EK 1914 An interesting coincidence

[Daniel Murphy]

Gentlemen,

I saw these photos by Wild Card(demonstrating an original piece) in the Imperial Fakes thread. With Chris' permission I reproduce his photos here. This is the back of a Wilhelmskreuz 1st Class showing a unusual locking device on the pin. Please bear with me, all will be clear in due time.

Here is a close up of the locking device.

And the makers label from the original case.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Daniel Murphy]

Now here is a KMST EK1 with a locking catch, that I was offered a couple years ago. Notice the similarity of the pins and the EXACT same type of locking catch as on the Wilhelmskreuz.

The pin lifted.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Daniel Murphy]

Personally, I have always doubted that the Kriegs Ministerium Standesamt in Berlin(which conventional wisdom notes as the maker of these crosses)was the actual maker. First, why is the War Ministry designing Iron Crosses? Is this not a function of the Orders Chancellery? And second, the marking on these crosses is "K.M.ST.", there is no period between the S and T on these crosses (which would support a maker in Stuttgart). Is it possible that the actual maker of the KMST EKs is the Koenigliche Muenzamt in Stuttgart? Please give me your thoughts on this subject whether they be positive or negative.

Dan

Edited September 5, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Gordon Williamson]

Pretty compelling argument Dan. I think you have nailed it.

In fact with Kriegsministerium being one word, I suspect that there would have been no period between the K and M, but with K?nigliche and M?nzamt being two words, a period between the K and M , but no period between S and T makes perfect sense. The evidence of the fancy retaining clip just seals it.

[Mike K]

Hi,

Dan, interesting theory and one which I am rapidly coming around to!

I saw Wild Card's cross and noted the "KMST" catch support, but I did not make the connection with the label - really well done

I had never believed that Kriegsministerium actually made the crosses - I always read it as the Kriegsministerium holding the patent (DRGM) for the marking.

Koenigliche Muenzamt Stuttgart does make more sense, as they are much more likely to be experimenting with attachment hardware and lodging patents - probably with a specialised government department that had nothing to do with the Kriegsministerium.

I can provide one further piece of evidence (which I had not previously realised the significance of - it had actually bothered me a bit until now) and show the following KMST variant (a later stamped marking) which actually reads KMSt - note the LOWER case "t" - see below (no periods at all on this style). Out of interest, note that the incuse relief mark on the pin only reads "KM".

Interesting that KO examples (Koenigliche Muenzamt Berlin) are "slightly" more common than their Stuttgart counterparts!!

Regards

Mike

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

This was always a weird reality for me also thinking of the Standesamt in Berlin would be stamping out awards. The Stuttgart connection makes a lot of sense.

[Daniel Murphy]

Out of interest, note that the incuse relief mark on the pin only reads "KM".

Mike,

Great variation, is it yours? Actually that is another point I was going to bring up......later. I have seen that "KM" mark on three different styles of KMST EK1s. Since you mentioned it, there are some VERY high quality EK2s out there marked "KM". The most common makers list notes "KM" as maker unknown. Hmmm, I wonder if there is a connection? Here is my "KM" EK2. Due to the extra wide flange on the frame this piece measures 44mm by 44mm.

Dan

Edited September 5, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Daniel Murphy]

Actually the reverse is much nicer, the arms on the core are convex like the enamel on a PLM.

[Daniel Murphy]

Close up of the marking. I know the marking is a different style and this may be a stretch, but I wonder...

[Mike K]

Hi Dan,

Yes, the variant I showed is one of mine.

I have always believed the KM marked EK2s to be "KMST"s - the problem is I don't have one Fyi, imo the obverse core (and frame) of your EK2 is similar to that used on KMST marked EK1s. I was just having a second look and notice a slight difference at the very base of the crown though - it may be lighting differences though.

I've cobbled together a comparison using a bad scan of the obverse of my example above.

Regards

Mike

PS: now that the cat's out of the bag re the KM EK2s, no doubt they'll jump in price to 200 Euro tomorrow.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Mike K

[Daniel Murphy]

Well the KM marks may be different but look at the "800" mark. The top is from My EK2 and the lower is from Mike's EK1. Different lighting conditions for sure, but they look alike to me. The numbers are kind of lumpy, but the lumps are in the same place.

