The little ring (No#3) is not placed in the middle of the cross. The hole core with date and swastika do not match also.....

Hello ogfm,

Thank you for your considered reply. I must say that the one answer I was not expecting was that this one is fake. I've had it in my collection since 1999 and never doubted it's authenticity, although I have doubted others. The workmanship on this piece is magnificent, easily equal to every other original I own, and superior to most. Now, I am not an expert per se, but I am very knowledgeable and very well read on the subject of EK collecting, having been at it for 10+ years, and to my eye, this EK has every hallmark of an original piece. Moreover, it has been in my possession since before there were - to my knowledge - sophisticated 1939 EK2 fakes.

Also, just because an example does not match commonly-known originals, it does not necessarily mean it's a fake. If the latter were true, we'd never have any "discoveries" in our hobby. But if this one is fake, it ought to match some known fakes (which maybe it does - we'll see). So, without discounting or taking any offense at your opinion - indeed, if it's fake I want to know - I would like to throw to thread open for others to weigh in on this cross.

To clarify: I do know that this one does not match other Schinkels I have seen, which, more than anything, was the reason for my post. It has always stumped me, but I believe it to be authentic TR manufacture. I can supply more photos if required, or other information.

Any other opinions on this one will be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Trevor

I would like to post this thread on Wehrmacht-Awards Forum as well, but my account is in the moderator queue awaiting approval. If I get some info there, I will try to update this thread as well.

[ben bijker]

Hello ogfm,

Thank you for your considered reply. I must say that the one answer I was not expecting was that this one is fake. I've had it in my collection since 1999 and never doubted it's authenticity, although I have doubted others. The workmanship on this piece is magnificent, easily equal to every other original I own, and superior to most. Now, I am not an expert per se, but I am very knowledgeable and very well read on the subject of EK collecting, having been at it for 10+ years, and to my eye, this EK has every hallmark of an original piece. Moreover, it has been in my possession since before there were - to my knowledge - sophisticated 1939 EK2 fakes.

Also, just because an example does not match commonly-known originals, it does not necessarily mean it's a fake. If the latter were true, we'd never have any "discoveries" in our hobby. But if this one is fake, it ought to match some known fakes (which maybe it does - we'll see). So, without discounting or taking any offense at your opinion - indeed, if it's fake I want to know - I would like to throw to thread open for others to weigh in on this cross.

To clarify: I do know that this one does not match other Schinkels I have seen, which, more than anything, was the reason for my post. It has always stumped me, but I believe it to be authentic TR manufacture. I can supply more photos if required, or other information.

Hi Trevor,

Oliver is right, your cross is a fake.

It comes from Latvia and is very convincing.

Biggest give-away is the varying width of the flange.

It is really made to deceive.I am convinced this Schinkel has found it's way into many collections, but it's still a fake.

TYou can post it on WAF, but you will get the same replies.

Sorry....

Best regards,

Ben

[Streptile]

Hi Trevor,

Oliver is right, your cross is a fake.

It comes from Latvia and is very convincing.

Biggest give-away is the varying width of the flange.

It is really made to deceive.I am convinced this Schinkel has found it's way into many collections, but it's still a fake.

TYou can post it on WAF, but you will get the same replies.

Sorry....

Best regards,

Ben

No need to apologize Ben, I thank you and Oliver for your insight. It is indeed a pretty good fake. I keep meticulous notes on where and when I buy each of my crosses, and when I get home I shall have a look and see if, in fact, this one came from Latvia.

So am I to understand that the Meybauer and Deumer EK2 Schinkels are the only ones commonly accepted as genuine?

By the way, I did a search on WAF and came up with this photo in a thread - called a Latvian fake Schinkel EK1 by posters there:

apologies to the original owner of this cross for borrowing the photo

Is this the same core and frame used for mine? It certainly seems similar...

Thanks again... I will post the source for this cross in a bit, for interest's sake.

Trevor

Edited March 26, 2009 by Streptile

[ben bijker]

No need to apologize Ben, I thank you and Oliver for your insight. It is indeed a pretty good fake. I keep meticulous notes on where and when I buy each of my crosses, and when I get home I shall have a look and see if, in fact, this one came from Latvia.

So am I to understand that the Meybauer and Deumel EK2 Schinkels are the only ones commonly accepted as genuine?

By the way, I did a search on WAF and came up with this photo in a thread - called a Latvian fake Schinkel EK1 by posters there:

apologies to the original owner of this cross for borrowing the photo

Is this the same core and frame used for mine? It certainly seems similar...

Thanks again... I will post the source for this cross in a bit, for interest's sake.

Trevor

Trevor,

I wrote " sorry" because it sucks when you find out you have paid good money for a copy.

There are a number of makers for the Schinkel-crosses, but Meybauer and deumer are the only 2 identified makers (so far)

And yes, the 1st class you post is from the same maker /faker.

Best regards,

ben

[barzda]

EKII "Schinkel" -Paul Meybauer

What is your opinion about this cross?

thanks,

[barzda]

..............

[barzda]

..........

[barzda]

.........

[barzda]

........

[Gew44]

A good Meybayer "Schinkelform" and very nice condition

Another congrats

Edited February 1, 2011 by Gew44

[Chris Boonzaier]

Just merged some loose Schinkel stuff