EK 1914 EK 2. Klasse 1813

[Claudio]

Dear fellow collectors:

I have been waiting for a long time before having the chance to add an IC 2nd class 1813 to my collection. Finally that moment has arrived.

Herewith I submit to your comment my cross. Clearly it is not one of the crosses manufactured immediately after the creation of this order in 1813. Maybe 1830-40?

Any serious comment is highly appreciated.

Now I let the pictures do the talking...

Enjoy!!

Ciao,

Claudio

[Claudio]

Obverse:

[Claudio]

from the side:

[ekhunter]

Nice! The wide flange 2nd's were said to be as early as the late 20's. Anywhere in that range is a safe bet. Note: That the oakleaves and date are similiar to "Zook's Posting", however, his rim doesn't appear to be as wide.

Edited May 17, 2006 by ekhunter

[Daniel Murphy]

Claudio,

Beautiful immaculate condition piece. You can just tell this has been lovingly care for over the generations. Probably post war but much nicer than some of those made in the later years.

Dan Murphy

Edited May 17, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Ralph A]

I tend to agree. 1820's construction. The "war-time" crosses I've seen have a larger, thinner loop; and the loop on yours matches my 1820's EK 1914 prinzen pretty closely, in size and thickness.

[Claudio]

Thanks for your comments!

I was thinking that for a cross that it has been made about 180 years ago, the accuracy of the details on the reverse is pretty damn good. They surely knew their job, the manufacturers of such crosses. Such things impress me very much.

Ciao,

Claudio

[Tim Tezer]

Claudio,

What is the width of this cross? It looks to me like one of the 1830's issued pieces. These are said to have been made by Godet, although I don't think there is any positive evidence of that.

Tim

[gregM]

Here is one to compare to.

Detlev said it was very early possible 1815.

[attachmentid=39857]

[Biro]

An excellent example Claudio - congratulations.

There appears to be some minor flawing to the beading on yours - is that so?

Wonderfull condition and a great addition.

Incidentally, I have a similar piece - the type shown in the centre on page 36 - 37 of the Iron Time. It has the date without the feet at the base of the '1's... so the core is different - but interestingly, although my frame is also narrower, the beading I would swear is identical to yours. Also dated at circa 1820 by Niemann.

I think for the most part, an 1815 - 1830 time frame is about as accurate as we can guess for these pieces whose frames are not of multi-part construction. For sure it is not 1st batch.

Well done.

Marshall

[Claudio]

Hi Marshall,

Thanks for your comments.

What do mean by flaw on the beading? Which part is the beading? Sorry for my English...

Too bad that I don't have the Iron Time with me, because I would be eager to check... perhaps you can post the pictures of your cross. That would be great!

Ciao,

Claudio

[ekhunter]

Hi Marshall,

Thanks for your comments.

What do mean by flaw on the beading? Which part is the beading? Sorry for my English...

Too bad that I don't have the Iron Time with me, because I would be eager to check... perhaps you can post the pictures of your cross. That would be great!

Ciao,

Claudio

Claudio, the beading is between the outer rim and the core. The raised ribbed part. Yes, it does appear to have die flaws, which is the solid lines between or on top of the ribs. Don't worry, no big deal. I looked at one of mine before I headed to the beach and it looks the same. I'll post it when I get back next week. Great cross, and like I said probably between 1820 something and 1840. I would consider this a period piece compared to an issue piece, and I would get every one of them made during this period that I could..

[Biro]

....Hi Marshall - What do mean by flaw on the beading? Which part is the beading? Sorry for my English...

Claudio....

Hi Claudio

This is the area that appeared to exhibit a flaw - and as EK hunter has said, absolutely no problem with this - it means nothing - it's simply a point of interest for me.

[attachmentid=39995]

While we're at it - if you check the corner junctions on the beading of mine below, particularly the two central ones, you'll see - even with the heavy wear to both our frames - why I think the beading on mine may indeed match yours. The cores - as you can see - are different and the rims also different widths. As the frame rim is integral to the beading, one would assume that the frame on mine was hand finished down from a wide rim to a narrow rim. Perhaps someone else has some input.

[attachmentid=39996]

I'm sure there is a clue here somewhere as to the respective dates of each of our EK's - one could also assume that if our beading matched and yours is flawed and mine not, that yours is a little later than mine but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the construction methods from this era (does anyone?) to answer that.

A lovely piece regardless. Welcome to the club!

Marshall

[Claudio]

Hi Marshall,

I am sorry to be able to give right now the exact measurements and weight of my cross. When I will be back at my place, where I have a caliper and a digital scale I will post them.

You can definetely see the flaws on the beading of my cross; your arguments are really interesting to me.

I am really hooked on these old crosses: they have so much caracter and are great fun to collect. So many variants in style, method of construction and different range of quality.

I am posting a better (crispier) picture of the front.

Ciao,

Claudio

[joe campbell]

beautiful crosses!

just a definitional thing.

claudio's cross (in post #13) with a base at the #1

is known as a serif 1 (with a base),

and biro's #1 - or in this case "l" - is sans serif

(without a base).

wonderful thread!

joe

[Stefan]

Hello!

