Mundlos "ab" Rg34 Tool Incongruites

[pwcosol]

Stumbled across a few photos online of some Mundlos (ab) marked kits. What I noted was some incongruities in the cleaning tools (hulsenkopfwiseher). Typically "ab" kits have the "oar" type pattern tool. In looking at my three "ab" marked kits (ab41, ab42 & ab44) the HKWs are shown respectively, from bottom to top. First tool bears a small "ab41" marking. Second tool is a slightly larger marking "ab42" & E/WaA243 accepted. Third tool is a late pattern & unmarked which came in my '44 dated kit.

In looking at the photos of the kits viewed online, I noted one with what resembles the earlier pattern tool (and is marked "ab41"). However, note the wide, flat-stamped patch end of the tool. This seems like a change which might have taken place a year or two later than the code/date stamp would indicate. The last photo shows a long, tapered tool somewhat similar to the late, unattributed one found in my "ab44" kit. It is hard to see, but is stamped "ab43" on the shaft. Don't think I have seen this particular pattern before. Member thoughts and comments solicited...

 

[grimlin13]

The cleaning tool in my ab43 looks like the one in your ab44. I have wondered if the kit was pieced together or came with it`s contents. Nothing in it is stamped.



Here is the cleaning tool

 

[Amberg]

Member thoughts and comments solicited...

Being handicapped at present, I have no access to my collection. Sorry!
I'll be back with some unqualified comments asap! ;-)
Thanks
Wolfgang

 

[dot]

The ab41 marked tool from the kit is similar to that I denomin as "with simplified eye" but sincerely, I don't like. I suspect that it could be a "flat" post war tool modified and with the markings added.

Antoni

 

[mrfarb]

To me, your unmarked spoon looks like a cmr type and not ab type, at least comparing it to kits that I have which I think have the original contents. The cmr and ab late spoons are very close in style to each other, but the cmr type spoons seem to be just a little more flat while the ab type more rounded. Maybe this pic will help with what I’m saying, cmr on the left.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pwcosol]

grimlin13: Perhaps you could edit your post, delete the small pic, and replace it by posting the URL to your earlier submission having the larger photo...

dot: Yes, the HKW does not seem to conform to known pattern. I am continually attempting to discern which tool variants are definitely of post-WW2 manufacture. However, I do not recall any of those which resembled the ab41 example in question. There was a excellent submission to this Forum regarding faux markings applied to these tools, and the tools themselves. Maybe we ought to find that post and make it a "sticky", so we can add to the list when additional faux HKWs are exposed.

mfarb: Thanks for your input. The tool is definitely flatter on top w/rounded edges just like the one you pictured (left side). Well, perhaps not "ab", but "cmr" is good !

 

[Amberg]

There was a excellent submission to this Forum regarding faux markings applied to these tools, and the tools themselves. !

Talking about faux markings, I'd like to hear your opinions about these HKWs.
I bought them some years ago from a very well known German dealer who usually also attends the SOS. Assuming the HKWs are post war and the markings are fake I'd like to know what other collectors think. Especially since I did not find any other HKWs with such markings.
Thanks
Wolfgang

 

[pwcosol]

Amberg:

Found my post which generated a number of responses and URLs to earlier discussions about the same subject:

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?27820-RG34-Cleaning-Tool-quot-gmm-quot-code

IMHO the consensus was the markings on your HKWs are among those considered spurious. As for the tools themselves, this is where it gets a bit harder to positively identify them as either remaining WW2 left-overs put to use after the war, continued post WW2 manufacture from existing tooling, or newly manufactured reproductions. Others on this Forum have more expertise than I and extensive examples of known, legitimate tools, from which to draw conclusions. If we can get a "sticky" on this forum to post these and other submissions regarding the Rg34 HKWs, everything could be posted under the one header, and make research/reference much easier to access.

 

[Amberg]

Amberg:

Found my post which generated a number of responses and URLs to earlier discussions about the same subject:

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?27820-RG34-Cleaning-Tool-quot-gmm-quot-code

I seem to be old and forgetful! ;-)
Thanks

 

[mrfarb]

The unmarked tool I say came from an ab44 kit looks strikingly similar to the ones Amberg posted with the fake markings (save for the fact that the one I have the pin is soldered on as well as pressed) but nearly identical to a spoon from a mint late cnx can I have, I can't discount the idea that my ab44 kit had that spoon added, but everything else in that kit matched typical ab contents. But, the one I called a cmr spoon I have multiple examples of an all came from cmr44 kits.

