Mike K

It looks like a textbook 84 to me. I don't see any problems. Regards Mike

I was watching that one! After some quick online research, I came to the conclusion it was not a Wagner but another Spanish repro - I hope! Regards Mike

Hi Steve, OK, I saw where I inadvertently created confusion - sorry. I've re-written the second line of that post. To clarify, the first two examples I loaded (posts 11 & 12) are examples I have that match Tom's example. Neither are maker marked. The pinback has an 800 stamp on the back of the cross (hidden by the pin). The maker is unknown to me, but imo definitely not KMST. Posts 16 & 17 show a comparison between one of my examples (unknown maker) and a KMST, to show the big differences between the two types and prove that Tom's type is not a KMST. Again, sorry for any confusion - I only wanted to show that Tom's type is not by KMST. Regards Mike

Ditto to Greg's response Regards Mike

Reverse...

Hi Steve, I agree that the two I posted are a match with the one Tom posted - that's why I posted them. Marked KMST examples have only been seen with one core type, and that core type is radically different to the core on Tom's example. The pin on "standard" pinback KMST examples is also different to the example posted by Tom - they are always "V-notched" over the hinge and the pin sits over the hinge (and has a separately applied "leg" support at the hinge end). Frame size and beading details are also different. I'll stand by my statement that Tom's example is absolutely definitely not a KMST. To make things easier, here's a comparison between a marked KMST with "standard" type pin and the type in question. Regards Mike Obverse...

...

Watch out Micha - they breed!

My fault, or another Mike?? So you ended up with it eh. I only dabbled on that one because I already had both components. Nice cross and case! I saw a similar example, if not the same, on eMedals a few months ago and came close to buying it. I would agree that the wartime Knauer award should probably go in it though - they do only just fit into the case though, unlike the Maybauer which is a looser (dare I say better) fit. Two great items though Regards Mike PS: That Godet is still an absolute killer variant

Reverse...

I just wanted to state that the core of this type is absolutely definitely not KMST. I've loaded the dreaded MS IE, so here are the pics of my examples of Tom's type, which I couldn't load before. Regards Mike

Hi Micha, That's a nice lightly worn example! As far as I know, this is one of the correct wartime award issue pieces, probably by Knauer. They came with both scooped and non-scooped reverses, with plates under the hinges and/or catches and or neither. The obverse designs are consistent though. The award piece will be slightly bigger than youe Meybauer. Regards Mike

Hi Chris, Interesting topic! I don't know how many times I've seen a nice tarnished WW1 EK described as "mint" - how can it be mint if it's tarnished!! More often that not, a polished cross is described as "mint" (although the core may be worn) and a higher price will be asked. Things are more expensive if they are shiny. I've seen very few 1914 EKs (pre-1930 or so) that I think have been in original, unpolished condition. Rarity aside (which imo is most important for valuing), for grading I would look at the overall wear on the core AND the frames (and hardware for 1st class). I would disregard the patina as aesthetic in purely grading a cross, as opposed to valuing a cross where patina is important. The quality of the frame joins and core characteristics are imo aesthetic also (some crosses I'm sure looked "rough" or had poor detail - like KOs - when they were brand new) but, again, they certainly effect the final price! Wear to the beading, loss of paint, rust, the join of the frames, alterations, whether there is any minor or significant damage (cracked core, frame/beading dings, frame/seam separation, hardware repair, etc) would all imo effect a grading (ie, those things that happen after the cross has been finished). Personally, I would grade a polished cross below a cross with old patina simply because by polishing you are messing with the cross. Beading die flaws would be hard to assign as these flaws would have been present when the cross was "mint" (I lean towards original die flaws effecting only value, not grading). Regards Mike

Hmmm, could this be read/translated such that only the button-hole ribbon (as opposed to the full size award) can be worn in combination with the pinback, rather than implying that the ribboned "IInd" Class was not a legitimate award in it's own right? Regards Mike

