Early vs Late Marx- Was There a Break in Philosophy?

Some scholars believe that there is an ideological break in Karl Marx's writings where he changes from a Hegelian philosopher to a structuralist who was focused on economics. I feel that this question is difficult to answer without a date or textual specified break in writings. There is definitely a change in the focus and tone of Marx's writings, but a clear line of theoretical change where a previous belief is discarded does not seem apparent. Instead, I see a large shift of focus that still retains Hegelian principles, followed by a gradual move away from those principles. Looking at a change in Marxist thought could be interpreted as very Hegelian in itself. In order for a shift in Marxist thought to exist, one must recognize the young Marx versus the mature Max and see that young and mature are part of each other and led to a new synthesis. This is an example of Hegelian dialectic and it's somewhat ironic to read interpretations of Marx that are structuralist in focus yet use dialectic principles. First, I find the move between philosophy to practice a simple one. After theorizing about the nature of things one looks for examples in real life, which for Marx's theory of alienation was the class struggle and economic theory. In Marx's earlier writings he addresses issues of supply and demand, class struggle, and controlling the means of production. Marx continues to focus on these issues during later writings, yet focusing on more concrete examples this time and lays out more of a plan on how things could be altered. He focuses on the experience of class struggle and concrete ways of improving the state rather than the process of how the feeling of alienation is created in different societies and among various classes within those societies. I feel that this is a natural evolution of work and that evolution is important. It is important for individuals to respond to new ideas and experiences—for Marx, this was the political landscape of Europe at the time. Once one has established a theory, the next logical step seems to be how to test it to make sure you're right. Marx does this by shifting his epistemological thought from abstract theory to structured analysis. Marx's move from abstract or ideological to more scientific could actually be considered as consistent with his previous theory—ideology is used to distract and confuse the masses, adding to alienation. The move toward a more structured science fits nicely into his early theories, tying the old and new together. Additionally, Marx was trained in Hegelian thought and spent most of his formative years and it is difficult to make a clear break from a way of thought when you've been trained in it. It is much easier to mold and reshape existing theory until you come to a different conclusion. Marx still has that experience of Hegelian thought as a base. One would need an impetus or at least some time between writings to completely throw an idea and start anew. Marx didn't have one either, and this adds to why I feel his work evolves rather than breaks. Other theorists disagree on when Marx changed—Mandel claims Marx became a materialist in 1841 (from Engel's notes) and turns to scientific socialism in 1844, Althusser claims 1945 in "The German Ideology", while Lenin claims 1847 in "The Poverty of Philosophy". I must conclude that one can not read early Marx as though it is influenced by mature Marx—there is a thought process that changes and evolves into something new that is important to see developing. Young grows into mature to create his theory and mature can not be understood without the history and base of young Marxist thought. Although Marx begins as a philosopher rooted in Hegelian thought, he uses a materialistic critique to distinguish his thought from Hegel, and Marx's ideas evolve into a distinct theory of his own.