Jaybo Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 I need the opinions of the GMIC 'experten' on this question. I have the opportunity to purchase from my very dear friend of 30 years an 1813 EK 2. His trustworthiness is beyond reproach. He has been a collector for well over 50 years. He is slowly selling off some of his massive collection. He bought this 1813 EK 2 many years ago. The question is, is authentic or a fake? We all are aware that even experienced collectors can be fooled. What say you gentlemen?1813.zip1813.zip1813.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 Anyone out there????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuka f Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Hello, I wouldn't be of much help, because not my field of experience! But putting proper pic's could help, I for one are not able to open the link you gave... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul wood Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 I have managed to "unzip" the files. The fault in the iron is a good sign but the quality of the images are not sufficient to be absolutely certain. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 Thank you Stuka & Paul for your replies. I will try taking some better photos with my SLR in the next few days and post them. Paul, what exactly do you mean by the fault in the iron? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul wood Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 There is a thin shadow on one of the limbs of the cross which suggests a thin split. The original crosses were made from Cumberland iron which was quite brittle and prone to splits. Most of the fakes the iron is too regular Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 Thank you Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Craig Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Gentlemen, Here are the pictures from the zipfile. Paul, I don't see the shadow you are referring to. Perhaps you could tell me which of the photos have the shadow you are referring to. Regards, Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 19, 2019 Author Share Posted January 19, 2019 Thank you Gordon for ‘unzipping ‘ my iPhone photos. If you guys need better quality photos, I can give it a go with my SLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul wood Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 What appeared to be fault from my crappy phone is actually a shadow line on the reverse. Not sure what to think. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 20, 2019 Author Share Posted January 20, 2019 Gentlemen, I took some better quality photos of this medal with my SLR but can't get them to upload successfully. The max size allowed for uploading is 8 mb and the image is 6.4 mb. What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streptile Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 Hi Jay, This is a 1914 cross by maker KO that has been shaved and repainted by a faker. All the best, Trevor PS: Apologies for my late reply, I check this site only very rarely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 9 hours ago, Streptile said: Hi Jay, This is a 1914 cross by maker KO that has been shaved and repainted by a faker. All the best, Trevor PS: Apologies for my late reply, I check this site only very rarely. Hi Trevor, Thanks so much for your reply. I was fearful that might be the case. The reverse looks too much like my 1914 EKs. Could you please tell me what telltale signs lead you to your conclusion? All the best, Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Let's try this again with some resized SLR photos: another one: another... last one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtwinVince Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 I agree, the reverse core details are all wrong for an 1813. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 Thanks for weighing in. Can you be more specific so I can understand the pitfalls of the 1813? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtwinVince Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Compare the pattern of the leaves and other details. They don't match the cores I'm familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 The leaves, the crown and the bottom stem are details I have been told in the past to be aware of in identifying authentic 1813 EKs from the fakes. But how so exactly? These seem to be somewhat 'trade secrets' on this site. Maybe properly in order to keep the fakers ignorant. I get that. The one detail that I have gleaned (correctly so???) is that the real 1813s have more of a straight bottom stem. Thanks for your input Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybo Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 The above photo is apparently a known authentic 1813. Any other opinions out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now