EK 1914 EK 2. Klasse 1813

[Tony J]

Thanks Marshall!

I also appreciate the compliment on the EK. It's one of my 'take it to the grave' pieces in my collection.

From what I can see Joe's 1813 is from the same maker.

Very nice! As all the 1813s posted here are.

Tony

Edited June 1, 2006 by Tony J

[Stefan]

Tony J has asked me to add a picture of his example to this thread, so here it is.

It remains one of the nicest 1813 EK2's I've seen...

M

Hi,

since I had my early 1813 EK2 questioned at another forum I thought I could see what you guys think.

It's regarding the "bump" on the eylet and the upper finger. It's clearly seen on the Tony's cross.

Is that a sign of a bad cross? The pictures in the EK books I have (Heyde, Bowen, Previtera) don't show any examples, from what I can see, except Bowen that has a EK from a german army museum with a large bump.

This is my other 1813 EK2 on the attached pictures. I sent it to Nimmergut and got it described as an early EK from 1813.

I will now send it down to Detlev for a 2nd opinion...

Cheers, Stefan

[Daniel Murphy]

Stefan,

I see nothing wrong with this cross, but would say it is more like 1815. The early crosses from 1813 (and maybe early 1814) were normally multi piece frames. I have seen anywhere from 8 piece frames to 20+piece frames. Yours is much more consistent with 1814-1815 pieces, after the makers got their act together and is of very nice quality. 1813s are not often seen in that nice of a condition, but they do exist.

Dan Murphy

[Tom Y]

I guess since y'all have showed yours I'll show you mine

With all the variety in 1813's it can be really hard to decide what's real and what isn't.

[Stefan]

Stefan,

I see nothing wrong with this cross, but would say it is more like 1815. The early crosses from 1813 (and maybe early 1814) were normally multi piece frames. I have seen anywhere from 8 piece frames to 20+piece frames. Yours is much more consistent with 1814-1815 pieces, after the makers got their act together and is of very nice quality. 1813s are not often seen in that nice of a condition, but they do exist.

Dan Murphy

Thanks for your reply Dan.

Yes, I also don't belive it's an EK from 1813. It's more a combination of the C3 and C4 crosses in Heyde's book. I belive that the outer rims of the 1813 made EKs didn't have that shape, it should be more like the C4 EK, if I've understood the manufacturing right.

Now when I've studied the bump a bit more, I think it's some sort of repair at the back of the ring. I'll see if I can take some photos next weekend.

Tom: Great to see another cross.

Keep 'em coming

Regards, Stefan

[Flak88]

I am sure I have posted this, but another look. Obviously the ring is repaired:

[Tim Tezer]

Stefan,

I saw your postings on the other thread, and the replies. I have to say, whether the bump on the frame is possible or not on an original doesn't change my opinion: I also think yours is not original. I know it may not be a popular opinion (especially among collectors who have pieces just like yours in their collections, and who may have paid a lot for them), but I have mentioned before in a posting on the Wehrmacht Awards Forum that I don't like the look of painted cores on 1813's in general, and especially when they have the spots of rust bubbling through the paint as this one has. I have seen that same pattern of rust on EKs - both 1813 and 1870 - that were being sold by some of the most disreputable dealers known.

The 1813 EK2 should not have a lacquered or stove-enameled iron core, unless it is of a much later manufacture. Blackened iron does not have a coating on it - it is rubbed with an oil compound and fired in an oven to turn the surface black. Even original issue 1870 EKs usually had blackened iron cores, so the use of a coating of enamel or lacquer should be considered a very late development.

Tim

Edited July 28, 2006 by Tim Tezer

[Stefan]

Stefan,

I saw your postings on the other thread, and the replies. I have to say, whether the bump on the frame is possible or not on an original doesn't change my opinion: I also think yours is not original. I know it may not be a popular opinion (especially among collectors who have pieces just like yours in their collections, and who may have paid a lot for them), but I have mentioned before in a posting on the Wehrmacht Awards Forum that I don't like the look of painted cores on 1813's in general, and especially when they have the spots of rust bubbling through the paint as this one has. I have seen that same pattern of rust on EKs - both 1813 and 1870 - that were being sold by some of the most disreputable dealers known.

The 1813 EK2 should not have a lacquered or stove-enameled iron core, unless it is of a much later manufacture. Blackened iron does not have a coating on it - it is rubbed with an oil compound and fired in an oven to turn the surface black. Even original issue 1870 EKs usually had blackened iron cores, so the use of a coating of enamel or lacquer should be considered a very late development.

Tim

Yepp, I agree...

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=9944

Cheers,

Stefan