Biro

Yes - the infamous Spanish copy. Perhaps he meant to say "in my fathers collection since 19:48 pm"

What's with that crown?? This one certainly dosen't look right... unless it's the photo... Marshall

broken9597 Your piece looks fine - the only thing letting you down slightly with regard to selling it is the condition and the quality of your photo's. Try it in the sales section here or over at WAF. It'll go, the price is realistic if you have a wee bit of 'wiggle room' re the enamel chips. Ebay is not the ideal platform for expensive militaria. Marshall

Interesting bar - a few questions for anyone who can help. Scottplen - Any chance of a clear straight on shot of the 1914 repeat bar on the EK? And is it marked on the reverse? (Joh Wagner with crown, moon & 800 I would expect) Also can anyone hazard a guess from the battle bars etc.. roughly how old this guy might have been in 1914 if he started his first ever military service as (for example) a 20 year old doctor? Cheers Marshall

There's not a whole heap of alternatives to Wagner and Godet as 'manufacturers'... (and I've yet to see a core that can be definitively associated with Godet as the manufacturer.. they have used at least two, possibly three) but this core definitely has all the characteristics we associate with Wagner . The frame is the teaser - it dosen't seem to have quite the usual degree of curvature in the arms we are used to seeing. I wonder if the very loose fitting core and slightly unorthodox frame is an indication that this piece was assembled later than the issue pieces we are used to seeing? Either way, a nice worn example. Marshall

Holy Crap Marc - if the link to 'Sannow' sticks, you've done extremely well!! A PLM winner no less!!? I remember exactly what you paid for that beauty as well. Well done friend. Glenn - you are a genius. Marshall

Thanks Rick - you just nailed the maker of my mini!

Fantastic Ralph - this is absolutely wonderfull!! You do have a nose for these great finds. Well done. Marshall

Hi Micha You mentioned in the other thread that you had done some comparative measurements between these two crosses... Can you share those with us and indicate at what points the measurements were taken from on the 'master' cross? I agree this cross does not look at all the way it should... Marshall

Micha I'm assuming you didn't include the frame in your measurements... so what are the measurements you used to compare your EK to and at what exact points on the core were these measurements taken from? You haven't convinced me yet that you have a bad one, but I agree that in the reverse photo you've posted, the finish on the oakleaves and crown don't look quite as they should. I am also very keen to see the reverse in better lighting conditions. regards Marshall

Micha Great bar - I have it's close relative... with the same style of EK2 but different precidence.. Marshall

Micha A fake I'm afraid - I used to own one just like it. This is it... alongside another sold as a copy. They are very destinctive because of the lop-sided crown.. Marshall

Sadly Vince, you have a lemon...

Troy Deschler were not makers of the 1870 EK1. The cross you posted is a VERY well known fake and should be avoided at all costs. Wagner, Godet and Ludwig Lauer you can trust as makers - but there are (of course) faked Godet and Wagner maker marks. Post them here and you'll get the feedback you need. On the plus side however, you have probably the most rock and roll sounding name on the forum.

This is not proven - but I am totally convinced this is the case. They share identical characteristics and flaws, so there can be no other explanation than that Wagner supplied either the finished product or certainly hefty chunks of their own product which Friedlander then maker marked and assembled. Forget Rothe... (that'll win me friends.. ) Marshall

Hi Rick There were 687 awarded. By far the majority of that figure were silver gilt and awarded late in the war. Marshall

Hi mate.. Even from New Zealand, I can spot a loaded question... There were of course around 700-odd awarded - as you know - and a billion fakes exist, some excellent quality... but not all the fakes (including the one Andreas linked to on ebay) have the tell-tale 'fingerprints' that identify them as 100% having either come from Wagners original dies, or cast from an original Wagner. The two in this thread (Mikes and Weitzes) do have these 'fingerprints', and therefore - sloppy cross-hatching or not - they must be taken cosiderably more seriously than your garden variety reproduction masquerading as a 'wearers copy'. They are - after all - changing hands for between 2000 and 7000 dollars as 'postwar 20's/30's examples' from dealers we both know and ..... love. I am often asked about them, and I don't have the answers - except that to date, the common factor appears to be the cross hatching combined with an abscence of the 938 marking. It appears we all agree the cross-hatching was probably an aesthetic enhancement - and I personally like Alikn's theory - but what we must also all agree on is whether any or all of them are cast copies, and where these examples might fit in the general time-line. These are as close as it gets to an Imperial version of the 'A' and 'B' type S&L knights cross. Marshall

Hi Gents A couple of points I might add... The PLM on page 304 of Steve Previtera's excellent Prussian Blue is not only a textbook 938 Wagner, but also attributed to Lt-Col Bohm. It is everything we look for in a silver gilt PLM. One of the reverse eagles has been cross-hatched. In addition, there is another 'textbook' PLM belonging to a friend of mine that is undeniably from the Wagner die, but marked 'JHW' - presumably by the Werner firm. This exact same 'JHW' mark features on Andreas's excellent site, yet this PLM also exhibits cross-hatching to most of the eagles. This cross-hatching is not part of the master die, therefore there is no other conclusion than that it was added - by hand, by file - to both these wartime PLM's for a reason we can only assume was aesthetic. There is ample pictorial reference in this thread to 'the flaws' that proove that the PLM that started this thread is either made on Wagners original dies, or is cast from an original Wagner so I will not draw any more attention to them than is necessary. If you look, it is there. As a follow-up to Andreas's picture of ''a real coined eagle'' (on the yellow background) let me post a picture from the same dealer of a PLM he recentlty sold as a post-war example. Just like the PLM that started this thread, this example also has all the flaws exhibited by known wartime Wagners....and cross-hatched eagles. Does cross-hatching mean post-war? Not in the case of Lt Col Bohm's attributed Wagner PLM... Does no silver content or maker mark mean post-war? There are attributed examples with neither. I would be interested to hear Andreas's thoughts on this... All the best Marshall

Dante - this is not an original 1870 EK. To a collector like yourself, it should have no value. Marshall

Hello Hairoil Can you post a few pictures of the Godet crosses you are basing your conclusions on? It would be great for us to see close-ups of these Godets to see the finishing quality! Thanks Marshall

Thanks Wildcard. It appears that the arms of the PLM you term the 'Hamburg copy' (on the right) are wider where they meet at the centre junction than the arms of the PLM you've posted as an original (on the left). Can you confirm this? There are other details (such as the distance between eagles heads and wings) that could probably be attributed to hand finishing but apart from that, at first glance, it is a DISTURBINGLY good match.

I would be fascinated to see a picture of the original to see just how good the so called 'Hamburg copies' are against the real deal. regards Marshall

Wild Card Very good eye.... and memory! Here's the ebay piece against the one Thies offered (as a copy). It's not the exact same piece he offered - at least I don't think it is - but undeniably it's the same type as you point out.

Boerger & Co. Marshall

Hi Chris For the record, Freidlander are one of three official suppliers of the PLM - and their PLM's are marked 'FR' (both letters in capitals). The fact that Freidlanders PLM's are almost certainly made by Wagner and supplied to Freidlander, yet bare the Freidlander mark, merely illustrates how convoluted the whole manufacturer vs jeweller subject is. Multiply the mystery to the power of ten when considering that even the EK's of firms whose history, size and status imply true manufacturer status (Wagner for example) can generally be found with at least two different core types, sometimes as many as four. Marshall