1870 EK2 - what type?

[Brian R]

This EK2 has been shown on this forum in the past but I'm not sure such close-ups have been displayed before. I've become very curious as to where it fits in with period EKs. I doesn't look like a Type A and it iis certainly no Godet "short 7". So, can it be a jubilee award? Based on the bar that it is on, I don't think so. It actually looks a bit like the "bad crown" crosses that Greg has shown of late. I'm curious what you guys think of it.

Thanks,
Brian

[Brian R]

2

[gregM]

Hi Brian,
Unfortunately this type is called the "Bad Crown" fake.---sorry.
Please check out this thread with the same style cross.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=415640

Greg

[Brian R]

Greg - I was curious if you were going to say that. I had looked at the other threads - hence the reason for my post.

I'm certainly willing to accept that this is a fake cross. However, based on the way it is tied down to the bar, I can't believe it. All the medals are tied down consistently and don't look like they have been touched on over 100 years. This cross was definitely tied down BEFORE the EK ribbon was draped over it.

[Wik]

Greg,

Do the "bad crown" fakes try to emulate a Type A? I would assume since, as Brian mentioned, it is definitely not a Type B Godet! However the Date doesn't look much like a Type A either!

I also noticed, the "W" has the thinner upstrokes longer....if that makes sense. At least I know what i'm talking about....do you guys?


Ryan

[Brian R]

Here's a clearer pic of the cross. I will follow with some pics of the bar.

[streptile]

I don't personally know of any reason why these have to be fake.

It's true that they are not Type A's or Type B's. They also do not match any of the other three types of 1870 EK2s I know to be authentic later pieces. But none of that, to me, says they are fake necessarily.

However, they have been Detlev Niemann's Fake of the Week, so he may know something we do not. I also think this is the reason we all accept them as fakes today.

[Brian R]

However, they have been Detlev Niemann's Fake of the Week, so he may know something we do not. I also think this is the reason we all accept them as fakes today.

Perhaps there were fakes made to look like this one.

My knowledge of 1870 EKs is limited and I absolutely respect the knowledge of the regulars on this form; GregM being one of them. But I'm curious as to when it was decided that they were fake... only when DN said so recently? Does anyone have the fake-of-the-week photo he posted?

I got this bar back in 04. Marshall had posted a pic of it from a dealer's site. A day or so later it was still there so I grabbed it. It is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. If it's a fake, its'a fake. But I don't see much proof that it is at this point. And, I've seen enough bars to be convinced by its construction and age.

It's to a Baden doctor who was awarded for bravery "under-fire". It is interesting that he dressed it up with a centennial medal but no oaks. I guess he never bothered to buy them.

[Brian R]

rev.

[streptile]

Does anyone have the fake-of-the-week photo he posted?

I've never seen it, and only heard about it in THIS thread recently.

[Biro]

The one Greg uses as his illustration of the bad crown in the link he posted above, used to belong to me many years ago.

I sent it back to Weitze and there were absolutely NO questions asked. There is barely a single element of symmetry about these.

Here is another thread on the one i had...

1870 Iron Cross Opinion

Avoid!!


Marshall

[Mike Kenny]

Interesting thread.

I've owned one of these since 1999. Although I've looked (not too hard) I don't recall seeing another one until this thread today (I obviously missed the 07 thread). Personally, I've never had a problem with it. The core appears to be cast iron. The core details and frame beading are imo excellent. The edge seams are hard to see, they have been finished so well. The patina is heavy and imo old - it has not aged any more since the day I got it.

As for non-symmetrical crowns, I can show you several examples of 1914 EKs from well known high quality makers that also have non-symmetric crowns.

I would like to hear some firm reasons as to why it is fake. I'm sorry, but based on what I've read here so far, here's no way my example will be going into a fake pile at this stage!

Regards
Mike

[Mike Kenny]

Reverse...

[Biro]

...I would like to hear some firm reasons as to why it is fake. ..

Hi Mike

We both know that unless it is made from plastic, then providing firm reasons is not possible, given that they are made from the 'correct' materials, they have the 'right' characteristics, etc...

Even for the '9th bead fake', that is not possible. It's simply a case of the weight of consensus and whether that carries any sway with the individual owner of these EK2's.

For me (and you know I owned one of these EK2's and treasured it like you do) the emergence of a 1st class version with the spurious and obviously false 'GODET BERLIN' marking was the deal breaker. Picture is below.

I'm sorry, but IMO there is far more against this type of cross than there is for it.

Cheers

Marshall

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Marshall,

Thanks for the pic of the first class - interesting to see they copied genuine (although WW1 period) Godet hardware so well (see attached borrowed pics of a couple of rare but genuine Meck-Strelitzers).

Also interesting to note are the differences in the beading on some of these examples, indicating different frame dies - unless these are repro cores placed into genuine frames? Eg, note the prominent cross-hatching on the inner corners of my example which appears to be different from the other examples that I can make out.

Regards,
Mike