Motorhead Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 I'm at home today and so I decided to use my time with having a closer look in some lockers filled with things I had forgotten.....This is one of the victims-I remember I've posted it ages ago,but since I've decided to hunt the 1870 species this one is a bit suspect to me.When I bought it it came with a nc ribbon which was for sure not for an iron cross(different size).As far as I know we have only two different cores for the awarded pieces-Godet and Wagner.The Godet is easy to spot because of it's unique number design.But a Wagner should have also different numbers.This EK here has a very detailed core on both sides which is clearly different to the known copies. So-am I totally wrong and this is a Wagner or do we have more than 2 cores for the awarding time?Or is it a "Centarpiece" at the end? I've handled hundreds of '14 EKs but never spend much interest in the '70 pieces......and this is backfiring now!The next year will be the "1870" hunting season!Micha
Motorhead Posted October 25, 2007 Author Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) Reverse Edited October 25, 2007 by Motorhead
Biro Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) MichaA fake I'm afraid - I used to own one just like it.This is it... alongside another sold as a copy. They are very destinctive because of the lop-sided crown..Marshall Edited October 25, 2007 by Biro
Motorhead Posted October 25, 2007 Author Posted October 25, 2007 Funny-I've got a "positive" COA from DN for my EK(the cheap one without pic-it came with the cross when I've bought it).But this is not unexpected-from the beginning I've never liked it and so it will be put back in the locker where the sun never shines Micha
ekhunter Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 Micha, actually, that cross is more valuable to the collecting community than you think. I've been stock piling fakes over the years, from 1870 to 1957 of Latvians, to Flochs, to whatevers. I'm going to case them all and post them, and maybe bring them to shows to show collector's, especailly beginners, what to look out for. Sadly, I gave away a lot of the fakes to kids over the years, but even sadder, I still have quite a few left. It sucks when you find out about one that was a coin toss and it goes the wrong way. Just found out in the last two years about some of my 'prinzens' not being good, thanks to research by the likes of Marshall (Biro), GregM, and others. The forums have been a big help on these.. Just my two cents.
joe campbell Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 interesting thread!the godet and wagners were the original makers... but what of the numerous makersof the post war copies (1870, that is).were these not commonly made for the celebrations of 1895, and during WW1 and even WW2?who were those made by?man! there's a lot of missing information!joe
ekhunter Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) Goood point Joe. I don't know if they were commonly made after 1870, but I wouldn't definately say it wasn't uncommon to make them either. Especially in 1895 or even through the teens. An interesting twist to the conventional thinking, and I guess the point being, who's to say that this cross wasn't made in 1895 or 1914, or later. Maybe some expert can pinpoint the time frame on this particular piece. I mean, if it's not a period piece (therfore, maybe a fake in some's eyes), but maybe it's not really a fake either? Maybe some will disagree. So what is it? A representatitve piece? I don't know. Was it made to deceive collector's, or for veterans who maybe lost theirs, etc.? Once again, don't know. I believe any(crosses) that have been made in the past few years, have been made because of market demand from collector's, and therefore, a fake. (i.e. Flochs, etc.) But for a second, consider the Imperial pieces for 1914 that were made through the 20's and 30's, and are accepted. They have become quite collectable. I don't think anyone calls these fakes. Like Joe said, a lot of missing pieces. If it is a recently made fake, then so be it, will call it that , but if a 1895 made piece or maybe 1914, it might be too soon to discount it as a fake. Interesting that Micha got a COA from DN on his cross. Hmmmm! What would some of you call this cross? Anymore opinions? Edited October 25, 2007 by ekhunter
Motorhead Posted October 26, 2007 Author Posted October 26, 2007 This cross was also discussed in a German forum(SDA).It looks like it's simply a fake,nothing else! I can't tell you how an 1895 piece should look like but this one could easy made in 1995.....It will find it's place in my fake collection to remember me to do my homework properly!Micha
PKeating Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 I think this is a post-1895 piece, Micha. It might even be 1914-1918. In general, the 1895-era crosses don't have the "old-fashioned" appearance of the 1870-1871 crosses. Mind you, some people would disagree with this and say that this cross was from the 1870s. I just don't think it is. PK
monfort1 Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 HiI have one 1870 EK I would appreciate your opinion on it.It is magnetic. No marks on the soldered ringThank YouEric
gregM Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 As I mentioned to you over at WAF. I have one of these crosses and am still reallyunsure about it. I posted mine here last year and this is the responce I got-------http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=4965&hl=1870
monfort1 Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Hi GregThank you for the linkIndeed mine is is 26mm large. So would be a "Third Reich" production...?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now