Jump to content
News Ticker
  • I am now accepting the following payment methods: Card Payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal
  • Latest News

    1914 EK1 mm "FR"+"Fr"


    Recommended Posts

    "Well... if the guy on the phone told you, it must be true. Or he didn't know. Or he didn't care. What I want to say - an old worker from a factory, who - as I assume - wasn't even there back than (in WW1!), is not a proof. Archive documents are."

    Hi,

    He seemed to know what he was talking about, and according to him, back in 1914-18 Frank und Reif were not in the EK business.

    From what I understood, the man on the phone IS "Frank und Reif" today...

    I think theories have to be approached with sceptisism, but if we left theory out of our hobby, and relied solely on archive fact, we would have to discount most of what we know...

    Best

    Chris

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Sascha,

    Do you think it is at all possible that [FR] is Rothe from Vienna? The crosses would of course have to be later ones, after 1917, or privately purchased luxury pieces for Austrian officers, who -- after all -- were awarded the EK1 in great numbers. I know the marks are not identical but they are certainly close stylistically.

    Thanks for your ideas.

    Best,

    Trevor

    Edited by Streptile
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Do you think it is at all possible that [FR] is Rothe from Vienna? The crosses would of course have to be later ones, after 1917, or privately purchased luxury pieces for Austrian officers, who -- after all -- were awarded the EK1 in great numbers. I know the marks are not identical but they are certainly close stylistically.

    As I believe them to be awarded crosses and pre-1917, I don't find it possible they're by Rothe or any other non-Berlin maker.

    By the way, same is for the other Prussian orders with "FR" mark. It's really not likely that all RAO4 marked "FR" are private purchase Vienna made crosses. After all, Friedländer was a maker who supplied the GOK.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Sascha,

    First, thank you for your reply.

    [FR] EKs don't have to be made by the same jeweler who made FR RAOs. FR RAOs (for example) could be (and likely are) by Friedländer, who marked his EKs [Fr.].

    I too believe [FR] crosses are probably pre-1917, but we don't know this as far as I can tell. And even if they were pre-1917, we also don't know that Rothe could not have manufactured them for purchase in Austria.

    Let me be clear: I don't believe that [FR] EKs are by Rothe. But I think it's a door we can not yet close.

    Edited by Streptile
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would not recognise a Rothe Austrian award if it bit me on my knee, but if they made some forms of Pinback Austrian awards (either civil or military) could we not assume that they would keep the same attachments system, whether it be the same needle system or screw system?

    Best

    Chris

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You're right, Trevor, that we don't have actual proof for these assumptions, especially the connections of (indeed) known makers and the marks they used. But the few provided facts speak a clear language, and if we work as scientistic as possible with that few facts we have, and if we even mind Occam's razor... not many questions remain, at least for me.

    Similar with "We." crosses: 1st classes by "We." are known and are definitely "probemäßig". It is known J. H. Werner from Berlin supplied the GOK with 1st and 2nd class crosses, in not too big figures by the way. The crosses with "J. H. WERNER / BERLIN" mark are not "probemäßig" but vaulted, and some with screw disc. So what about the crosses J. H. Werner delievered to the GOK? I'm sure they are the "We." ones, but can I prove it? No. Just as I cannot prove the moon isn't made from cheese. ;)

    By the way, back to "FR": Wouldn't a WW1 era Vienna made award for private purchase be hallmarked with Austrian silver hallmarks?! One could assume it should, and it probably would be... but the "FR" crosses never are, from what I've seen. Makes it doubtfull, for me, they are Austrian made.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You're right, Trevor, that we don't have actual proof for these assumptions, especially the connections of (indeed) known makers and the marks they used. But the few provided facts speak a clear language, and if we work as scientistic as possible with that few facts we have, and if we even mind Occam's razor... not many questions remain, at least for me.

