1813 2nd Class iron Cross

[Bob Hritz]

It has been years since I dabbled in early Iron Crosses. Regrettably, I sold my early collection and have never found replacements.

I just had this offered to me and I just don't know. it has an unusual block of material to hold the soldered eyelet.

For your discussion:

Bob Hritz

[Bob Hritz]

The ribbon looks to be the correct, fragile, type. I have added a photo of the eyelet attachment.

Bob Hritz

[streptile]

Hi Bob,

That is an accepted type, thought to have been made after 1835. The core is different (the main differences are found in the oakleaf stem) from the awarded and early postwar pieces. This exact type is known in multiple solid groupings, including Field Marshall Blücher's, and was routinely given the by Detlev Niemann COAs. Nevertheless it should not be confused with the earliest types, with cores cast from Gleiwitz.

Below you will see some 1813 EK2s. All three are considered good, period pieces. The one shown in the CENTER is the only one like the one you show (post 1835). Note the crooked oakleaf stem and compare to the others, both of which are straight:



The other two (Left and Right) are earlier pieces. The only real difference between them is the serifs on the bottom of the date numerals -- the date on the Left example is sans-serif, and date on the Right is serifed.

[streptile]

Please also see here for another example of the exact same type, currently for sale:

http://www.emedals.ca/catalog.asp?item=GST773#bigPic

[Bob Hritz]

Thank you very much, Trevor. I had the early thick cored piece with multi piece borders and solid frame. I am so sad I sold it, but bad times called for cash, not collections.

That early piece is what I would like to find again. Until then, this will have to suffice.

Bob Hritz

[gregM]

I think this 1813 is a good one. It has slightly week details but the style is
very consistant with others (as Trevor noted).

The extra material at the jump ring has also been seen on other
accepted crosses.

[RAO]

Hi Bob,

That is an accepted type, thought to have been made after 1835. The core is different (the main differences are found in the oakleaf stem) from the awarded and early postwar pieces. This exact type is known in multiple solid groupings, including Field Marshall Blücher's, and was routinely given the by Detlev Niemann COAs. Nevertheless it should not be confused with the earliest types, with cores cast from Gleiwitz.

Below you will see some 1813 EK2s. All three are considered good, period pieces. The one shown in the CENTER is the only one like the one you show (post 1835). Note the crooked oakleaf stem and compare to the others, both of which are straight:



The other two (Left and Right) are earlier pieces. The only real difference between them is the serifs on the bottom of the date numerals -- the date on the Left example is sans-serif, and date on the Right is serifed.

Trevor,

I think so, but I think the cross with this core is maybe after or to 1863. I have also a group from a soldier with a EKII 1813 (from this typ) and a Georgskreuz for veteran.

BUT, please look when is Blücher died? I now, that Steven show a picture from this typ in IRON TIME and wrote, this is from Blücher, but than are the crosses older, or also not.

Greetings Mike

[Montgomery Burns]

Please also see here for another example of the exact same type, currently for sale:

http://www.emedals.ca/catalog.asp?item=GST773#bigPic

I wonder WY the pictures are made often so badly ,,,,,,,,,

fore that price could he's not even provide us with good pictures ?

pictures like that ,,,a risky buy








.

[streptile]

Hi Bob,

It's a very nice example.

I think so, but I think the cross with this core is maybe after or to 1863.

Hi Mike,

Yes, it's possible that the core is from even later than the 1830s, but certainly after 1835 .

[RAO]

Hi Bob,

It's a very nice example.



Hi Mike,

Yes, it's possible that the core is from even later than the 1830s, but certainly after 1835 .

Absolutely true, but if the piece is shown by Steven, in Iron Time, is really from Blücher they have to be older! I do not do that. Blücher died on 12/09/1819.

Greetings Mike

[Don D.]

Or were his crosses replaced after his ancestral home burnt down?

[RAO]

Or were his crosses replaced after his ancestral home burnt down?

Also possible.

Greetings Mike

[streptile]

I remember when that Blücher group was sold, I think through Hermann Historica in 1999, it had some documentation with it that is not included in the photos in Stephen's book.

Also of note is that there are two 1813 EK2s in that group -- one a very early one with a Gleiwitz core (if I remember), one one of these zweitstücke, as is being discussed here in this thread.

[gregM]

-- one a very early one with a Gleiwitz core (if I remember),

Can we tell by looking at the cores, which were cast at the Berlin foundry
and which at Gleiwitz?

[streptile]

Can we tell by looking at the cores, which were cast at the Berlin foundry and which at Gleiwitz?

Hey Greg,

I think the answer to your question is probably: no, not with certainty. What I meant by "cores cast at Gleiwitz" was, the earliest cores. It was not particularly accurate wording.

However, I do have a little pet theory.

We know that two foundries made cores for the earliest 1813 EK2, as you say: Berlin and Gleiwitz. We also know that there are two main core types, serif and sans-serif, that are both considered early. So if we imagine that one was from Berlin molds, and the other from Gleiwitz molds, the only question that remains is, which was which? If the caption on p. 36 of The Iron Time, 2nd Ed., is accurate (and I don't know how to verify that), then we know at least that Gleiwitz made some serif cores. And if my first proposition is also correct, then we can conclude that:

• The cores from Gleiwitz are the serif cores
• The cores from Berlin are the sans-serif cores

As may be seen, this rests on two major assumptions, either one of which may be inaccurate. But who knows?