EK 1914 WW1 EK1 - Schinkel?

[Guest Darrell]

Guys .... it appears to be WW1 era manufacture ... but the reverse hardware appears to be like that of the WW2 Schinkel crosses. What's your take on this one??

1.

[Guest Darrell]

2.

[Guest Darrell]

3.

[Guest Darrell]

4.

[Guest Darrell]

5.

[Guest Darrell]

6.

[Guest Darrell]

7.

[DavidM]

Hello Darrell

As you say the front has the characteristics of a WW1 cross, but the rear looks distinctly Third Reich. I have never seen a rear like this on any 1914 - 1918 issue crosses, but I have on the 1939 - 1945 ones. However, EK's were in production for WW1 from 1914 to 1945, and were even available when the 1957 de-nazified versions appeared. I have a Third Reich period, (but pre WW2), Assaman catalalogue which offers the 1914 EK's for veterans and whose fronts are the same as the WW1 issue. The only problem is that it doesn't show the rear.

As an educated guess, based on examples in my own collection and those I have been able to examine in other collections I would say that the cross is no later than 1939 but is certainly well after 1918 - probably in a time frame of 1935 - 39. As I say I base my assumption on examination of period WW1 EK pieces and the fact that the very early, (and I do mean the really early), issue 1939 EK's were around the same size and style as the WW1 EK's. I wouldn't like to say it's a Schinkel, but it does carry the hallmarks of a Third Reich manufactured piece.

Either way, it's a nice piece. Congratulations.

Edited November 28, 2005 by DavidM

[Guest Darrell]

Thanks David. I agree that's it's Post 1918 and probably pre-1940ish. I hope others pitch in with comments as this one sure appears to be made from the early dies that created that unusual hardware.

It's not mine ... I just thought is interesting, as I have never seen a WW1 piece with that hardware. OR one made for WW1 in WW2 with the hardware that resembles the early WW2 crosses.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Darrell

[joe campbell]

1 am inclined to agree with the 1935-41 period,

the main reason being the hinge, which i've only

seen on the early TR schinkel-style 1939's.

it would make sense that the hardware was

available at that time, and would be used.

the arms of this cross are considerably

thicker, however, than the typical schinkel

crosses i've seen.

it is a nice cross!

joe

[Bill Garvy]

Here is a Third Reich example of an unmarked "22" for Boerger & Company, Berlin with a similar pin, hinge, and clasp configuration. . . Edited November 28, 2005 by Bill Garvy

[Guest Darrell]

Hi Bill ... wow ... can't get much closer to a match on the reverse hardware. Is the catch on yours like the one I posted?

[Bill Garvy]

From the front. . . Hope you don't mind this non-Imperial Cross being posted here. . .

[Bill Garvy]

Darrell, I don't have a scan of the clasp from the bottom as nicely as you do, but I can make one and post it later. As memory serves, the clasp is indeed quite similar. . .

[Bill Garvy]

Here is a scan of the clasp. . . Note the split in the seam of the arm. . . Edited November 29, 2005 by Bill Garvy

[Guest Darrell]

Appears the catch is quite different. The one on the first cross posted in almost like a Deumer catch with that pig tail curl to it.

[Bill Garvy]

Here is an alternate view. It appears they both are flat and wide, but the curl is missing from mine. . .

[Jim Baker]

Darrell,

That Deumer style catch was the first thing I noticed. I saw a cross similar to this at a show in around 1995. Unfortunately I didn't have the funds to pick it up at the time. I'm also thinking this is probably from the period of '35-'40. Is the frame down tight to the core??

[Guest Darrell]

Darrell,

That Deumer style catch was the first thing I noticed. I saw a cross similar to this at a show in around 1995. Unfortunately I didn't have the funds to pick it up at the time. I'm also thinking this is probably from the period of '35-'40. Is the frame down tight to the core??

Dont know Jim ... it's not mine ... its on a dealers site.

[Mike K]

Hi,

Gents, I disagree with such a tight 1935-1940ish time frame. If you keep your eye open, this type of hinge/pin/catch arrangement is actually NOT uncommon. I have two or three of this same type 1914EK1 (they can come with brass cores and/or frames) and seem to seem them on eBay reasonably regularly - nothing wrong with them either!

This hinge/pin/catch configuration can be found on MANY items from the late teens through to the earliest 40s (the WW2 "Wernstein" hinge being similar but definitely different, so I do not include it). Examples you ask? The earliest year dated Stahlhelm Badges, EK1 equivalents from other kingdoms/dutchies (eg Meck-Schwerin, Braunschweig & Oldenburg), many veterans association and some Freikorps badges (have a look through Detlev's catalogues), early Third Reich pinback awards and earliest wartime - up to and including the early 6+ rivet DKs (1941). So my own time frame for these examples is much broader and ranges from latest WW1 to early WW2. There is another version with a round-wire catch, rather than the classic flat-wire catch.

Imo some clarification on Darrell's first post re "the reverse hardware appears to be like that of the WW2 Schinkel crosses". A WW1 Schinkel is a tautology (at least I'm pretty sure that is a valid term for the phrase!). The earliest WW2 EKs are referred to as "Schinkels" because they have the smaller size and highly curved arms of WW1 (and earlier) crosses.

One more bit of info, my 1939 Schinkel EK1 - which shares the same hinge/pin/catch - also shares the same beading to the frame EXCEPT the beading is badly flawed. To me this indicates serious die deterioration and, as the 1939 Schinkels are interpreted to be earlier examples, the EK1 frame die probably fell apart early in the war when production numbers would have been increased.

Sorry for coming on strongish on this topic, but this style hinge/pin/catch is one of my favourites.

Regards

Mike K