Dan

Edited September 5, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Daniel Murphy]

Even better, a look at the cross hatching. Mike's EK1 left and my EK2 right. Gotcha! Not too shabby, we nailed the maker of the KMST EK1s and the KM EK2s in one day.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Motorhead]

Good work-I totally agree with you about the "K?nigliches M?nzamt Stuttgart".It makes more sense than everything else.And it seems to be that we have found out who's standing behind the maker mark "KM".But the difference of the crown bases is real.I own a few KMST 1st class and also some KM 2nd class....the base of the crown is different.Even if the numbers are in the same style,I'm pretty shure they have used a different core for the 2nd class.But anyway,the prices for "KM"s will rise....

Micha

[gregM]

Here is the crown from a 1st. class.

[attachmentid=52832]

[Stogieman]

Sharp eyes Daniel!!

[Daniel Murphy]

Thanks gentlemen. I was not 100% sure of the EK2 until Mike posted his EK1 obverse for me to compare. I I have to give him some of the credit. Now go find those KMs before someone starts raising the price. And if anyone has a KMST EK1, they don't want let me know. I don't have one yet. Any condition, love the salty ones.

Dan

Edited September 6, 2006 by Daniel Murphy

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

Again, Daniel, great job. This is actually a very large mystery revealed.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I often have the feeling that folks are quick to match initials with names or potential names without having black on white evidence.

This seems conclusive.

best

Chris

[Wild Card]

Hi Dan,

Of all of the members commenting on this thread, I admittedly know the least when it comes to the intricacies of EK?s. Nevertheless, I must say that you have presented what I would call an absolutely convincing case on this issue.

I find it most interesting that what we had all assumed for decades to be the correct identification of this mint mark was in fact wrong. How many other similar situations might we be looking at without realizing it? Thanks to inquisitive minds like yours coupled with the hard work required we may eventually find out.

Thanks Dan,

Wild Card

[Brian R]

Great investigative work Daniel!

While I agree that the KM EK2s may go up up in price based on this revelation, I wonder if the KM EK1s will be as desirable as before. Although they are still scarce, will the K?nigliches M?nzamt Stuttgart EK1 be as valuable as the Kriegs Ministerium Standesamt in Berlin EK1? I was always under the impression that part of the appeal of these crosses was that, not only were they uncommon, well made and that they generally included a variety of pin/catch assemblies, they were believed to be made by the War Ministry, and not just a random maker. There seems to be a bit of romanticism related to the Imperial government. Obviously, I could be wrong but it's just a thought.

[Mike K]

Hi Brian,

Personally I do not think so. They are still as rare (imo rare, not scarce) as they were a week ago and their desirability for me has always been in the hardware (and rarity), not the maker.

Regards

Mike

PS: my remark above re the price rise of the KM EK2s was more flippant than anything else (give a greedy dealer an inch.....). I see no real reason for them to rise above what they are selling for now, as they are not easy to find anyway.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Mike K

[gregM]

their desirability for me has always been in the hardware (and rarity), not the maker.

I agree--Evidence of that is the fact that a pin back style KMST Ek1 costs less than

half of what a KMST with the "slide" style attachment cost.

[Les]

K?nigliches M?nzamt Stuttgart? Not quite so fast guys.....

There is at least one other royal mint with the lettters "ST" at the beginning of it's name.

There was also a royal mint house at.....Stettin (now Czeczin in Poland). Can "K?nigliches M?nzamt St(ettin)" be ruled out?

Les

[Brian R]

Les-

You have a good point, however the unusual pin catch assemblies add to the evidence. It's not just a case of initials. I'd be curious to see the reverse of badges made by K?nigliches M?nzamt Stettin etc.

Mike and Greg-

I agree... the rarity is the greatest factor in the desirability of KMST crosses amongst collectors, I just figured I'd put the War Ministry question out there for fun (although I still think it could be a slight factor). And, I totally agree on the following...

"PS: my remark above re the price rise of the KM EK2s was more flippant than anything else (give a greedy dealer an inch.....). I see no real reason for them to rise above what they are selling for now, as they are not easy to find anyway."

Edited September 12, 2006 by Brian R

[Chris Boonzaier]

K?nigliches M?nzamt Stuttgart? Not quite so fast guys.....

There is at least one other royal mint with the lettters "ST" at the beginning of it's name.

There was also a royal mint house at.....Stettin (now Czeczin in Poland). Can "K?nigliches M?nzamt St(ettin)" be ruled out?

Les

Hi,

as they are supposedly post 1918, would that have been Germany between the wars?

Best

Chris