Beading on Imperial Crosses

[Peter Cornwell]

Gentlemen,

How prevalent was this style of beading on Imperial crosses 1870 & 1914 ? Best illustrated by Wernitz (T8) on an 1813 EKII it is said to have simplified the production process quite significantly. Personally, I don't find it half as attractive as the more conventional sharp-angled corners but am curious to know how widespread the practice may have been. Have any particular makers been identified as having adopted this practice ? There is a wealth of knowledge represented on this forum so what's your own experience/take on this guys ? Thanks in advance for your views.   

[Peter Cornwell]

Gentlemen,

 

300 views and not a single response maybe some sort of record. Does nobody have an opinion/comment to offer ?  

[Graf]

Hi Peter,

 

300 views for 7 months is not a lot. Perhaps no one from the Forum has thought about that

 

If you have any ideas to develop this topic you can do it and then you can bring more interest from the Memebers

 

I hope you will get responses soon Cheers

[Peter Cornwell]

Hi Graf,

 

Thanks for your encouraging remarks. In my ignorance, I had assumed that this detail may have been previously discussed or explained somewhere in the literature but it seems not.

 

It is difficult to distinguish with complete certainty those crosses that carry this form of beading as the differences are often subtle and not always that obvious - leastways not to my untrained eyes. But from a trawl of previously published images, it would seem that the practice was most prevalent on 1914 EK1s and across a number of different makers. I detect no common factor emerging from this but from my admittedly limited analysis MEYBAUER crosses seem to display the characteristic rounded corners to their beading more often than other makers.

 

I would be interested to learn from other collectors: What is the earliest recorded example of this practice ? and What is the best/worst example of these distinctive rounded corners ? 

[Graf]

Hi Peter,

 

You might  be right that this topic might have not been touched in the past.

I like you, like the sharp internal corners of the crosses frames

Only thing I am aware of  the fact that there is a Variant of 1939 EK2 with round internal edges of the frames Usually those crosses were unmarked

 

Here are my two MEYBAUER 1914 EK1  - the corners are not rounded

I hope some of the members who had more research into Iron crosses can contribute to the topic

 

[dond]

Let's see the whole cross in the original post. Perhaps then a maker can be determined.

[Peter Cornwell]

The lower image in my original post shows the most pronounced example of rounded beading that I have so far come across. It was an 1914 EK1 and the reverse was stamped J.WAGNER & S. 

 

https://derrittmeister.com/product/iron-cross-1914-1st-class-double-pinback-wagner-sohne/

[Graf]

I have some reservation about this EK1 No comments at this stage i will leave to more experienced members

In general some of the items on this site , in my opinion, are questionable

[dond]

I concur.

[Peter Cornwell]

Dond & Graf,

 

Thank you gentlemen. I share your reservations but it was simply the most blatant example of rounded beading that I have ever come across. 

[Graf]

Hi Peter,

 

I hope you will have more replies

 

Cheers

[Peter Cornwell]

The intricacies of construction of early 1813 EKIIs made them extremely labour intensive pieces and would have made any bulk manufacture difficult to achieve. According to WERNITZ (p151) early production pieces comprised no less than 39 separate components (AII/1) although I'm at a loss to arrive at more than 29 myself. Can anybody help me understand where I'm going wrong here ?

The RUNNECKE workshop soon introduced simplified production processes so that a 20-piece form emerged (AII/4) with the characteristic curved rather than angled inner beading that prompted my original question to this thread. This, in turn, made way for even more streamlined manufacturing processes resulting in a 5-piece construction that became the norm and that now most familiar to collectors. So, if they had achieved this for production of period 1813 crosses why then revert to curved rather than angled inner beading on crosses of a later generation ? And should we treat all such crosses as being somehow dubious rather than simply interesting ?  

[Peter Cornwell]

Simius Rex,

 

Thanks for your input - most helpful. I will treat all such examples with caution in future. However, early pieces with rounded inner corners (Cf. WERNITZ T8 etc) that must predate any possible SOUVAL production will continue to intrigue me.

[ashley58]

I believe both Mayer and Deumer produced crosses with more rounded corners, and usually more so in the inter war eras?

 

[Peter Cornwell]

Welcome Newbie. I'm unconvinced that was so although I do admit some replacement 1914 EKIs from both of those makers, particularly during the TR period, may occasionally display a tendency towards 'rounded' inner angles. But as I said in an earlier post it is often difficult to distinguish with any real certainty. I am forming the opinion that the practice was more prevalent on genuine early pieces and any later examples were in response to unusual volume demands on manufacturers. Other than that, Caveat Emptor!  

Edited October 1, 2021 by Peter Cornwell

[ashley58]

With regard t1813 crosses remember that ( original first 500) the arms were pinned together ? so that may count for the multiple construction. i am sure one of mine is 27 pieces ..? must check it out lol

[hagahr]

Hmm.

[Peter Cornwell]

I finally extracted my digit from my backside and got my head around the various components of the original 39-piece 1813 EKIIs as described by WERNITZ. Pins was not the answer. These early crosses must have been an absolute nightmare to manufacture and surviving examples are real testimony to the jewellers’ skills. It is no surprise that, after completing the first batch of 90 in April 1813, the RUNNECKE workshop immediately started streamlining production methods. But why the original awards had two thin cast-iron inserts sandwiched together inside a solid silver rim when existing technology allowed for a single cast-iron core beats me – particularly when one face was totally blank. This is not what I would have expected from our normally pragmatic German cousins but maybe they do simply like to over-engineer things? It must have had something to do with initial difficulties of enclosing the cast-iron core(s) within a silver box frame and the adoption of a stepped core to facilitate fixing. But once they brought their bench-top rotary presses properly into play, simplified production methods rapidly followed, first of frames and later beading, resulting in improved output and significant cost savings. Meantime, both the Berlin & Gleiwitz foundries had also started casting one-piece cores rendering the stepped cores redundant.

[Graf]

I am glad the topic is getting some interesting responses

 

Graf