I collect postwar kits as well, but have yet to find a complete postwar kit with that type of HWK in it.

I often refer to the rg34 site for comparisons, seems redundant to do here what he has done so masterfully - however, maybe an update is in order with some specific identifiers for the late HWK's.

 

[dot]

The "flat" post war tools are easily differentiate from the ones manufactured by Mundlos and Hawig firms.

I enclose some pictures. The two original tools are of 1944 manufacture and the differences between both are also clear.

Antoni

 

[mrfarb]

Now I see, but I also see the problem- differentiating the postwar tool from late war G.Appel tools is almost impossible. I’m guessing the postwar tools were made by the G.Appel company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pwcosol]

Now I see, but I also see the problem- differentiating the postwar tool from late war G.Appel tools is almost impossible. I’m guessing the postwar tools were made by the G.Appel company.

My thoughts as well. Seems construction of the patch loop and detent pin offers the most detail to help differentiate the tools. Still, in looking at the three photos posted by dot, it takes a bit of detective work. Now throw in all the other patterns of KHWs, and it turns into a circus! I posted Bruce98K about what it would take to get a Rg34 "sticky" dedicated to the HKW variants. If we had this, it could evolve into a "quick reference" thread, where one could compare any HWK and with a bit of effort, find out just what variant they have.

 

[pwcosol]

I seem to be old and forgetful! ;-)
Thanks

Hey, I am getting there myself! Thing was, there was a reply to my thread with a URL to a even earlier discussion on the topic (before I was a Forum member). Sometimes doing a search can reveal these older posts. On occasion, the posts are either lost, or just the right input has to be entered into the search box to find them...

 

[dot]

Now I see, but I also see the problem- differentiating the postwar tool from late war G.Appel tools is almost impossible. I’m guessing the postwar tools were made by the G.Appel company.

Differentiating the flat post war tools from the original ones made by Gustav Appel firm is difficult but not impossible. I think a pair of pictures is better that words.

Some remarks:

GA1. Note the patina of the tools, the original at the middle seems newer. The original tools are a little more flat
GA2. The postwar right tool has the pin soldered.
GA3. Note the similar marks on the remaching of the pin.
GA4. The diferences found in the eye of the tools, that's a good point to look.
GA5. Notice the small indentation on the original tool. That's a clear diference.
GA6. Two original tools with a postwar one at the middle. Here the diferences are more visible.

Hope this help

PD: I'm sorry but I did not know how to hang the photos in order!

 

[dot]

I do not want to create confusion about these late tools of G.Appel, but it is necessary to talk about the logical tolerances and their small differences in manufacturing. I enclose here several photos of four different original tools. In my previous answer I used an original tool (Tool a here) that clearly showed the differences. Sometimes it is more difficult to discern the original tools from the post-war ones, but observing the various specific points, this is achieved.

Some remarks:

Tool a: A very nice example.
Tool b: Note that maybe the pin end was hammered for to fix it again.
Tool c: The metal sheet in this tool is slightly thicker. Note the similar pair of parallel lines (machining marks) that run on top of the tools b and c.
Tool d: The metal sheet in this tool is thicker also. This is more evident appreciate in the picture Late4, even so the postwar tools are thicker/highest. On this tool the small indentation visible from the side is very slight.

 

[dot]

An interesting point about the late war "flat" tools of G.Appel is that there are some marked with the "cnx" code. I was able to check one of these tools from a good friend and also collector, and it is absolutely original. Years ago I saw another one on ebay and it looks good, but I can not confirm its authenticity. Regarding this last tool, note that the code stamped leters are lower and more separately.

If someone else has seen another Hülsenkopfwischer marked like these ones, report here, please.

Antoni

 

[dot]

Here another example of a flat post-war tool. This time it is a tool that appears into the East German cleaning kits, and observing it in detail, it is practically identical to the original wartime G.Appel tools (same machinery used ?). Their fundamental difference is that they were blued.

In my opinion, these tools are not easily found today and are valuable in themselves.

I enclose some pictures comparing to a wartime made tool, note the bluing on the postwar tool.

 

[mrfarb]

I just picked up a late G Appel tool that is cnx marked, it’s on the way still but here is a photo of the front side which is the only photo I have right now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dot]

mrfarb, it looks good !