Les Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) It's magnetic, -very lightweight- and I'm not sure there's any silver in this thing. The crown is high relief and lacking detail. The "W" is soft and rounded without distinct edges.The pin on the reverse side is similar to some of the 1957 versions I've seen on the Forum. Instead of a one-piece pin, the pin is bent and soldered to the pin or dowel in the pin-block.Is this a knock-off fake or is this one of the relatively uncommon "1957s" ?Les Edited March 6, 2006 by Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hi Les,The obverse looks fine and would be correct for 40s onwards (ie TR LDO or earlier 57er re-issue). The reverse appears to be well aged, except the pin. Also, hard to tell from the image, but the central segment of the hinge (attached to the pin) appears to be a different OD to the two outer segments. Imo the pin is unusual for any period and I think there is a possibility that it is a total replacement. Any chance of a "square-on" reverse image?A shot of the hinge with the main pin up, focusing on where the pin rests on the back of the cross (at the base of the hinge), may also reveal the impression of a previously replaced main pin.RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 Mike,Many thanks. Here's the requested photo and some extra ones. I looked carefully where the angled arm of the pin touches the back of the cross, and there is a mark/gouge where the angled end of the (current) pin has been making contact. The marked surface appears to be from -this- pin end, and there's no other marring to suggest another pin had been there. However, this pin -is- odd and could have been replaced, or soldered on to repair a broken/lost original part. Workmanship on the entire cross is mediocre. There are file marks on the sides of all arms and ends of the cross, and also on the pin itself. The cross appears to be lightly silvered, and the pin has the same type of finish, with slight wear on the undersurface.Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 and pin up....Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Hi Les,Thanks for the additional pictures. The only thing I can add - probably towards a replaced pin conclusion - is that the central segment is not a good fit (still looks like a different OD as well). Sounds like you've gone as far as you can go with it though. RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Mike, many thanks for the comments. It's not pretty, but even if it's not Imperial or between the wars, it's not a fake. I haven't quite figured out what the 1957's are all about and telling them from some of the fakes isn't something I'm able to be certain about.Regards,Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Mike,Compare this one to the example on post #4 from here:http://www.militariacollecting.com/index.php?showtopic=22299The example on this site has a brass core (the one here doesn't). The cross there has a brass center, and is marked 800 on the reverse. Note the pin type. The one I posted has the same shape, curved head of the pin, and larger shaft in the center of the attachment block.My impression after seeing this one and the same crowns, "soft" W, and same date that although the materials for the cores are different, the dies used were probably the same. The pin on the one I posted probably broke or snapped, and the rough part where the shaft/tube was smoothed out and the pin soldered in place.Looks very very close...Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Hi Les,Sorry, can't comment on that badge as I can't see it. I do not subscribe to that forum.RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Hi Les,Sorry, can't comment on that badge as I can't see it. I do not subscribe to that forum.RegardsMikeMike,I don't subscribe to it either. I found it through a goodle search looking for something else, and spotted the archived images. You don't need to subscribe to -read- the archived images.I know some folks have preferences and or attitudes about various forums....and that's all I say about other forums and what goes on elsewhere. Amicably, Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Hi Les,I tried again and this time it worked! Strange. OK, I'm going to revise what I wrote above. First up - the size of your cross; it's less than 44 mm isn't it? Closer to 43 mm? That's very important for determining period imo.Bill's example from the other thread - specifically the style and location of the 800 stamping - jogged my memory. Turns out I have not one but 3 examples with this core type (scans to follow). One of them I think is probably 30s (the needle-pin 800, possibly even 20s), another one I think is probably 30s/40s (the unmarked one with laid-down block hinge) and the 3rd one is definitely TR period (post-'41, LDO, L/54 marked). All 3 of my examples have (imo pressed) steel cores. The two upper ones are smaller - typical pre-TR - compared to the classic TR 44 mm L/54 marked example (they still share exactly the same core though). I have a couple of 1914 57ers and although they have SIMILAR crowns the dates are definitely different, therefore imo they came from different dies. As such, I don't think your example is a 57er (different core and different size). It's probably 30s produced like my two top ones and as Bill's example shares the same pin the pin must simply be a variation with this maker, rather than a replacement.RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Reverse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Mike,Bingo.42mm both ways.I was aware that TR crosses were larger, although I wasn't certain if that also applied to -all- of the 1957 items. Going by the size yardstick, the cross is smaller, and would seem to be pre-WWII.BY the way, I liked the idea from "that other place" of setting up an archive of each type. It would be interesting to borrow the concept and do the same here as a reference by maker and variants. Rooting through various archived threads appearing in no particular order takes time, and a picture archive similar to what Bill did "over there" makes a considerable amount of sense. I knew I saw a cross like mine with the same type of pin arrangement somewhere on-line and hunting it down took time.Many thanks for the advice and comments !Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 Mike,This may be a fake afterall....Check out this link on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/WWI-GERMAN-IRON-CROSS-...1QQcmdZViewItemThe fellow says he has more of these....and the suppply is limited. The pin and attachment looks the -same- as the one I posted, core details are too close for comfort, etc.If I post a close up of the inner corners of the cross, could you compare the frame details to yours?Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Les, not the same. The one from e-bay are crude copies. The pins (and cross) can be bent by hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike K Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Hi Les,I agree with Darrell - absolutely, definitely not the same. For a start, the repros are one-piece examples from what I've read. Secondly, the core details are different. Look at the form of the 4, particularly note that vertical and diagonal strokes do not joint at the top of the repro, whereas they do on the ones discussed in this thread. Note also on the repro that the reverse of the repro main pin is "dished" whereas your type pin has bevelled edges. Initially when I was thinking your's may have had a replacement pin, I was thinking they may have used the repro type pin (these repros have been known for a while and have flooded the markte in the last few years). Now, although the pins appear similar from a distance (but aren't close up), it's more likely they've used your type of pin as the basis for their repro pin.RegardsMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe campbell Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) les-at the risk of beating a dead horse,not even close!i like yours alot for a variety of reasons.the ebay piece is rubbish, but at leastpresented as a copy.joe Edited March 11, 2006 by joe campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 les-at the risk of beating a dead horse,not even close!joeThanks guys!Mike, you're absolutely right about the date...I should have noticed that instead and paid more attention to the photo instead of trying to carry on a conversation over the phone, scratch the dog behind the ears (I was gone all day and she wanted some attention), and have an initial reaction to that thing on ebay.I make no pretenses to being an expert on EKs, and when I see one that's a bit different from the norm, and doesn't look like the known varieties or standard types, I probably approach them with more caution that most people do. Joe, there are days when I feel like a dead horse, and I don't mind getting beat on from time to time. All I ask is that no one try to pull up a stump and hear about me being taught something. I won't use that old southern expression here. ;-)Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe campbell Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 les-i ALWAYS enjoy your thoughtful andinteresting posts. this was one of those threads where darrell and mike had stated somethingwhich upon examination i was in fullagreementANDi really do like your original piece!you are not a dead horse !keep up the great posts, les.joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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