gregM

I picked this one up just because I really liked the paint loss. (a common issue with KOs)

I don't think we will ever have a "definative" list. We still can't agree on the ones we have.

One of mine---

I agree. I think groupings should stay together but every time a grouping changes hands, there is the risk of it being split apart. Because the EK was split out of this group, it casts doubt in my mind on the rest of the items. Who can say what pieces actually belong to the original group.

WOW--That is something you don't see everyday.

Agree with Kay. Common fake thats's been all over ebay this last year or so.

A young widow with a kid------------some comfort. The world is full of single moms.

I agree with Don on this one. The "Sans" oaks are commonly found on fake crosses with fake repition bars. I have a hard time believing the only (real) piece being the oak leaves.

I have no issues with the core frame, core, or paint on this cross. In fact the loss of paint matches very close to many AWS crosses that I have seen with this style core (includeing one of my own) I have not seen this style of pin before. AWS usually used a round wire pin, however they did use a flat pin on some crosses but not one that looked like this one. As far as the lock goes, My personal belief is that it was jeweller added. Either way, it's a nice variation. Here is one of mine showing the same paint loss to the core-----

A closer look would be nice.

Very nice. I really like the 1870.

I did say a used tooth brush. Hopefully not the one you still use on your teeth buy hay, what you put in your mouth is your business :unsure:

More than likely, it is NueSilber. I have a couple crosses I believe to be made of NueSilber

Looks like a good SW cross. Early cores were blakened not painted. Not sure of the process however. The best maintenece is IMO to just lightly remove any dirt or looses debri with an old tooth brush, then keep it in a clean dry enviroment. I am not fan of oiling iron cores or polishing silver frames.

I agree. A lot of assuptions have been made. Here is a image from the book showing the different makers marks. shown with permission from Kay at "Holland verzamelt.nl"

How do we know that the CD 800 crosses are from Carl Dillenius and not from Alfred Ringele?

Everyone who is interested in collecting or studying Iron Crosses by maker, should check out this thread and follow the link provided. http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/52690-diamonds-maker/ Just from the little bit posted, It calls into doubt who we believe made the AWS and CD 800 marked crosses and may help clear up the mystery of the "Silber" marked Ek2s.

Early type A crosses were made with the small ring attached very high on the frame and open on one side. It was a very week point on the cross and you will find many, many examples of period 1870s with the small ring soldered back in place.

I like what I see. You are correct in that a 1870 Ek2 should not be maker marked. I am sure the mark is more that likely a tool mark made during assembly.

Very Nice !!!!!!!!!

I agree. It's one I'm still hoping to add to the pile.

Eric, Even with the broken pin, that is a nice cross and a hard to find variation. One that I'm still looking for.

I don't know of a real "list" but here is a photo showing several different variations.

Tony brings up a good point. There is no way to know if the cross and case posted actually belong together. I believe many sets purchased from dealers are mixed and matched. Tony----Very nice !!

Sascha, I was always under the assumption that the "KO"s were considered to be the (awarded) crosses.