Streptile

Hi Tom, AWS already has 3 known cores. Mike, I have one of these Pillowbacks with frames that are similarly offset, and I've seen another. I don't think this one was a put-together, but rather a good AWS with (for some reason) a Godet-style core. Why? Who knows -- but core swapping was (as you well know) epidemic with 1914 EKs.

You should ignore this answer. I know who wrote it and his collection is riddled with known fakes. Sorry, Vince. From my perspective, honestly, it's impossible to say if the cross is a good Type A (which is what it looks like) from the photos supplied. If you want a good answer about this cross, I think you have to show us some better photos. If it is a good Type A, I'd say the mark was added. I have seen a few with silver content marks, but only 800 and 925, and never a Type A. Both those marks were on the exact same type of cross, a WWI-era replacement cross. In fact, a good 800 marked 1870 EK2 may be seen in Vern Bowen's EK book -- again the same WWI repacement type. Here is one of my Type As:

As Marshall cryptically implies, it's a known fake.

Yeah, me too... :-)

Brian, I think this guy looks like you.

Unfortunately the WHS is a fake as well, in my opinion. These kinds may be found frequently - sometimes alone, often attached to "Ninth Bead" fakes, sometimes attached to other fakes (as yours), and sometimes added on to original 1870 EK2s. I have yet to see a WHS marked with the "halfmoon" and "crown" (as I assume yours is) that I consider a period original. Known originals had none of these marks, and were often completely unmarked. As for your oaks, I can't say one way or the other -- but judging by the company they keep, I'd be skeptical.

Super piece :D

I agree with Oli.

Chris, where on earth did you get that magnificent card in the first post?

Hi Chris, That Mayer w/o veins looks good to me, and the pin type is correct for this particular die.

Agree with Bob. Floch fake, beautiful Deumer, Orth brassy (not Schickle), and a good EK2... but not a Deumer. Nice ones (except the Floch).

Yes, a known fake. It's just not a design that was used during the TR, and can be found with many different makers marks, all bogus.

Very nice thread, and nice crosses. Incidentally I have seen this exact cross (same reverse, too) with the 1870 date. Can anyone post a photo of one?

Not seen that mounting style before. Thanks.

Both fakes. Old thread, I know, but I'm not here much.

Very nice

Hi Eric, Yes, the scans aren't the best. As I wrote in the first post: What is it about the '9' that provides a possible clue? It looks distinctive to you? I really appreciate any ideas you may have on this one. Naxos, I'm not so sure it's part of the custom engraving. It looks rather like part of the same stamp as the '925,' or at least stamped at the same time. It's not in script, but in very small BLOCK CAPITALS. I think it may possibly take the owner of this actual cross coming forward, as even in the book it's tough to make out. However, I was hoping that someone with a thorough knowledge of Imperial EK makers might recognize enough letters to make an educated guess. For example, I believe I can see the following letters fairly clearly in the photo: _ _ ANS_ _ _ (space) CO _ _ _ But I just don't know enough about the makers to say. Thank you for looking in; you may be able to tell that I am very anxious to figure this one out. Trevor

Thank you, Naxos, I am not actually looking for any information on the awardee, but on the maker of the cross itself, which is stamped into the reverse just above the name "Heinz." If you own the book, perhaps you could have a look? The writing is a bit clearer there. Thanks again, Trevor

Hello Imperialists, I'm not a terribly regular poster here, but I really need some help on this one... I have an unmarked 1914 EK1 that I believe holds the key to a large-ish research project I am trying to put together. I never thought I'd find one marked, as the numerous examples I've seen in both classes are all unmarked. For my birthday a few days ago my lovely girlfriend got me a copy of the Revised Edition of The Iron Time by Stephen Previtera, and to my immense surprise the book contains some photos of this cross with what appears to be a makers' designation. Needless to say I fell out of my chair when I saw it. However, I can't decipher it It is driving me nuts. It seems so close, yet so far... I am posting an excerpt from the book with Mr. Previtera's permission. The cross is pictured below. I have blown up two sections which show the mark. I don't think anyone can make this out in the scan, but who knows? Clearly seen is some engraving, and the silver content mark '925'. What I want to read is below the '925,' just above the name "Heinz." What I really hope is that those of you who own this book could open it up to p. 238 and have a look for me and tell me if you can read it, or if you have any ideas. Your help is enormously appreciated! By the way, I have asked Stephen Previtera, but he does not have this cross in-hand, and doesn't quite remember who does. If the owner of this cross is reading, I would be in hugely grateful if you could read this makers' mark (if that's what it is) for me. Let me also say, to those of you who either own the First Edition of The Iron Time, or who don't own it at all, that the Revised Ed. is a simply spectacular update, really an entirely new book. Especially the 1870 and 1914 sections, which seem in many places brand new. I can't believe I lived for 10 years with the First Edition, thinking they were substantially the same. This is an absolute must-have in any collector's library, in my view. My very sincere thanks for any help, Trevor

Thank you for your replies. This piece is coming from a reputable dealer, and I've paid for it already. I also posted a thread in WAF and got some opinions there which further inclined me towards the purchase. I felt confident enough, and the price was quite attractive. When it arrives - which should be this coming week or shortly thereafter - I will post detailed photos here for your approval, and will take advantage of the dealer's return policy if there appears to be a problem. Thank you also for your warnings regarding the use of The Iron Time, or any book, as a definitive reference. I have learned my lesson on that front, as a nice 39EK2 Schinkel B-type I felt sure was original as it was pictured in both The Iron Cross of 1939 and Forman's Guide, 2nd Ed., has proven to be of postwar manufacture. ~TR

