Peter Cornwell

Interesting. It bears several hallmarks of a WAGNER core but I don't like the style of the W for a period piece. My guess is that this could measure 42-44mm and weigh 19gr plus? But what makes you suspect that the core may be too big for the frame for I detect no obvious signs of side-splitting etc.

As always Caveat Emptor, but this guys output is impressive. His latest eBay offerings are still attracting plenty of interest but all the warning signs as described in this thread are evident. Thanks for flagging this Simius Rex - I for one could well have been fooled.

Looking forward to learning more about this piece.

Agreed. The quality is simply not there for an original period piece. Conversely, the precise uniformity of the beading at both inner and outer angles also makes me somewhat sceptical. As usual, it all comes down to how badly you want it (even as a space filler) and its asking price. Ah! the joys and pitfalls of EK collecting.

Not good but I've seen far worse. A photo of the obverse would have been useful if only to see what sort of job they made of that. IMO walk away.

I finally extracted my digit from my backside and got my head around the various components of the original 39-piece 1813 EKIIs as described by WERNITZ. Pins was not the answer. These early crosses must have been an absolute nightmare to manufacture and surviving examples are real testimony to the jewellers’ skills. It is no surprise that, after completing the first batch of 90 in April 1813, the RUNNECKE workshop immediately started streamlining production methods. But why the original awards had two thin cast-iron inserts sandwiched together inside a solid silver rim when existing technology allowed for a single cast-iron core beats me – particularly when one face was totally blank. This is not what I would have expected from our normally pragmatic German cousins but maybe they do simply like to over-engineer things? It must have had something to do with initial difficulties of enclosing the cast-iron core(s) within a silver box frame and the adoption of a stepped core to facilitate fixing. But once they brought their bench-top rotary presses properly into play, simplified production methods rapidly followed, first of frames and later beading, resulting in improved output and significant cost savings. Meantime, both the Berlin & Gleiwitz foundries had also started casting one-piece cores rendering the stepped cores redundant.

Welcome Newbie. I'm unconvinced that was so although I do admit some replacement 1914 EKIs from both of those makers, particularly during the TR period, may occasionally display a tendency towards 'rounded' inner angles. But as I said in an earlier post it is often difficult to distinguish with any real certainty. I am forming the opinion that the practice was more prevalent on genuine early pieces and any later examples were in response to unusual volume demands on manufacturers. Other than that, Caveat Emptor!

Simius Rex, Thanks for your input - most helpful. I will treat all such examples with caution in future. However, early pieces with rounded inner corners (Cf. WERNITZ T8 etc) that must predate any possible SOUVAL production will continue to intrigue me.

The intricacies of construction of early 1813 EKIIs made them extremely labour intensive pieces and would have made any bulk manufacture difficult to achieve. According to WERNITZ (p151) early production pieces comprised no less than 39 separate components (AII/1) although I'm at a loss to arrive at more than 29 myself. Can anybody help me understand where I'm going wrong here ? The RUNNECKE workshop soon introduced simplified production processes so that a 20-piece form emerged (AII/4) with the characteristic curved rather than angled inner beading that prompted my original question to this thread. This, in turn, made way for even more streamlined manufacturing processes resulting in a 5-piece construction that became the norm and that now most familiar to collectors. So, if they had achieved this for production of period 1813 crosses why then revert to curved rather than angled inner beading on crosses of a later generation ? And should we treat all such crosses as being somehow dubious rather than simply interesting ?

Dond & Graf, Thank you gentlemen. I share your reservations but it was simply the most blatant example of rounded beading that I have ever come across.

The lower image in my original post shows the most pronounced example of rounded beading that I have so far come across. It was an 1914 EK1 and the reverse was stamped J.WAGNER & S. https://derrittmeister.com/product/iron-cross-1914-1st-class-double-pinback-wagner-sohne/

Hi Graf, Thanks for your encouraging remarks. In my ignorance, I had assumed that this detail may have been previously discussed or explained somewhere in the literature but it seems not. It is difficult to distinguish with complete certainty those crosses that carry this form of beading as the differences are often subtle and not always that obvious - leastways not to my untrained eyes. But from a trawl of previously published images, it would seem that the practice was most prevalent on 1914 EK1s and across a number of different makers. I detect no common factor emerging from this but from my admittedly limited analysis MEYBAUER crosses seem to display the characteristic rounded corners to their beading more often than other makers. I would be interested to learn from other collectors: What is the earliest recorded example of this practice ? and What is the best/worst example of these distinctive rounded corners ?

