Lippe War Honor Cross for Heroic Deed

[Deruelle]

Let me show my cross from Lippe. There is no hallmark. If someone has got the same cross with hallmark, can he show it ? Thanks

[Deruelle]

The reverse

[Stogieman]

Two options here. Meybauer or Juncker. Both probably made 1920-1940 era. Very nice cross!

[Deruelle]

Isn't it a wartime cross ? Why ?

[Stogieman]

That style of pin/hinge catch is more commonly seen in post-WW1 crosses. Especially the Juncker pieces. Meybauer pins are very similar in shape, but usually a bit thinner/longer. The pin you have is most likely Juncker and that would date it to post 1918.

I do not believe this detracts from the piece in the least. It's one I would certainly be pleased to own and/or offer for sale. remember that with how messed up things were at the end of the war.... many awards were not even made until after 1918! It is doubtful that everyone received a cross during the failing months at the end of the war.

[Deruelle]

I see recently the same cross at Weitze'website. Tell me what do you think aobut them.

[Deruelle]

another one

[Deruelle]

the last one. Tell me what is the wartime cross please. Thanks for your help mon ami.

Christophe

[Stogieman]

Christophe. Obviously the first cross is a match for yours. Of the other two, my best guess would be the second cross with the wider (repaired) pin is war-time. Note the larger openings. I would guess that anything with a greater degree of workmanship would be earlier.

Again, for me, I so no distinction between WW1 awards given before 1918, or purchased by the recipient prior to the end of WW2.

After the end of WW2, there was a severe decline in not just the quality of materials available to work with, but also in the skill level of those making medals, decorations and orders.

[Deruelle]

Thanks for your knowledge Rick. :food-smiley-004:

Merci

Christophe

[Mike K]

Hi Christophe,

I'm definitely a fan of the Lippe-Detmold crosses. A nicer design than their Meck-Schwerin equivalents but much harder to find. I think I've only seen Maybauer (crest) marked examples and the pin on your example in any case is imo definitely not Meybauer (either wartime or later). In any case, I like the looks of your Lippe-Detmold cross, and I've seen similar hinge/pin/catch assemblies on unmarked Meck-Schwerin and Prussian crosses.

I like the cross in Post#7 - that looks like a wartime set-up to me - I have a definitely wartime awarded Meck-Schwerin MVK1 with very similar hinge/pin/catch). The cross in Post#8 I personally am actually suspicious of. I don't really see a repair - I see a chunky attempt to reproduce a wartime hinge assembly.

Regards

Mike K

Edited May 20, 2005 by Mike K

[Stogieman]

Without seeing the fronts, I see #7 & #8 as same maker, different repairs on each hinge. Note the cut-outs and the catch. The only visible difference is the length of the hinge barrel and the pin. The rest looks the same to me?

PS: Mike! Welcome aboard!

[Mike K]

Hi Rick,

Thanks, nice to be here! You can thank the other Rick for that (the one in New India )

Have to say that your talk of repairs is totally throwing me! I'm attaching the reverse of my example. It has NO REPAIRS. The little plate between the pin and the central section of the hinge has been there since day dot. Why they made them that way, I have no idea. The same/similar "joining-plate" can be seen on wartime Meck-Schwerin MVK1s (eg Ralph's cased example a few threads down and my own cased example). The plates are normally very thin, not chunky as in Post#8, and from memory are semi-circular.

Regards

Mike K

[Mike K]

For completeness, my example's obverse....

[Stogieman]

Hi Mike, When I look at these, I always assumed that the plate/pin like that was because it was repaired. If not, that's cool. But note that the two crosses are basicly identical other than the 2 features I mentioned previously. Now, with yours, there's 3 with the same looking catch, but only two with similar hinge barrel and pin. But comparing your cross to the ones Christophe culled from the web.... I see huge differences in the edges and openings????

So, do we have 3 makers, one maker? Or something else? I have nothing but photos to work from here. I've never been able to find anything other than the 2. kl. cross myself.

[Mike K]

Hi,

Rick, definitely good observations. Comparing the obverses may be very useful though. There may be variations in the hinge/pin/catch assemblies (I still think the hinge end of the cross in Post#8 is not the typical quality of the period) but the obverse designs may be the same. For example the obverse of my example and the obverse of Christophe's first example appear the be the same to me (allowing for differnt scan angles and scanned colour variations).

Hand finishing almost certainly comes into it. Imo, the triangular areas were probably solid when struck (or cast) and have been opened by hand. On some examples you can see very fine file/saw cuts in the triangles, whereas on my example it looks like most edges have been very neatly "smoothed" over (to the degree that it looks like a soft casting in places on the reverse!).

The other important thing (imo) is that unlike Prussia, and to a large degree Meck-Schwerin and Oldenburg, EK1 equivalents from Lippe-Detmold, Meck-Streilitz and even Braunschweig, etc, were awarded and therefore produced on a MUCH smaller scale and most likely by a much smaller number of manufacturers (maybe only one or two). A higher degree of hand manufacturing and hand finishing (ie, less mass production techniques) could therefore be expected - eg small orders of say 20 to 50 rather than runs in the hundreds.

It's only speculation of course, but it fits certain observations I've made whereby crosses will share the same obverse designs but not the same reverse hardware or the same type/degree of finishing.

Regards

Mike K