EK 1914 1914 EK1 mm "FR"+"Fr"

[Chris Boonzaier]

"Well... if the guy on the phone told you, it must be true. Or he didn't know. Or he didn't care. What I want to say - an old worker from a factory, who - as I assume - wasn't even there back than (in WW1!), is not a proof. Archive documents are."

Hi,

He seemed to know what he was talking about, and according to him, back in 1914-18 Frank und Reif were not in the EK business.

From what I understood, the man on the phone IS "Frank und Reif" today...

I think theories have to be approached with sceptisism, but if we left theory out of our hobby, and relied solely on archive fact, we would have to discount most of what we know...

Best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

Would we not have been allowed to ponder things for the 80 years before the Scharffenberg article came out? :-)

Theories are better than a void, especially if we do not know if the Archives even have what we are looking for :-)

[OTTER76]

This FR looks like a real gem to me. I am sure a little off topic but could not resist sharing it...

http://www.militaria-scholz.de/de/shop/artikel/article:721

[Streptile]

Hi Sascha,

Do you think it is at all possible that [FR] is Rothe from Vienna? The crosses would of course have to be later ones, after 1917, or privately purchased luxury pieces for Austrian officers, who -- after all -- were awarded the EK1 in great numbers. I know the marks are not identical but they are certainly close stylistically.

Thanks for your ideas.

Best,

Trevor

Edited February 2, 2013 by Streptile

[saschaw]

Do you think it is at all possible that [FR] is Rothe from Vienna? The crosses would of course have to be later ones, after 1917, or privately purchased luxury pieces for Austrian officers, who -- after all -- were awarded the EK1 in great numbers. I know the marks are not identical but they are certainly close stylistically.

As I believe them to be awarded crosses and pre-1917, I don't find it possible they're by Rothe or any other non-Berlin maker.

By the way, same is for the other Prussian orders with "FR" mark. It's really not likely that all RAO4 marked "FR" are private purchase Vienna made crosses. After all, Friedländer was a maker who supplied the GOK.

[Streptile]

Hi Sascha,

First, thank you for your reply.

[FR] EKs don't have to be made by the same jeweler who made FR RAOs. FR RAOs (for example) could be (and likely are) by Friedländer, who marked his EKs [Fr.].

I too believe [FR] crosses are probably pre-1917, but we don't know this as far as I can tell. And even if they were pre-1917, we also don't know that Rothe could not have manufactured them for purchase in Austria.

Let me be clear: I don't believe that [FR] EKs are by Rothe. But I think it's a door we can not yet close.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Streptile

[Chris Boonzaier]

I would not recognise a Rothe Austrian award if it bit me on my knee, but if they made some forms of Pinback Austrian awards (either civil or military) could we not assume that they would keep the same attachments system, whether it be the same needle system or screw system?

Best

Chris

[saschaw]

You're right, Trevor, that we don't have actual proof for these assumptions, especially the connections of (indeed) known makers and the marks they used. But the few provided facts speak a clear language, and if we work as scientistic as possible with that few facts we have, and if we even mind Occam's razor... not many questions remain, at least for me.

Similar with "We." crosses: 1st classes by "We." are known and are definitely "probemäßig". It is known J. H. Werner from Berlin supplied the GOK with 1st and 2nd class crosses, in not too big figures by the way. The crosses with "J. H. WERNER / BERLIN" mark are not "probemäßig" but vaulted, and some with screw disc. So what about the crosses J. H. Werner delievered to the GOK? I'm sure they are the "We." ones, but can I prove it? No. Just as I cannot prove the moon isn't made from cheese.

By the way, back to "FR": Wouldn't a WW1 era Vienna made award for private purchase be hallmarked with Austrian silver hallmarks?! One could assume it should, and it probably would be... but the "FR" crosses never are, from what I've seen. Makes it doubtfull, for me, they are Austrian made.

[Chris Boonzaier]

This thread may be of interest

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/8107-rothe-neffe-ek1/page-2

[Streptile]

You're right, Trevor, that we don't have actual proof for these assumptions, especially the connections of (indeed) known makers and the marks they used. But the few provided facts speak a clear language, and if we work as scientistic as possible with that few facts we have, and if we even mind Occam's razor... not many questions remain, at least for me.

Similar with "We." crosses: 1st classes by "We." are known and are definitely "probemäßig". It is known J. H. Werner from Berlin supplied the GOK with 1st and 2nd class crosses, in not too big figures by the way. The crosses with "J. H. WERNER / BERLIN" mark are not "probemäßig" but vaulted, and some with screw disc. So what about the crosses J. H. Werner delievered to the GOK? I'm sure they are the "We." ones, but can I prove it? No. Just as I cannot prove the moon isn't made from cheese.

By the way, back to "FR": Wouldn't a WW1 era Vienna made award for private purchase be hallmarked with Austrian silver hallmarks?! One could assume it should, and it probably would be... but the "FR" crosses never are, from what I've seen. Makes it doubtfull, for me, they are Austrian made.

