An interesting Pair of 1870 Crosses

[Schießplatzmeister]

[attachmentid=26384]

Hello again everyone:

Here are a few examples of campaign crosses which are all original and were made by casting. All of them have suspension lugs which were an extension of the casting of the body of the crosses. First, here is a "family" of Bavarian 1866 campaign crosses.

Thanks,

Schie?platzmeister

[Schießplatzmeister]

[attachmentid=26386]Hello again:

Here is an 1863/4 campaign cross from Saxony made by a casting process.

Thanks,

Schie?platzmeister

[Stogieman]

Greetings! I have no dispute that many of these were made by casting, but if you look at the very well preserved details of these, then compare to the 1870 I sent back, you'll see what I mean by "softness" and "wear"... I don't think that 1870 I had was gilded bronze. Just not willing to take a chance like that on such a rare piece.

[Schießplatzmeister]

Hello Stogieman:

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I agree, there are a few details of the 1870 FF cross that you sent back which look suspect. The suspension lug at the top is crude to the extreme. The stippling of the fields of the cross body also doesn't look proper. It is probably a counterfeit made to deceive collectors. The context with the highly suspect non-1870/71 issue EK is also another troubling factor. It was a good move sending it back.

The 1870 FF cross that I have is not "pretty" at all either. In fact, I think that there are modern forgeries which look much nicer. I do think that it is genuine in spite of/ because of its ugliness. When it comes to these, I believe that all forgeries were cast, but that not all castings are forgeries.

We are in full agreement. If you could see the piece that I have in person, I think that you would probably lean toward it being genuine. The context in which I picked it up was good and it looks nothing like the recent copies that were flowing out of Germany.

I would like to see if there is anyone else out there who has original examples of these, or information about their manufacture. Sorry, to flog the dead horse, but I find the topic fascinating.

Thanks for your patience Stogieman et al!

Schie?platzmeister

[Stogieman]

Hi SPM (it's so much easier), I like yours simply by virtue that it does not have the nasty ring on top like the one that was briefly here.

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

I agree, all of SPM's have an undisputable 'look'.

[Schießplatzmeister]

Hello again folks:

Sorry, I just can't leave this topic alone! I will now use "SPM" as my moniker to make everyone's life a bit easier when I write.

A bit more digging in Hessenthal u. Schreiber reveals the following information. The terms "gepr?gten", "Pr?gung", "Gepr?ge" are all used when mentioning the Mecklenberg-Schwerin crosses from 1848 until 1914. This literally means "struck" or "coined" as in die-struck. They use the same terminology when describing the Bavarian 1866 campaign cross however, and those were in my opinion without a doubt cast. I believe that they used the term for everything unless they knew for certain that a piece was made by casting (i.e. cast iron pieces). We must remember that this text was published in 1940 and much of the information regarding the awards of the pre-1918 states was probably even difficult to find at that time as many years had elapsed since the Kingdoms, Grand Duchies, Duchies, etc. had ceased to exist.

Interestingly enough, H. u. S. state on page 237 "Die Milit?r-Verdienstkreuze mit den Jahreszahlen 1848, 1849, 1859, 1864, 1866 sind bei sonst gleicher, ziemlich primitiver Ausf?hrung aus Gesch?tzbronze hergestellt". So, "primitive pieces made from cannon-bronze" apparently were noted for the 1848-1866 pieces.

Now, the question for the 1870 pieces remains. Were there cast crosses made from cannon-bronze which are contemporaryily issued pieces? Are die-struck examples which are old possible? I believe that the answer to both of these questions is "yes". I also believe that all forgeries, counterfeits, etc. are certainly cast also.

Sometimes, the more information one seeks, the more questions one has!

Thanks Stogieman and Brian for your input!

"SPM"

[kunsho]

....Bavarian 1866 campaign cross however, and those were in my opinion without a doubt cast. I believe that they used the term for everything unless they knew for certain that a piece was made by casting (i.e. cast iron pieces). ....

... H. u. S. state on page 237 "Die Milit?r-Verdienstkreuze mit den Jahreszahlen 1848, 1849, 1859, 1864, 1866 sind bei sonst gleicher, ziemlich primitiver Ausf?hrung aus Gesch?tzbronze hergestellt". So, "primitive pieces made from cannon-bronze" apparently were noted for the 1848-1866 pieces....

...the question for the 1870 pieces remains. Were there cast crosses made from cannon-bronze which are contemporaryily issued pieces? ....

Hi SPM,

HuS differentiates very well and very exactly between casted and coined medals. The informations HuS provides is not by any means blurred, but also actual and current (up to few corrections) still today.

Neither HuS nor Heyden ever speak of casted crosses and so you can assume that an exeption is very, very improbably. In connection with this cross only the word coinage is used.

The Bavarian 1866 campaign-crosses shown by you are each and all coined not casted. Generally one can assume (up to a very few exeptions) that the decorations of the German states in original execution have to be coined.

Sorry

Matthias

Edited February 7, 2006 by kunsho