stukapilot

Hello, hmmm...strange piece. Godet used to produce crosses with both medallion enameled, but this one looks like home-enameled (or at least repaired).

More pics

Let's try another one! JL.

The swords are attached unusually.

Guys, what can you say about this one?

From the pictures supplied, I tend to lean in favour of this clasp being war time produced.

Do I see the maker mark "O" for Steinhauer und Lück on the reverse of this clasp? The obverse certainly matches known originals by the maker but it must be said that S&L continued to produce flight clasps post war (with swastika) making authentication of war-time pieces very difficult.

It would help if you could post some pictures of the rivet as post war rivets tended to be clipped rather than hammered.

Thank you John for your opinion! I don't have other pics yet. I can see the circle mm on the backside also. Do you know if S&L used this mark before 1945?

...

..

.

Gentlemen, what do you think about this clasp?

Thank you for opinions! Can't find the evidence of the swords being there. The ribbon looks original. I think that much more than 24 were produced.

...

...

...

Gentlemen! What do you think about this MVK? How rare it could be on that ribbon?

It seems there were no swords ever.

Sorry, not even close...

Very nice joke, Elvis!

Or you really think your piece is authentic???

Hello there,

I would like to voice my opinion. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this cross, ZERO.

It is an awarded decoration that has developed great patina that could never be faked.

William Kramer

William, thank you for your opinion!

details

rev

Hi guys! What do you think about the producer of this cross? 84?

If I knew the Answer to that then it would of been placed in my post. What I should say is that after declining to purchase this Award the dealer rather annoyed told me (Quote "I have been collecting and dealing for 30 years and this is the first time I have heard this load of B/S, believe me I am quite able to tell the difference between a copy and a real medal and this is a genuine example, the (3) denotes the maker, Experts would have know this, I authenticate and value for some of the top auction rooms in this country and also in Canada, so I am very insulted"). However I passed the shot's of this EK1 to another very respected dealer for there opinion who came back with (Quote "EK1 looks ok from the picks").

Furthermore the date "1939" on your picture's is indeed Lower on the Floch Crosses (Reproduction's) although on this EK1 to which this discussion is based, It is not. The Numeral "3" is a very very close call.

Lastly,if this EK1 was indeed a Copy as you say then why would one go to as much work to manufacture a piece to put on the reverse something as blatently obvious as a "hooky catch". This Catch in Question may well have been replaced Post-War as the original was broken off at some point, (as many are in all Award's). My gut feeling on this particular piece (which is very important as we all know) is that it is "okay" although as said I have now declined it to which I may well regret.

No problem - you can believe or not for it's originality. I don't care it's your money ). Of course we know this kind of "bla-bla-bla" from every dealer. This is nothing but words... The question can be solved by posting the original cross (the same as you show but with maker mark for example) or by telling us the name of this maker. Just name!

It could invariably mean that it was a different maker that resulted in this subtle variation of the numeral "3".

I feel that with No Concrete proof at this time could it be 100% certain that this particular piece is a copy.

No problem. Just tell us the name of that "different maker".

The hook is also suspicious.

As a learner to this area of collecting could you please elaborate on why this is a copy?

It would be most appreciated.

Regards

Brian

Hi, Brian.

Please look at the "1939", especially "3". This is the key. IMHO.

Regards, Ivan

It's a copy.