The REAL Early crosses....

[kasle]

To you question, Brian:

Yes I was posting S-W pieces, because S-W and Godets are only two makers from which I have both sandcast and die stamped cores to compare the frame condition. I used them as such not as an example of some WS connection.

[Brian R]

To you question, Brian:

Yes I was posting S-W pieces, because S-W and Godets are only two makers from which I have both sandcast and die stamped cores to compare the frame condition. I used them as such not as an example of some WS connection.

Gotcha. I just found that referring to Sy and Wagners as "Wagners" was confusing. I generally see a reference to "Wagners" as the WS variety, and not S-W. 

[Chris Boonzaier]

"The best example are two Godets I had - both flat pinbacks with silver frame. One was marked G, second one unmarked. Otherwise totally identical pieces with same hardware, frame condition and stamped core. If the marked one was awarded piece, than the unmarked Godet should be - according to your theory - private purchase."

 

Hi,

I have no theory, just questions... technically however, if it were my theory, it would mean your unmarked Godet may have been a early award piece and that they started stamping "G" on at a later date when control stamps were required ?

 

[Chris Boonzaier]

To your last statement, Chris:

In general, vaulted crosses were not awarded pieces, I think we are quite sure with this, but exception could happen from reasons mentioned above in your last post, with which I agree completely. War is not an Ordengesetz. The question is - what do we collect? Common crosses as exceptions?

Ok, then every EK2 1939 can be considered as Ritterkreuz, because EK2s were occasionally worn around the neck, in the time when soldier was verbally awarded with RK, but he didn´t receive the piece yet. Every EK2 1914 mini can be considered as Grosskreuz, because it has inline loop as GKs had - and if GK owner would had ordered GK mini, it would looked precisely the same. This attitude is crazy and destructive to the hobby.

I am supporter of opposite attitude, where we must look at pieces in general, i.e. according to general rules. And if there is some exception, it can be accepted as such, but only according to that particuar cross and only with stone cold proof associated with that particular piece.

​Hi,

That would IMHO be too extreme as a comparison, The value of an EK2 compared to a RK is vastly different and an EK2 remains an EK2.... but an EK1 is still an EK1 no matter if stamped with a code or not.

 

 

[kasle]

1. Yes, but in this case these should have had more differences between themselves than only the stamp. Mainly the frame condition (different die wear), if not some hardware variations. We see them even on "boring" KOs. They started with brutal hinge, then modified it - in the timeframe of months. And don´t forget, sandcast Godets would have to fit to this theory as well. But they still refuse to.

2. Yes, I was using extreme comparison, because it is what happens when you break the rules. It always start with innocent exception with small differences and ends up with extreme "vaulting" of the opinions - and prices as well, where the lower extreme is always being used as an example to justify the higher extreme..

Edited June 3, 2015 by kasle

[Chris Boonzaier]

"And don´t forget, sandcast Godets would have to fit to this theory as well. But they still refuse to."

Fact of the matter remains, we still do need a theory for the early crosses.... unless we are to believe they used the codes from the outbreak of the war? :-) I do not even make the claim that I offer a theory, just pose a question :-)

[Brian R]

To me it's rasonable to conclude that codes (not maker names) are not early war based on the same scenario as in WWII. Unmarked are considered early in the second war so the same can likely be said, to a certain extent, during the Great War. 

[kasle]

Every question more or less implies a theory. There is nothing wrong with it.

I refuse to believe that maker´s codes have something to do with (or are helpful in) award/private purchase identification. I would borrow the argument from you, Chris. Some award pieces are unmarked, because in the tide of war there was no time to mark them all. If we are prepared to accept that some vaulted pieces were handed over as awarded only because of wartime lack of sources (and time) then we must accept even quicker, that same thing happened to unmarked crosses.

I think (and I am repeating myself again) there is a quick method how to tell which Godet is earlier, later, or postwar just by frame condition comparison. It´s the same method as is used to put correct timeframe to S&L Knights crosses (wartime and postwar) by dividing them to A,B,C or D frame according to flaws developed on them. 
It takes only one person having Sandcast Godet, flat unmarked Godet, flat Godet marked G, vaulted private purchase marked GODET BERLIN and postwar wideframe. It would be good to have at least three pieces of each type to ensure, if there is no frame condition difference between crosses of same type. As I said, I am not that man.

Edited June 3, 2015 by kasle

[kasle]

All we can incorporate - or borrow - from TR era, Brian, is the method, not the statement that resulted from this method. Incorporating TR results to Imperial era without checking the method already brought many confusions. Sandcast cores in TR era are (correctly) considered as fakes, for example.

[Chris Boonzaier]

"I refuse to believe that maker´s codes have something to do with (or are helpful in) award/private purchase identification. I would borrow the argument from you, Chris. Some award pieces are unmarked, because in the tide of war there was no time to mark them all. If we are prepared to accept that some vaulted pieces were handed over as awarded only because of wartime lack of sources (and time) then we must accept even quicker, that same thing happened to unmarked crosses."

I have a hard time buying that argument, simply because a vaulted cross being used for an award was probably a unit ordering crosses outside of the usual channels... alternately, a maker was surely not under such time pressure that he could not stamp a batch of crosses ?

As a matter of interest... what do you think were givenout in 1914?

[Streptile]

All I can really say is that I agree 100% with every single word Miroslav has already written.

My opinions in summary:

• The very earliest EK1s in 1914 had cast iron cores and frame dies left over from the great makers of the 1870 EKs, Wagner and Godet.
• Award-types are flat with a simple pin, and can be unmarked, marked with a maker's mark (WS, S-W, G, etc.) and/or a simple 800 mark (later in the war).
• Private-purchase EK1s are distinguished by vaulting, non-standard hardware like screwbacks or other specialty systems, complex maker's logos (Meybauer, AWS) or longer names (GODET•BERLIN), odd silver marks (925, 935, etc.).
• There are probably some exceptions to these rules, mandated by the fog and rush or war.

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by Streptile

[Streptile]

Here are some of the very earliest EKs.

First a "Type A 14" cast core with J. Wagner's famous 1870 EK frame, unmarked, early pin.

And now a "Type B 14" cast core with another type of (interwar) 1870 EK frame thought to have been used by Godet, marked S-W, early pin:

[Chris Boonzaier]

Thanks for the input guys!

Is there a trend to the marking or lack of marking on the cast core crosses?

i.e. are unmarked crosses more comman on very early pieces?

 

Best

Chris

[kasle]

Thank you, Trevor, for your support. That A type 1914 is not seen very often. I think one picture of such piece in this thread is worth half of what have been written.

I think that answer to your question, Chris, depends on the maker. S-W and Godet were the most disciplined in marking their crosses. From beginning, to the end. Although in both cases some exceptions happened. On the other hand, there are some sandcast crosses, I still can´t find marked. There is really no rule or tendency to rely on, IMO.

For me the toughest maker to incorporate to any theory is MFH (probably Max Fleck und Sohne Hamburg) with his magnetic frames, always marked EK2s and always unmarked EK1s. Now I am slowly leaning out of topic, because I am not even sure if MFH´s are considered awarded pieces, but probably they are not.

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by kasle

[IrishGunner]

A very interesting read after months in self-imposed exile.  Unfortunately, I can't add anything of substance to this topic.  So, I suppose I should just read and keep quiet.  But here is a photo from a 1914 NY Times compilation of photographs.  A little context if nothing else...