Danny70

Here are two images of the edges of the cross. The top part of the image shows the end of one arm of the cross with absolutely no trace of a seam/join (my original scans are much higher resolution than these posted, and still show no trace). The lower part shows a similar view of one of the other arms and this one looks to have a seam on the left hand side fading out towards the centre. This is one of the sections that David refered to earlier. Does anyone know the production methods of the known 1914 one-piece EK2's? were they cast or die-stamped? Regards - Danny

Thanks David and Joe for your opinions. I had not considered that it may be a two-piece. I have carefully studied the cross under magnification and still I cannot ascertain if this is in fact a single or a two piece. In the sections David has mentioned, there does indeed seem to be a trace of a seam, but elsewhere there is absolutely no evidence. The cross itself is very 'thin' and lightweight (slimmer than a regular three piece 1914 EKII, I have no way of weighing it at the moment.) I will try to get some more detailed photographs of the 'seam area' soon to see if we can make a definate prognosis. Thanks again for your help. Regards - Danny

And the reverse:

Hi All... I'm hoping that I got lucky with this one! I don't know what the general opinion is on these Schinkelform EK2s. It is a one piece (unmarked) cross, non-magnetic with a 'pebbled' type finish to the core area. It's quite worn looking with some paint loss to the raised areas on the obverse and a larger section on the reverse. The jump ring is pulled away on the obverse side. Aside from the obvious wear, it seems to be of a good quality manufacture. It also has an even sized flange all the way around the cross, unlike some fake Schinkels I have seen. I have seen the same cross for sale on a few dealers sites and also posted in other forums. I have read somewhere that one piece Schinkelform crosses do exist, so does anyone know if this cross is genuine? I hope someone can help me on this one! Regards - Danny Obverse:

Thanks everyone for the input, and especially to Steen Ammentorp for the link provided... I found the information about the Swiss army very interesting. In reference to the Swiss reserve system, I remember being on a holiday in Switzerland about 15 years ago and being amazed by the amount of young (armed) guys in uniform, they were everywhere! I recall the girl I was staying with, her brother was also doing his service and his rifle (an FN, I think) was casually left in his bedroom. For a naive young Irish guy who had only seen 'real' guns in the FCA or when the Gardai (Irish Police) Task Force or Irish army were on the streets after some IRA trouble, this was a real eye-opener for me! ...Sorry for wandering off-topic! Thanks again everyone, Cheers! Regards - Danny

Reverse: (sorry about the blurry pictures)

Hi All... I saw this yesterday in an antique shop on sale for peanuts, so being the curious type I picked it up. From a rough translation I assume it was a marksmanship presentation/award, but from where? I'm guessing it is Swiss-German engraving simply because the marking on the back states that it was made in Bern. (Zaugg u. Cie, Zinnwaren, Bern). The company logo/stamp has a winged female figure in an oval with the letters AR. Any ideas?? Regards - Danny

Tom Y - Thanks for the information, It is very much appreciated. Regards - Danny BTW - I love the ribbon bow on the second cross you posted! Very unusual.

And finally, the maker marks. (apologies for the bad photographs - it's very dark here at the moment) Cross 1: and Cross 2:

Cross 2 - reverse:

Cross 2 - obverse:

Cross 1 - reverse:

Hi All... Having recently purchased another KO marked cross which has a completely different core to my first one, I'm hoping that some of you may be able to enlighten me as to some questions about the maker 'KO'. Firstly, Does anyone know how many different manufacturers produced crosses with this mark? Also, I have seen these differing explanations as to what the actual 'KO' stands for. Are they all correct? and is there any way of telling which crosses are attributable to each? "Konigliches Munzamt Orden, Berlin" "K?nigliches M?nzamt Abteilung Orden, Stuttgart" "Kaiserliches M?nzamt, Stuttgart" Hope some of you can help, as this has been puzzling me for some time! Thanks in advance, Regards - Danny Here's some images of my two KO's showing the differing cores. Cross 1 - obverse:

Hi All... Thought I would add this into this thread for future reference... I finally got around to visiting my friends collection to take some more photographs of the 1916 medals. Unfortunately, the light was bad so this photograph is a little blurred, but the size of the medal can be seen against the measuring tape. I had no finer way of measuring it and could not weigh it either, but IMO it seemed to be a fraction of a millimetre under 40mm across. Regards - Danny

Lastly, a view of the pin showing '800' stamp.

Hello Kevin, While EK1's are not really my area, I may be well off the mark here but I wondered if you know if it is a 3 piece cross? I ask because it looks very like this one piece fake (especially the hinge, pin and clasp on the back). I cannot tell from your pictures but it looks like it may have the same '800' mark on the pin too. It may just be the lighting, but the paint on the core where it meets the frame looks odd too, also suggesting a one piece. The spacing of the beading at 8 o'clock looks irregular too, IMO. If this one is genuine, which I doubt, it means that my fake is a very good one, in that they look so alike!! Regards - Danny (Apologies for not having a straight on photograph - I tried to get an angle shot to show the same lighting where the core meets the frame - see the arm above the swastika.)

Just looking at the pictures again.... Is it just me (or the angle of the medal in the photograph), but the 1916 medal looks like it is too small in relation to the Independence medal. Here's another shot showing an Independence medal with two 1916's. - Danny

Hi Kevin, I agree the starting price is high, but these medals prices have soared lately. I have seen a lone 1916 medal without provenance sell at auction for ?5,400! For that (Lot No. 124) and many more related items see: http://www.whytes.ie/4OnlineCatalogue3bylo...0&offset=20 In relation to this auction, I may well be wrong but I have my doubts about the 1916 medal - the detail seems a little too fuzzy. It is a pity both medals are missing their suspension bars. Still, it will be interesting to see the final price. Here is a picture of one from a friends collection for comparison. Regards - Danny

Hi Naoki & Hank, Thanks for your replies and kind comments. Hank - Unfortunately, this one does not match my marked '23' (although the frame is very similar in appearance). Neither does it have the Deumer 'hump'. However, I do appreciate you taking the time to help with it's identification. Many thanks! Regards - Danny

Hi Rick, That's a minty beauty!! I love the wide beading and the matt core. It's nice to see them with such high relief details. It's a pity the guy painting it was in such a hurry!! Well done, a fabulous cross! Regards - Danny

The reverse:

Hi All... Here's yet another unmarked EKII, There are a couple of things about this one that are making me wonder. Firstly, I would like to hear some of your opinions on it. It is in very good condition with a 'mirror-like' frame and quite a bit of frosting still visible on the beading. The (magnetic) core is almost perfect but with low relief swastika and dates. The 1813 date on the reverse seems to have some sort of 'double stamp'. Initially, I didn't like the 3's in the dates and thought I might have been 'Floched'... but now I'm not so sure... Any advice or comments are greatly appreciated! Regards - Danny

Hi Kevin, I pity the poor fool who buys these items! I have a cheap reproduction 1939 EK1 with the same frame and pin as that one. It purports to be a Deschler cross, that is what is written on the back of this one too... DESCHLERSOHN !!! Absolute rubbish!! Regards from the Wet West! Danny

Hi Rob, I agree, it looks ok to me also. Any chance of better photographs? Here's mine for comparison. Regards - Danny

And finally, the date on the reverse (almost invisible):