Hi Sascha,

Thank you for your battleship of a reply. I agree with you 100% about Werner.

You asked if Austrian made crosses should be hallmarked with Austrian silver marks. I have no idea. Should they? I am not up on Austrian awards, procedures or regulations. If so, then that's a powerful argument against [FR] as Rothe.

So Sascha, do you believe [FR] and [Fr.] are the same maker, viz. Friedländer? If not, which do you believe is Friedländer, and who do you think the other is? You don't have to have an answer, and I'm not challenging you -- honestly, I'm just confused what you believe at this point

Trevor

[saschaw]

So So Sascha, do you believe [FR] and [Fr.] are the same maker, viz. Friedländer? If not, which do you believe is Friedländer, and who do you think the other is? You don't have to have an answer, and I'm not challenging you -- honestly, I'm just confused what you believe at this point

Sure for being confusing, was not my intention! I believe "FR" and "Fr." to be the same maker, and I believe it to be Friedländer from Berlin, from the reasons I brought: I assume them to be 1) awarded crosses 2) from pre-April 1917 era. Scharfenberg's article doesn't give any other makers name that could fit, and none comes to mind. Friedeberg wasn't in existance for a long time by 1914.

I'm having an "FR" cross here, in the award case. Doesn't proove it is an awarded cross, of course, but is an indication. Just found this one, today, by coincidence: http://www.lot-tissimo.com/de/i/6212889/p/36/

One cross engraved to be awarded in january of 1916 and coming with the early to mid-war award case doesn't proove anything, too. But it fits my thoughts: early and awarded cross, which rules out anything but a Berlin maker.

This thread may be of interest

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/8107-rothe-neffe-ek1/page-2

Thanks, very interesting! But one cross with Austrian and German marks doesn't convince me the cross is Austrian made. Though interesting, no doubt.

PS: The cross's hard ware looks sooo much like Joh. Wagner & Sohn's from Berlin, doesn't it... ?!

Edited February 7, 2013 by saschaw

[Streptile]

Thank you for your clarification Sascha.

I guess the thing to do now is to compare the actual crosses, as someone suggested upthread -- frames, cores, hardware. Honestly I've never taken the time to do so. I would say if we can find both marks on the same type of crosses, we've discovered some evidence.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Streptile

[Chris Boonzaier]

So.... I guess its time to break out the FR and Fr crosses?

If the same maker, the MUST have been a bit of crossover in hardwear, stamps etc?

[saschaw]

If the same maker, the MUST have been a bit of crossover in hardwear, stamps etc?

With that extreme swapping on 1914 crosses' parts, I'm honestly not sure if there must be a crossover. But it's indeed likely there is, given I'm right.

[saschaw]

Straube has one more EK group that suggests "FR" crosses were awarded in end-1915/early-1916.

If interested, please check his #100000000004138

[Chris Boonzaier]

If it had been an 800 marked domed cross, would it suggest the same? :-)

I dont argue the dating of the FRs as I have no idea, but I am always veeeeeery sceptical about single documents married to single medals.

Most EKs sold with single docs on Ebay are from one seller, and he has any doc with any cross.

OF COURSE if does not mean that all such kombis are bogus, but it pays to be sceptical...

[saschaw]

If it had been an 800 marked domed cross, would it suggest the same? :-)

No, of course not!

I know the sets don't prove anything... but they are good indicators. The more I find the better.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I just bought a fantastic one of a kind award to a man already KIA.. the only example I could ever find... awarded 1914, with a KO EK2 ;-)

There is a dude selling on german ebay, always a cross and EK doc... has about 10 sets on the go...

[saschaw]

I just bought a fantastic one of a kind award to a man already KIA.. the only example I could ever find... awarded 1914, with a KO EK2 ;-)

In March 1914, I assume?

[Chris Boonzaier]

March 14? Me no understand....

[spolei]

Hello,

last year I've got a EK2 marked "Fr" in a early grey box.

Regards Andreas

[Chris Boonzaier]

Hi,

does the name Samuel Friedeberg u. Söhne mean anything to anyone?

On SDA there is a Kreuz für Kriegshilfe for sale apparently from this maker.... it is stamped "F"...

[saschaw]

Friedeberg is a Berlin orders jeweller, but one of the older ones, and none that still existed in WW1. The war efford cross marked "F" is not by him, whoever that claims.

Just looked it up at Nimmergut: Friedeberg sold to Friedländer in 1892!

Edited March 1, 2013 by saschaw

[Chris Boonzaier]

Would we not have been allowed to ponder things for the 80 years before the Scharffenberg article came out? :-)

 

Theories are better than a void, especially if we do not know if the Archives even have what we are looking for :-)

​Rereading this thread, I stick by this more than ever before... The publication of Wernitz has proved "stuff" that was theory based on long observation... The publication of Wernitz also makes apparent that there are great gaps of knowledge we will probably never find in the archives and will probably only ever have theories for...