Richard Gordon

Dan

The front looks quite convincing but it's on the reverse where the problems start. The crude catch, shape of pin and loose fitting hinge plus the contrived aging with fake tarnish.

There were not that many makers of the EK1 and I personally believe all have been categorized and this isn't one of them. If you follow ebay on a regular basis you get to see the new fakes as they tend to start cropping up there. You tend to not see this one because of the swastika but you see the similarities to 1914 EK1 fakes which are regularly found there.

I've based my decision on these factors and that's why I believe it's a fake.

Rich

Personally, I believe it is a fake.

Rich

Yes, I understand there have been examples noted where the catch is 'C' type. I just think the whole reverse looks a little odd. I can't see anything from the obverse that throws up any concerns. May well be just an unusual one! As there are good fakes of these around I'm probably being over-cautious.

Rich

:speechless: and all three are CEJ marked! Uber rare!!

Rich

From the reverse it looks a bit weird... pointy pin, c-catch instead of ? shape, hinge looks fat, rivets don't look standard. Maybe the scan is distorting things?

Rich

I think it's a difficult term to measure. Should it be measured by the number of kills? Should the type of vehicle destroyed be taken into consideration? I mean destroying 100 soft-skinned vehicles does not, in my book, make an ace.

With the 88mm the Germans could engage at great distances, relatively safely so does that make one an ace?

The Sherman was under gunned until the Firefly(?) with the 17pdr came along so to take out any of the heavy German panzers before that came along was quite a feat.

How does one define 'Tank Ace'?

Rich

Lastly this. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason the ribbon has deteriorated.

Rich

Better late then never!

Here's mine. This frack is of particular pleasing quality... (looks similar to post 35)

No, couldn't have 1st without 2nd. Definitely an officer's ribbon bar.

Thanks Rick. Just wanted to check in case there was some possibility that all three pieces could have come from the same person.

Rich

Hi Mike!

Yes, nicely convexed. This is the second from this maker that I have. Would it be fair to say this seems to be the most common maker for this award?

Rich

Fairly typical of German outfitters confused by Exotic Foreign Stuff-- that is the OLD and OUTDATED ribbon for the Order of the Star of Romania (statute ribbon 1932) which was NOT correct for a WW2 award with swords, as this one was. I think 90% of Romanian WW2 ribboned decorations are WRONG on German groups--

the outfitters had old stock, looked at old charts... and mounted up groups that were incorrect.

Typical. Not a problem.

This would have been for a Knight class as given to Lieutenants.

Many thanks Rick!

Can I assume then this was an officers medal bar? Is it possible for an officer to have won the Mecklenberg Cross 1st class without having the 2nd class? Just wondering as this bar came with a 1st class cross but obviously no Mecklenberg 2nd class shows on the bar.

Rich

Seems fairly standard in construction.

Here's the wound back

And back.

This one came along with my new Mecklenberg 1st class. I know that the award to the far right is foreign as it's at the end but I don't know what it is. Could anyone tell me?

Looks like the EK2 ribbon was sporting an icky TR device at one stage. I wonder if the badge was removed and re-sewn to remove the device? The stitching doesn't look very professional...

Rich

I got this one recently from evilbay as a buy-it-now along with a nice ribbon bar and cut-out black wound badge for a reasonable price.

It just enough wear to show it's been there but not enough to degrade the finish.

Anyone know the maker?

Rich

Here the 'standard' pin shape.

Rich

Micha

I have two of this type and both have different pins. Here's one

Other to follow is the 'standard' type. There may be other types too.

Rich

Eric

Interesting cross. I would guess that the repair to the catch was not made at the time the horizontal hooks were attached otherwise I think the catch would not be on a base plate.

Rich

I cannot see anything wrong with it!

Alex

Thanks for the extra close-up. Yes, the windows do look the same but yet I still see differences! Check out this leaf... especially the dots. See mine has only 2 rows, yours has three!

Would you agree?

Rich

Guys

Very interesting to read this thread and see the examples being compared to. Here's close-up of the badge to compare with Alex's example. While I see a lot of similarities they do seem to be different in the section I've marked out but that might be down to comparing with a lower resolution pic.

Do you think the windows on the building on the right within the red section differ to Alex's?

Rich

Catch is a bit flimsy looking but seems sturdy enough. Lightly marked 800. I couldn't find any other markings.

Rich

I had forgotten a bit about this EK1 as it's been in a shadow box along with my imperial pilot badge for several years. Imagine my surprise when I took it out and realised it's a type that I've recently been look to buy but had completely forgotten I already had one!!!

Made my day! Here's few pics. Anyone know which maker this was?

Rich

Reverse.

Rich