Third Party Press

late war Appel assembled kits

Scharf

Well-known member
Hello!

Just received it and I'm sorry to break it down but it does have a faint WaA20, it's not as rare as we thought it would be but still it has the thin cnx font which IMO is uncommon. On the other hand I found out that the phenolic oiler is red and well marked by the subcontractor "eqt" so I'm happy with that, all the brushes are proper to the kit with thin synthetic bristles. The reinigungskette was added from what I had in store which I think will fit this kit very well.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220630_100420.jpg
    IMG_20220630_100420.jpg
    264.7 KB · Views: 22
  • IMG_20220630_100432.jpg
    IMG_20220630_100432.jpg
    189 KB · Views: 22

mrfarb

No War Eagles For You!
Staff member
I just looked, I have 2 kits with cnx in that spot (close to the center) that do not have acceptance. I don't think they are rare myself, but 8 others do have acceptance so maybe hard to find is a better term.
 

Scharf

Well-known member
I just looked, I have 2 kits with cnx in that spot (close to the center) that do not have acceptance. I don't think they are rare myself, but 8 others do have acceptance so maybe hard to find is a better term.
Yes, but what made this kit different from other late cnx was the fact that the cnx markings is thinner, so seeing a combo with this font and without a WaA would have been nice. But still, I guess it's an interesting behalter. Could you perhaps show both of your near the center cnx rg34? That would be very helpful.
 

Slash

Gray Ghost Moderator
Staff member
I just looked, I have 2 kits with cnx in that spot (close to the center) that do not have acceptance. I don't think they are rare myself, but 8 others do have acceptance so maybe hard to find is a better term.

In my experience cnx behälter without acceptance are uncommon. Thin marking cnx cans are rare with or without acceptance. My thoughts only ......
 

pwcosol

Senior Member
I particularly like that coded, four-bead RGK w/swivel-link and twisted wire. I think this is the latest Apple coded RGK I have seen. Same for the oiler with heavily rounded tube top and two-tone components...very nice!
 

Slash

Gray Ghost Moderator
Staff member
Here are some pics of G. Appel behälter that may helps illustrate what we have been trying to explain.

- First pic top to bottom: Typical font and location cnx marking (left) with SWE WaA20 (right) - Thin font cnx marking (left) with SWE WaA20 (right) - Atypical location cnx marking (right) with SWE WaA20 (left). In my opinion, the bottom kit is the first cnx marking which replaced the 64 coded behälter in early 1941

- Second pic top to bottom: Last location, late war cnx marking (left- close to latch indent) without WaA acceptance - Typical location cnx marking (left) with SWE WaA20 (right) - Last location, late war cnx marking (left- close to latch indent) with SWE WaA20 (right)

- Third pic top to bottom: Last location, late war G. Appel marking (right - close to latch indent) no WaA acceptance - Typical location G. Appel marking (right) no WaA acceptance

Early cnx cans have two spot welds to secure each hinge pin and two additional spot welds to each latch pin. Early G. Appel marked behälter have identical construction. The last marking location late war kits with cnx or G. Appel stamping moved closer to the latch indent have simplified internal construction. No spot welding was performed to secure the hinge pins and only one spot weld for each latch pin. In other words, late cans have only two spot welds to the pins instead of the eight found on earlier behälter. Would speculate this was for expediency. There is a transition period in which a few early or typical marking location cnx and G. Appel stamped cans have the simplified pin welding.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5137.jpeg
    IMG_5137.jpeg
    180.2 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_7987.jpeg
    IMG_7987.jpeg
    210.3 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_7977.jpeg
    IMG_7977.jpeg
    181.3 KB · Views: 23

mrfarb

No War Eagles For You!
Staff member
Ok, I see the thin font small cnx there, I don’t consider the others thin ( like these I posted of the late placement cnx). Here’s a few of my cnx kits, some were parts buys or incomplete. I prefer the large CNX kits to all others. I think the one below with the red line is the thin font?
 

Attachments

  • 54E4645F-77AC-4795-8AB3-332FCE4FF3BB.jpeg
    54E4645F-77AC-4795-8AB3-332FCE4FF3BB.jpeg
    325.9 KB · Views: 26
  • 5A269D77-321B-48CC-A77C-6AE3B0A6FA86.jpeg
    5A269D77-321B-48CC-A77C-6AE3B0A6FA86.jpeg
    268.9 KB · Views: 23
  • 225394A1-2993-4716-B890-30690DDB9CEC.jpeg
    225394A1-2993-4716-B890-30690DDB9CEC.jpeg
    345.9 KB · Views: 28
  • 94EB8C30-4808-4A6A-B3D4-8B4E24C06073.jpeg
    94EB8C30-4808-4A6A-B3D4-8B4E24C06073.jpeg
    140.6 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:

Fulton bulldog

Well-known member
In my experience cnx behälter without acceptance are uncommon. Thin marking cnx cans are rare with or without acceptance. My thoughts only ......
This is late war one. cnx without acceptance? Where is the oiler marked if it is. I bought this today at rummage sale.
 

pwcosol

Senior Member
Ok, I see the thin font small cnx there, I don’t consider the others thin ( like these I posted of the late placement cnx). Here’s a few of my cnx kits, some were parts buys or incomplete. I prefer the large CNX kits to all others. I think the one below with the red line is the thin font?

Is it my eyes or the angle of the picture...but that one (outlined in red) almost looks like the font of the c n x is italicized to me and stamping does appear thinner as well...
 

Scharf

Well-known member
Thanks for sharing these kits, they all look very interesting. I agree with you Pwcosol, it seems to have a peculiar font. As for the markings I know it is hard to tell but it definitely is thinner, why? I have no idea. Here's a better picture.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220630_153256.jpg
    IMG_20220630_153256.jpg
    226.8 KB · Views: 15

Scharf

Well-known member
Hello!

Here's the latter CNX kit albeit empty it's a behalter I've been looking for quite some time.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220725_144415.jpg
    Screenshot_20220725_144415.jpg
    69 KB · Views: 11
  • Screenshot_20220725_144356.jpg
    Screenshot_20220725_144356.jpg
    118.7 KB · Views: 11

Military Rifle Journal
Top