Hi Tony, I don't have a problem with this conversion method, providing the holes don't look recently drilled! I would expect dark tarnish inside the holes to match the frame if it is an old conversion. The method is not unknown - I've seen WW1 flyer badges with holes drilled around the side for sewing onto a uniform. The cross itself looks to me like a high quality early cast iron core example. It would not be inconceivable that an early awarded EK1 was field converted from an EK2 in the absence of an "official" award. Regards Mike

Hi Tom, I have no problems with authenticity but I have no idea on the maker. Both of my examples (pinback & screwback) have non-steel cores. My pinback is stamped 800 on the reverse center of the pinback version. I'd load pics but my browser does not work with the new forum format here. Regards Mike

1914 EK1 variants. Regards Mike

Hi Eric, I'm late to this thread but I have a question. I don't mind it being cast - but is it cast IRON? Does it strongly attract a magnet? If so, I'd agree that it's more thna likely a nice early original. If not, I'd suggest it is a modern casting. Regards Mike

Hi, I don't know much about ribbon bars, but in reference to when ribbon bars were being faked I can state that my "Ohio" parts bar was purchased well before 1990. The brass catch on the one at the top of the thread looks pretty similar to my fake bar as well. Re the comparison between the bar in question and the bar on the cover of the bandenkatalog, I would strongly suggest that they are not the same bar. On the 25 device, the top stroke of the 5 appears much thicker on the bandenkatalog example (and the curl of the 5 also appears different) and the white "stiching" between the Frontkampferkreuz and the SW Afrika ribbon is to me very different. That "ding" on the top right corner is also different - more pronounced on the bandenkatalog example imo. Looks more like someone has faked the ribbon bar on the cover of the bandenkatalog? Regards Mike

Hi Rick, No, the one on the left of the bottom row is a 2nd to 1st Class conversion. Hard to make out the pin attachment in that small scan though. Regards Mike

Reverse..

Hi, I have to say that purple enameled example in posts 20/21 is amazing! Please don't shoot me, but what exactly is it please?? Here's my small contribution - something from the lower end of the spectrum I'm afraid. Regards Mike Obverse...

Hi Alex, This is an intersting badge. It's been discussed on WAF before (http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118348&highlight=L%2F18). To me, yes, there are some slight differences with "typical" Mayer examples (which are pretty uncommon in the first place) but there are also a lot of similarities not found to my knowledge on E-boat badges from other makers (eg both the bow tube door "hinge" and the flag pole have lines on them on this example and typical L/18 examples). Interestingly, the design of the Mayer and the RS badges are imo VERY similar - to include some characteristic features on many parts of the eagle - waves as well. I don't see anything wrong with the gilt finish - it looks plated in post#7, however I can't rule out a re-finish from pics alone (if the finish is easily removed with acetone then it's been repainted). I've checked through my files and that "fat" L/18 mark is present on other Mayers - it is an unusual mark though. The finish on this example appears very good and the hinge/pin/catch are reminiscent of earlier Mayer Heer badges, so it's possible this type of Mayer was the earlier type and the "more common" Mayer with the wide pin and block hinge is the later type. Maybe some die reworking between the two "types"? It looks authentic to me - I certainly would not call it a fake! Regards Mike

Hi Micha, Very nice cross! The only one you have (so far) - a pinback Meybauer - is the only variant I still want to add to my little collection! Great start but watch out - these can be just as addictive as Prussian EKs! Regards Mike

Hi, Scott, no fighting words were intended in my reply! Fyi, the recent eBay.de example and my example are the same cross. The oldest specific reference I have to this type of marking is in Bowen's EK book from the mid 80s. There are other 1914 EKs that use this triple marking - eg some Wagner EK1 Prinzens and some M Hansen EK1s. If the markings turn out to be bad then someone has done an excellent job and I've been fooled - wouldn't be the first time! Micha, I will be interested in those pics if you can get them! Regards Mike