    Similar with "We." crosses: 1st classes by "We." are known and are definitely "probemäßig". It is known J. H. Werner from Berlin supplied the GOK with 1st and 2nd class crosses, in not too big figures by the way. The crosses with "J. H. WERNER / BERLIN" mark are not "probemäßig" but vaulted, and some with screw disc. So what about the crosses J. H. Werner delievered to the GOK? I'm sure they are the "We." ones, but can I prove it? No. Just as I cannot prove the moon isn't made from cheese. ;)

    By the way, back to "FR": Wouldn't a WW1 era Vienna made award for private purchase be hallmarked with Austrian silver hallmarks?! One could assume it should, and it probably would be... but the "FR" crosses never are, from what I've seen. Makes it doubtfull, for me, they are Austrian made.

    Hi Sascha,

    Thank you for your battleship of a reply. I agree with you 100% about Werner.

    You asked if Austrian made crosses should be hallmarked with Austrian silver marks. I have no idea. Should they? I am not up on Austrian awards, procedures or regulations. If so, then that's a powerful argument against [FR] as Rothe.

    So Sascha, do you believe [FR] and [Fr.] are the same maker, viz. Friedländer? If not, which do you believe is Friedländer, and who do you think the other is? You don't have to have an answer, and I'm not challenging you -- honestly, I'm just confused what you believe at this point :unsure:

    Trevor

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So So Sascha, do you believe [FR] and [Fr.] are the same maker, viz. Friedländer? If not, which do you believe is Friedländer, and who do you think the other is? You don't have to have an answer, and I'm not challenging you -- honestly, I'm just confused what you believe at this point :unsure:

    Sure for being confusing, was not my intention! I believe "FR" and "Fr." to be the same maker, and I believe it to be Friedländer from Berlin, from the reasons I brought: I assume them to be 1) awarded crosses 2) from pre-April 1917 era. Scharfenberg's article doesn't give any other makers name that could fit, and none comes to mind. Friedeberg wasn't in existance for a long time by 1914.

    I'm having an "FR" cross here, in the award case. Doesn't proove it is an awarded cross, of course, but is an indication. Just found this one, today, by coincidence: http://www.lot-tissimo.com/de/i/6212889/p/36/

    One cross engraved to be awarded in january of 1916 and coming with the early to mid-war award case doesn't proove anything, too. But it fits my thoughts: early and awarded cross, which rules out anything but a Berlin maker.

    Thanks, very interesting! But one cross with Austrian and German marks doesn't convince me the cross is Austrian made. Though interesting, no doubt.

    PS: The cross's hard ware looks sooo much like Joh. Wagner & Sohn's from Berlin, doesn't it... ?! :whistle:

    Edited by saschaw
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thank you for your clarification Sascha.

    I guess the thing to do now is to compare the actual crosses, as someone suggested upthread -- frames, cores, hardware. Honestly I've never taken the time to do so. I would say if we can find both marks on the same type of crosses, we've discovered some evidence.

    Edited by Streptile
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If the same maker, the MUST have been a bit of crossover in hardwear, stamps etc?

    With that extreme swapping on 1914 crosses' parts, I'm honestly not sure if there must be a crossover. But it's indeed likely there is, given I'm right.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If it had been an 800 marked domed cross, would it suggest the same? :-)

    I dont argue the dating of the FRs as I have no idea, but I am always veeeeeery sceptical about single documents married to single medals.

    Most EKs sold with single docs on Ebay are from one seller, and he has any doc with any cross.

    OF COURSE if does not mean that all such kombis are bogus, but it pays to be sceptical...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 2 weeks later...

    Friedeberg is a Berlin orders jeweller, but one of the older ones, and none that still existed in WW1. The war efford cross marked "F" is not by him, whoever that claims.

    Just looked it up at Nimmergut: Friedeberg sold to Friedländer in 1892!

    Edited by saschaw
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 2 years later...

    Would we not have been allowed to ponder things for the 80 years before the Scharffenberg article came out? :-)

     

    Theories are better than a void, especially if we do not know if the Archives even have what we are looking for :-)

    ​Rereading this thread, I stick by this more than ever before... The publication of Wernitz has proved "stuff" that was theory based on long observation... The publication of Wernitz also makes apparent that there are great gaps of knowledge we will probably never find in the archives and will probably only ever have theories for...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.