Here's my wide 1813 EK2 to compare with. It's from late 1835-39 production. It's very worn.

Width: 42.2 mm

Height: 42.9 mm

Finger widths: 25.1-25.6 mm

/Stefan

[Tom Y]

Here's another one for comparison. The seller, a major German dealer, considers it an 1813-15 issue, but I have my doubts.

[Tom Y]

And the reverse. for really humongous scans go here and here

[Tony J]

Let me stir the embers here a bit to bring on some heat.

I am a bit puzzled by the lack of a stepped cores in the examples shown.

My understanding is that the earlier produced 1813 EKIIs had a fairly prominent stepped core. The stepped core is only found on the 1813 series of EKIIs. Later 1870 and 1914 EKIIs lacked the stepped core. ( Other than the current rash of reproduction prinzens with stepped cores.)

I would suggest that these 1813s are from a bit later in the Imperial era. Possibly 1870's or as late as the Jubilee era of the mid 1890s.

Comments?

Tony

[Tom Y]

Let me stir the embers here a bit to bring on some heat.

I am a bit puzzled by the lack of a stepped cores in the examples shown.

My understanding is that the earlier produced 1813 EKIIs had a fairly prominent stepped core. The stepped core is only found on the 1813 series of EKIIs. Later 1870 and 1914 EKIIs lacked the stepped core. ( Other than the current rash of reproduction prinzens with stepped cores.)

I would suggest that these 1813s are from a bit later in the Imperial era. Possibly 1870's or as late as the Jubilee era of the mid 1890s.

Comments?

Tony

Maybe I'm seeing things, but they all appear to be stepped to me. I know mine is.

[Tim Tezer]

Let me stir the embers here a bit to bring on some heat.

I am a bit puzzled by the lack of a stepped cores in the examples shown.

My understanding is that the earlier produced 1813 EKIIs had a fairly prominent stepped core. The stepped core is only found on the 1813 series of EKIIs. Later 1870 and 1914 EKIIs lacked the stepped core. ( Other than the current rash of reproduction prinzens with stepped cores.)

I would suggest that these 1813s are from a bit later in the Imperial era. Possibly 1870's or as late as the Jubilee era of the mid 1890s.

Comments?

Tony

1) Tom's does have a stepped core, and although it's a little difficult to see I would say the one from the unnamed German dealer also appears stepped. Sometimes the edge of the "step" disappears under the frame, which is understandable because the step was apparently intended to hold the core in alignment with the frame.

2) The 2nd issue pieces authorized in the 1830's for those who did not receive theirs during the war were NOT stepped. So examples with flat cores existed at least as early as that, and its likely that some (private purchase perhaps) were made during or immediately after the war, given that the 1st class crosses were also generally not stepped.

Tim

[Daniel Murphy]

Probably the latest manufacture of any of the crosses shown is 1830's and that one is identified as such. Sometimes the frame fits very close to the step on the core (as designed) and sometimes they are more worn and the frame pulls away from the step. The later are much easier to identify. If you look very closely you will see the step on these.

Dan Murphy

[Tony J]

Gentlemen,

Many good points brought forth.

As I mentioned, I'm just stiring the embers a bit here for discussions sake. Certainly not to disparage any of the crosses shown.

I did so to bring into the discussion the fact that early 1813 EKIIs show this stepped core. I was very curious why this most prominent identifier of the earliest 1813 EKIIs was not even mentioned. The obvious needs to be included in any study that progresses to the minutae of various flaws and the such.

As my friend Tom and Tim correctly mentioned some of the crosses shown have this feature. Some do not.

Tim is also correct in that 1813 EKIs generally do not have a stepped core. The core in the case of the EKI does not need to be stepped as it needs to fit under just one formed frame and a flat back plate. No mechanical need for a stepped core.

Like wise a core that is shifted to one side to show a gap in one place or to one side, like a shadow, is not necessarily a stepped core. The step is usually prominent along most of the frame beading, even on closely fitted ones. The step is usually equidistant smaller than the frame beading.

As Daniel states, the stepped core was designed to fit the frames. But when we study various references we learn that the early manufacture of the Iron Cross was froth with technical difficulties for that time frame in meadl manufacturing history. Close fitting of the core to the frame was not the norm for the early 1813 EKIIs. As the various jewelers and other manufacturors gained experience in the assembly of the Iron Cross they developed better methods and streamlined the design to eliminate the stepped core as unnecessary in the later constructed EKIIs. This is evidenced by the lack of the stepped core in the later 1813s as well as the 1870, 1914 and the 1939 versions. This would lead us to look toward a later time frame for those 1813 EKII without the stepped core than an earlier one.

I guess what still needs to be determined is an acceptable, realistic timeline of design features regarding the various types of 1813 EKIIs. More interesting would be to identify the various makers. But, sadly, such a collectors/researchers dream may not be realised by the collecting comunity. The loss of primary information thru time and the massive destruction during WWII may preclude us, as collctors, of ever uncovering these truths.

Just some thoughts,

Tony

[Biro]

Tony J has asked me to add a picture of his example to this thread, so here it is.

It remains one of the nicest 1813 EK2's I've seen...

M

[attachmentid=41637]

[joe campbell]

and mine...

joe