EK 1939 1939 EK I cased but no maker's mark

[Brian Wolfe]

Hello Everyone,

This cased 1939 EK I just arrived yesterday. It has no maker's marks but I think (hope) it is genuine.

What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your opinions, they are greatly valued.

Regards

Brian

[Brian Wolfe]

This is the reverse. The photo doesn't show the blueish patina that is has developed.

The core is magnetic and I think the blue hue indicates a silver content to the frame.

Soldering on the frame is neat and I think is what I would expect with a genuine EK I.

[Brian Wolfe]

This view of the reverse shows the pin and hinge, which again is what I would expect it to be, according to what I have seen here on other examples.

[Brian Wolfe]

This is the lid of the box. The hinge and clasp all are in excellent condition. The only wear is to a small section on the bottom on upper right hand corner (as the box sits in the photo). I didn't bother to show the wear as it is pretty common to any medal box that is 60 years old and not at all extensive.

[Guest Darrell]

Hey Brian. It's a good one.

Unmarked K&Q :cheers:

[Brian Wolfe]

This is the Cross in the presentation box. The interior box top is white and the area where the EK rests is a cream colour. The lighting in my photo area makes it look yellow, which it is not.

Thanks for taking a look and I am interested (mixed with apprehension)to hear from the members.

Regards

Brain

[Brian Wolfe]

Hey Brian. It's a good one.

Unmarked K&Q

Thanks Darrell,

You have no idea how much my blood pressure has been up with worry on this one. The condition was so good I was thinking I would be up for the "GMCI Dummy of the Year" award.

Thanks again, your opinion was better than medication!

Regards

Brian

[Guest Darrell]

No problem. The 65's have that typical "flat black" charcoal type paint that's typical on the Juncker Lazy 2 RK's.

[samirarora]

First, Thank you Brian...you know what i am thanking you for!!!

Darrell- I read your last post and since i am new to german medals, i want to find out more about your last remark..ie

"The 65's have that typical "flat black" charcoal type paint that's typical on the Juncker Lazy 2 RK's."

I was hoping that you could kindly elaborate on what 65s are, what is meant by the flat back charcoal type paint and what is Junckers lazy 2 Rk's

sorry about being totally dumb about it.. but i want to learn more, so when you have time, maybe i could request you to kindly elaborate a bit more on the cross above.

Thank you,

Samir.

Edited May 11, 2010 by samirarora

[Guest Darrell]

First, Thank you Brian...you know what i am thanking you for!!!

Darrell- I read your last post and since i am new to german medals, i want to find out more about your last remark..ie

"The 65's have that typical "flat black" charcoal type paint that's typical on the Juncker Lazy 2 RK's."

I was hoping that you could kindly elaborate on what 65s are, what is meant by the flat back charcoal type paint and what is Junckers lazy 2 Rk's

sorry about being totally dumb about it.. but i want to learn more, so when you have time, maybe i could request you to kindly elaborate a bit more on the cross above.

Thank you,

Samir.

Samir, "65" is the PZK number issued to Klein & Quenzer one of the authorized EK1 manufacturers during WW2. Although this cross shown was not marked, many crosses are. Here is my example from K&Q that is marked. These should exhibit the same characteristics whether marked or unmarked, and thus they can be identified.

As far as the paint. The "charcoal" texture is exactly that. Rough and not shiny (flat black). Some crosses have a shiny look to the paint. The Lazy "2" is a late War Knights Cross with similar "Flat Black" paint.

[samirarora]

Hi Darrell,

Many thanks for the quick reply..much appreciated and further, for putting up a picture of the marked variation...beautiful cross! i take it the charcoal effect, is something like a matte finish, as compared to a glossy finish in others.

Comparing the cross in your collection with Brian's, i note the following..

1. The start of the pin of Brian's cross has this little semicircle (right at the top, very close to the hinge), like a smile, while its not there on the marked example.

2. The hinge, as its soldered to the main body of the cross, seems to be a single step in the marked example, while on brians cross it seems there is a double step, although this could just be an illusion due to shadows on the picture..

3. Also, the small little pin holding the main pin to the hinge, seems to be protruding in your example on both sides of the hinge, while this is not very apparent on brians cross( again, this could be due to lack of visibility on the picture).

What i mean is, are such small variances ok, within the same makers crosses ?

Thank you again!

Best wishes,

samir.

PS- I am sure this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, so will look for that later, but am wondering under what circumstances did manufactures, decide to leave the crosses unmarked, and yet at some other instances marked them.. or was it chronological, that they first or later were leaving them unmarked, but at some stage changed their mind?

Edited May 11, 2010 by samirarora

[Guest Darrell]

Yes, there are variances with any item. Catches, pins, hinges, there are always going to be slight variations. Some are acceptable, some are not.

It's actually the other way around. The "unmarked" crosses are usually associated with the "early" crosses. The Marked crosses coming later as regulations became tighter and more control was warranted to "authorized" manufacturers via a numbering process.

Good references are Dietrich Maerz's books located here:

http://www.ironcross1939.com/

Dietrich goes in painstaking detail over how the numbering system came about. Well worth the read. He has published a book on the RK and the DKiG, and books on the 1939 EK1 and EK2 are forthcoming very soon.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Darrell

[all1knew]

Hello there,

Another quality unmarked "65" with great patina.

William Kramer