1813 EK 2: authentic or a 'shaver' (fake)???

[Jaybo]

I need the opinions of the GMIC 'experten' on this question. I have the opportunity to purchase from my very dear friend of 30 years an 1813 EK 2. His trustworthiness is beyond reproach. He has been a collector for well over 50 years. He is slowly selling off some of his massive collection. He bought this 1813 EK 2 many years ago. The question is, is authentic or a fake? We all are aware that even experienced collectors can be fooled. What say you gentlemen?1813.zip1813.zip1813.zip

[Jaybo]

Anyone out there?????

[Stuka f]

Hello,

I wouldn't be of much help, because not my field of experience!

But putting proper pic's could help, I for one are not able to open the link you gave...

[paul wood]

I have managed to "unzip" the files. The fault in the iron is a good sign but the quality of the images are not  sufficient to be absolutely certain.

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jaybo]

Thank you Stuka & Paul for your replies. I will try taking some better photos with my SLR in the next few days and post them. Paul, what exactly do you mean by the fault in the iron? Thanks.

[paul wood]

There is a thin shadow on one of the limbs of the cross which suggests a thin split. The original crosses were made from Cumberland iron which was quite  brittle and prone to splits. Most of the fakes the iron is too regular

Paul 

[Jaybo]

Thank you Paul.

[Gordon Craig]

Gentlemen,

Here are the pictures from the zipfile.

Paul,

I don't see the shadow you are referring to.  Perhaps you could tell me which of the photos have the shadow you are referring to.

Regards,

Gordon

 

[Jaybo]

Thank you Gordon for ‘unzipping ‘ my iPhone photos. If you guys need better quality photos, I can give it a go with my SLR.

[paul wood]

What appeared to be fault from my crappy phone is actually a shadow line on the reverse. Not sure what to think. 

Paul

 

 

[Jaybo]

Gentlemen,

I took some better quality photos of this medal with my SLR but can't get them to upload successfully. The max size allowed for uploading is 8 mb and the image is 6.4 mb. What gives?

[Streptile]

Hi Jay,

This is a 1914 cross by maker KO that has been shaved and repainted by a faker.

All the best,

Trevor

PS: Apologies for my late reply, I check this site only very rarely.

[Jaybo]

9 hours ago, Streptile said:

Hi Jay,

This is a 1914 cross by maker KO that has been shaved and repainted by a faker.

All the best,

Trevor

PS: Apologies for my late reply, I check this site only very rarely.

Hi Trevor,

Thanks so much for your reply. I was fearful that might be the case. The reverse looks too much like my 1914 EKs. Could you please tell me what telltale signs lead you to your conclusion?

All the best,

Jay

[Jaybo]

Let's try this again with some resized SLR photos:

another one:

another...

last one:

[VtwinVince]

I agree, the reverse core details are all wrong for an 1813.

[Jaybo]

Thanks for weighing in. Can you be more specific so I can understand the pitfalls of the 1813?

[VtwinVince]

Compare the pattern of the leaves and other details. They don't match the cores I'm familiar with.

[Jaybo]

The leaves, the crown and the bottom stem are details I have been told in the past to be aware of in identifying authentic 1813 EKs from the fakes. But how so exactly? These seem to be somewhat 'trade secrets' on this site. Maybe properly in order to keep the fakers ignorant. I get that. The one detail that I have gleaned (correctly so???) is that the real 1813s have more of a straight bottom stem. Thanks for your input Vince.

 

[Jaybo]

The above photo is apparently a known authentic 1813. Any other opinions out there?