Gentlemen, 300 views and not a single response maybe some sort of record. Does nobody have an opinion/comment to offer ?

Me too! So happy hunting to us both. Meantime, I’ve been trying to establish a sequence for the different styles of KMST makers marks but without much success. The vast majority of examples carry the cast letters D.R.G.M and K.M.ST. and this applies to all types of their EK1s. The stamped letters DRGM and KMSt seem to be less common and appear on crosses with the circular plate fixing and also on plain pinbacks with the additional security clip. From this, I suspect that crosses with the cast letters possibly predate those with incised/stamped letters. Unfortunately, the actual DRGM numbers are not included so we have no clue as to even the year that the various designs were first registered. Core patterns seem to be largely consistent across the entire range of types although at least two different cores can be identified by their crowns (see photos). However, one oddity is that KMST screwbacks do not seem to have carried any DRGM letters. So possibly this design was simply not registered by KMST being considered a relatively standard fitting compared to their other more distinctive and complex designs – who knows?

Graf, Congratulations, you have clearly chosen wisely and well over the years. Classic MEYBAUER screwbacks, KMST 'nutmeg grater', fanged GODET, flawless WERNER, & two AWS pillow-backs. Kudos ! At present, I can match two of them (KMST & L/11 screwback) but remain hopeful of one day adding a fanged cross (preferably 1870) to my own modest collection. Thanks for posting the photo.

Hello Graf, I guess it is in the nature of all collectors that 'the most desirable' item has to be whatever happens to be top of their wish list at the time. But for sure, KMST EK1s with their over-engineered fixings will always have a particular appeal. They do come onto the market fairly frequently (for big money) so I remain hopeful - but I have been surprised by the unusually pristine condition of the latest on offer. Modern restrikes or a fabled cache of unissued stock who knows ? Alles Besten, Peter C

Graf, Looks fine to me. I believe that the differences you highlight have already been covered in earlier posts to this thread by Eric Stahlhut. Nice medal.

Yes Simius, that's the very fellow and I agree with everything you say. Even at that sort of price the next decent one to come to market has my name on it.

EU2400 plus buyer's commission is a lot cheaper than what the earlier Ratisbons auction cross made but still quite a premium. And this was a better cross IMO although not as pristine.

Extreme rarity and mint condition but even so ? The only thing lacking on that beauty was 800 stamps. For sure, some collectors will now be revising their home insurance estimates.

Gentlemen, How prevalent was this style of beading on Imperial crosses 1870 & 1914 ? Best illustrated by Wernitz (T8) on an 1813 EKII it is said to have simplified the production process quite significantly. Personally, I don't find it half as attractive as the more conventional sharp-angled corners but am curious to know how widespread the practice may have been. Have any particular makers been identified as having adopted this practice ? There is a wealth of knowledge represented on this forum so what's your own experience/take on this guys ? Thanks in advance for your views.

Vince, I'm sure that is true. However, this has been in my possession for over 35 years and back then the main thing you had to keep an eye out for were convincing post-war replicas - usually Souval restrikes. Thanks again.

Thank you gentlemen for all your comments which are both welcome and appreciated. While I am satisfied that the cross itself is a genuine piece, the consensus here suggests that the engraving could be spurious. That may, of course, be entirely correct in which case it seems that the cross held by the IWM in London may be equally so due to its similar lack of umlaut ? The slightly inflated price that I paid hardly reflected the trouble that somebody went to in adding the engraving but one has to admire their nous in sourcing a genuine Godet cross to add it to. It all makes for an interesting conversation piece that I am still happy to have in my collection. Thank you all again.

Claudius, There are no umlauts on my cross. But the correct spelling of the pilot's name is Bäumer. Scottplen, I'm unsure if your question was to me or exactly what you mean by 'valid'. The inscription is as you see it and conforrms in most details with that on the EKI held by the IWM in London. From what I can make out, their inscription has no umlauts either. Thank you all for your interest. Gordon Craig describes the correct individual.

The pin is stamped with a G. The cross is inscribed V.FELDW P. BAUMER JAGDSTAFFEL BOELCKE 8.11.17