Danny70

I would not have any worries about this cross, and would be glad to have it in my own collection. Now you just need the 'little brother' version. (As do I)

Hi barzda, I would consider this a textbook (and very good) example of an übergrosse EK2. It matches my ones perfectly but if your measurements are correct, your frame is even larger - My first example measures 46.88 x 46.85mm and weighs 23.8g my second example measures 46.87 x 46.93mm and weighs 23.2g However, it looks like the frame on your one has separated slightly at the 6 o'clock position (or are there any signs of it being tampered with?). Regards - Danny

The construction quality makes me think post-war. Regards - Danny

Hi, The rust and dirt are covering most of the features I would like to see, but the maker mark on the disc looks like a '51' to me. That mark and the lack of an anti-spin device would be enough to warn me off this one. Regards - Danny

Agreed, an early Deumer. Regards - Danny

Herman, I am far, far from being an expert having only been collecting EK's for approximately 4 years, but I suppose the fact that I don't collect any other medal type, I have become somewhat familiar with them. Unfortunately, I believe that your 1939 EK2 packet is also a well known fake. Regarding the 1957 EK2, I can't say that I know much about these crosses, but non-magnetic cores are frequently found (these may be later produced examples.. as I say, not my area at all) This one however has a bad re-paint.. I would be pretty sure it didn't leave the factory like that. The 1914 EK2 looks to also have a repaint and the frames polished. The jump-ring has also been poorly repaired. Regards - Danny

Evidence of re-tooling of the dies used. Herman - does your cross have this feature? Regards - Danny

I believe that these crosses surfaced sometime in the 1980's with a story that a stash of them had been found in a factory in Strasbourg (I think). It has been said that they were actually made by some guy in England specifically to fool collectors. (Whether he got his hands on some original dies or not I cannot be sure). They have also been found with the mark '666' and unmarked examples are out there also. (These are the most dangerous, because the crosses themselves are very well made and can easily fool someone who doesn't know what to look for). The die flaw on the arm had been a give away, but has since been corrected on the more recent versions - which are appearing with different markings. Here is a close up of a different '333' marked cross than that of the thread starter, and the die flaw is clearly seen. Note also the missing section of the second '1' in the 1813 date. In the following post I will attach another image that shows another major indentifying feature found on these crosses - it is evidence of re-tooling of the die used to create the frame. The new beading does not sit correctly on the old beading and these 'teeth-like' marks appear at the conflicting areas. This feature is usually seen on the 3 and 9 o'clock arms. Regards - Danny

Sorry to say, but it is the '333' fake. Note the little flaw at the beading edge at the 4pm postion, also the missing chunk from the top right of the second '1' in the 1813 date. Regards - Danny

Hi Herman, Better, more detailed photographs are needed to be certain, but I'm not feeling good about that cross. Regards - Danny

Hello William, I would say it is a cross from the firm of Rudolf Wächtler & Lange of Mittweida. '100' Is there a stamp on the under side of the pin? Regards - Danny

Micha, That is a magnificent find! Congratulations. Someday I hope I will be lucky enough to add such a fine set to my own collection. Regards - Danny

Tom, A very nice cross, but I would say that the mark is an 'S', it matches the stamp I have seen on another. Regards - Danny

Chris, That is absolutely incredible. It feels good to know that Paul Julien Grousseau has not been forgotten after all the years like so many others. To see his face and read a little about him is a fitting and poignant end to your article. Regards - Danny

Hi, Judging from this picture alone, I would say it's an original 1939 iron cross, second class, with a Souval frame and what looks like an Orth core. More pictures (straight on) of both front and back will help clarify. Regards - Danny

Ah, well that explains it! Your cross is an early unmarked Deumer. These crosses can be commonly found with a copper plated ferrous core. I cannot really see if there is any paint missing from the core of your example... can you see any copper color peeking through? Regards - Danny

Definitely not a Zimmermann/Godet judging by this obverse picture, but it doesn't look like a Deumer frame either. This image looks, IMO, quite like a B.H. Mayer '26' obverse, but I haven't seen that particular pin set-up on a Mayer cross before. Regards - Danny

Without seeing the obverse, and from the image of the reverse alone, I too would suggest a Zimmermann/Godet, but some early Deumer crosses used a very similar pin and clasp set-up. A view of the obverse would tell a lot more. Regards - Danny

Fantastic work Gordon, it looks magnificent! Do you have any idea of the amount of hours you have put into it? Regards - Danny

Mervyn, A fascinating thread indeed. Thank you very much for posting. Regards - Danny

TheKnights initial post states: "Here is another knights cross that i have come on for sale but again i am not sure whether it is original or not. Any help you can give would be much appreciated..." My response stated that it was an EK2 with a twisted ring, I also stated that it could be a field converted EK2 to RK. But the question asked was if this was an original RK.... the answer - no it's not. Yes, it could indeed be an period conversion, but without provenance, who can tell. TheKnight had previously posted a couple of other (fake) RK's asking if they were original, so I assumed that what he has been looking for is a genuine 'standard' RK. I am sorry if my response was not more informative. Call me cynical, but I'm sure there are plenty of unscrupulous characters out there who would have no qualms whatsoever about damaging an EK2 if the end result increased the value threefold. There are a lot of EK collectors out there who would be willing to take a chance in the hope that it was a period conversion. Regards - Danny

Hi, and welcome to GMIC. First of all, a few pictures would be a great help in determining whether the cross is a fake or not. Not all first class crosses of 1939 had the flat pin with a bulge towards the centre, some were just straight flat pins, but I would not describe them as like a safety pin. Can you read what the stamp on the pin is? Regards - Danny

Hello Douglas, It's a good one by the unknown maker '75'.- thought to be Franke & Co., Lüdenscheid. Regards - Danny

Hello Douglas, It was made by the firm of Rudolf Souval, Wien - '98' or L/58. Regards - Danny

Ricardo, Welcome to GMIC! That's a fine example of a Hammer & S?hne '55' with a great looking patina. You do know that one EK2 is never enough.... Regards - Danny