Organisational Badges Danziger Cross

[Eric Stahlhut]

opinions sought!

p.s. hope this is a better image. what appears to be black within the inner gold border on arms is actually tarnish

Edited October 12, 2008 by Eric Stahlhut

[Eric Stahlhut]

thank you!

[Eric Stahlhut]

the reason behind my inquiry is because i always thought the hulsen version was the only accepted type-- but i happened to notice that craig gottlieb has the same type as my example (perforated crown) up for sale on a single parade mount.

can someone bring me up to speed? thanks!

[Stan]

Eric,

I am not a big fan of the type which you have posted and which Craig Gottlieb has for sale. His medal has been discussed on another forum and most collectors gave it the thumbs down.

Here is a photo of type which is generally accepted as being period.

Stan

[Guest WAR LORD]

I would agree with Stan on this cross. The normal is with makers mark, which can be found with either raised or stamped lettering. These unmarked could be restrikes by the original maker.

[nesredep]

Hello!

I agree with WAR LORD and Stan on this Cross.

All the best

Nesredep

[Eric Stahlhut]

thanks to everyone for the insights--

i must say that i've always been a bit dubious of this item.

on one hand, it is an extremely well made item--the materials used are of very high quality and the suspension ring is fully joined.

i've always wondered this, though: if this is indeed an item made to deceive collectors, why on earth did the makers perforate the crown?!?

another interesting observation i made the whilst looking at niemann's first book is that despite the common concensus that there was a single maker (hulse), mr. niemann shows a 1st class example with a pin system that screams Meybauer to me. pg. 157.