Hello board members, I am a new member. Yesterday I posted a thread in 1939 EKs asking for help identifying a cross I've had in my collection for years. To my great surprise it turned out to be a well-known fake despite being very convincing. I am now a bit chastened, and would like to put an EK question to the Imperial enthusiasts among you. I have the chance to buy this 1870 EK1 Prinzen at a decent price: Here's what I know about it: Silver rims, blackened iron center, 36mm x 36mm, thin pin setup, supposedly dates from Jubilee c.1895. Now, I was initially a bit skeptical, but after doing some research I'm a bit more confident. I'd like to show my research and have your opinions. Below is this cross for sale (Right) next to a known original (Left) (p.116 in S.T. Previtera's "The Iron Time" 1st Edition): Just by eye I think it compares very favorably. The known original is also 36mm sq. and has a thin pin on the reverse. It is also known to date from the jubilee period, c. 1895. I superimposed the cross for sale at 50% opacity on top of the known original to see if the core details align. Here is the two crosses offset to show opacity: And here they are aligned: Now, the core details align perfectly. The date, which is quite distinctive, is identical. The W and crown are identical also. I also counted the beads on two arms, and the bead count is identical. My concerns are, simply: I have not been able to see better quality photos, or photos of the reverse. Also, the small flaw in the beading on the lower right (facing) of the 6-o'clock arm. However, given the amount of evidence pointing to it's similarity to a known original, I am inclined to go for it. Can anyone offer me any advice? Thanking you in advance, Trevor

No need to apologize Ben, I thank you and Oliver for your insight. It is indeed a pretty good fake. I keep meticulous notes on where and when I buy each of my crosses, and when I get home I shall have a look and see if, in fact, this one came from Latvia. So am I to understand that the Meybauer and Deumer EK2 Schinkels are the only ones commonly accepted as genuine? By the way, I did a search on WAF and came up with this photo in a thread - called a Latvian fake Schinkel EK1 by posters there: apologies to the original owner of this cross for borrowing the photo Is this the same core and frame used for mine? It certainly seems similar... Thanks again... I will post the source for this cross in a bit, for interest's sake. Trevor

Hello ogfm, Thank you for your considered reply. I must say that the one answer I was not expecting was that this one is fake. I've had it in my collection since 1999 and never doubted it's authenticity, although I have doubted others. The workmanship on this piece is magnificent, easily equal to every other original I own, and superior to most. Now, I am not an expert per se, but I am very knowledgeable and very well read on the subject of EK collecting, having been at it for 10+ years, and to my eye, this EK has every hallmark of an original piece. Moreover, it has been in my possession since before there were - to my knowledge - sophisticated 1939 EK2 fakes. Also, just because an example does not match commonly-known originals, it does not necessarily mean it's a fake. If the latter were true, we'd never have any "discoveries" in our hobby. But if this one is fake, it ought to match some known fakes (which maybe it does - we'll see). So, without discounting or taking any offense at your opinion - indeed, if it's fake I want to know - I would like to throw to thread open for others to weigh in on this cross. To clarify: I do know that this one does not match other Schinkels I have seen, which, more than anything, was the reason for my post. It has always stumped me, but I believe it to be authentic TR manufacture. I can supply more photos if required, or other information. Any other opinions on this one will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Trevor I would like to post this thread on Wehrmacht-Awards Forum as well, but my account is in the moderator queue awaiting approval. If I get some info there, I will try to update this thread as well.

Hello board members. My name is Trevor. I am new to this board but not to collecting the Iron Cross. I've spent the last week or so browsing this forum. It seems that there is quite an accumulated store of knowledge here. I have a few nice things in my collection, which (in theory) spans 1813 - 1939 (57), but there are one or two EKs that I simply have never been able to figure out. I am posting some descriptions and photos here in the hopes that one of you might be able to help me identify. The first head-scratcher is this one: It seems undeniably genuine: unmarked, magnetic, 3-piece construction. It's substantial - rather heavy and well-made. It measures 43.2mm x 43.2mm. The swastika and date are very crisp and high: Here's the RS: Basically my confusion stems from the fact that I believe this to be a Schinkelform A type. Below it is pictured with an Imperial EK2 and a 65-marked K&Q from my collection. It's evident to me that the beading frame on the cross in question closely resembles the Imperial cross, right down to its dimensions. But the flange is wider than I'd like to see on a standard Schinkelform A EK2, making the overall dimensions closer to the TR-standard 44mm than the Imperial standard 42mm. Some time ago I did an experiment with this cross and "narrowed" the flange with Photoshop (rather sloppily). It was driving me crazy that I couldn't decide whether this was a Schinkel or not. Below is the result of the experiment. I guess my question for you all is, does anyone else have a cross that matches this one? Is this a known variant? Can it be attributed? Would you say it's a Schinkel? In any case, I am very happy to have discovered that there is a forum out there for people who are as interested in this decoration as I am. My enthusiasm for collecting has waxed and waned over the years, and I've had to sell some true gems that I wish I had now, but I still have a small group of EKs that I am now trying to build up again. Many thanks, Trevor