1870 EK1 'I' Wagner Part 2 - It's arrived!!

[Biro]

Hello (again...)

This came in the post this morning.....it's the one from this thread 1870 EK1 'I' Wagner...Opinions..?

I've grouped all the important bits into mini 'collages' so you get a few different perspectives, but all the pics are of the same cross..

I know the maker mark will prove 'interesting' (the '1' BILL.... ) but take a look at the rest...some VERY good points, and no doubt, some to be debated..

Weight and Dims I've left out, but you can PM me for those if you want...

[Biro]

Rev...

[Biro]

crown

Crown - the height is impressive...and whats with them holes??

[Biro]

da' centre...

[Biro]

Date....Is this what we call a 'short 7' ?? Someone mentioned it in another post..

[Biro]

Hinge......it looks like verdigris on the centre tube..copper?

[Biro]

Maker Mark...Not quite 'J' Wagner in style, but not classic 'I' Wagner either???

[Biro]

Soldering...and verdigris??

[Brian S]

Biro, this looks just nasty enough to be an early awarded piece. I just don't know what's right in these with the several patterns we've seen. The patina in those crevaces looks very convincing. It's too bad old Leo wasn't a higher rank and I'd have one to compare.

I think it's been cleaned but you can still some of that 'heavy' patina on the hinge.

[Bill M]

--My initial observations. As you mention, it's a completely different stamp than the classic 'I' stamp; there's a foot to the '4', the '1' is different, no colon behind 'loth', less space between letters, etc. It is also completely unlike the 'J' stamp. --The features on the obverse aren't classic I or J either. The date is more or less the same type as on the 'J's but the crown seems more like the 'I's in where it is almost absurdly high, but lacks the definition of a 'J'. Can see the saw-marks on the frame near where it seems to split a little, but what that means - I don't know. This is a real curve-ball here as it does look good to me, not typical of either style, but still. I have to mull it over a while, what do you think? How's the patina, are some of the saw-marks 'patinated' (is that a word?).
--Marshall, send me the specs via PM if you would....

[Eric Stahlhut]

One thing that I found to be interesting upon viewing the first picture (obverse) is that the beading on the right (viewed) side of the cross is worn down a bit more than the beading on the opposing side. Granted, that detail is nothing that a buffing wheel couldn't accomplish, but I do view that factor as somewhat favorable. I also favor the 'cut outs' on the crown.


Too bad it has been cleaned! The soldering has suffered, as far as I can tell. I hate it when people clean their crosses! But that's another story.

[Bill M]

Good point

"is that the beading on the right (viewed) side of the cross is worn down a bit more than the beading on the opposing side."
--You know I never put two and two together regarding that little bit. My 'J' example is this way but moreso on the rightmost sides of the bottom and right arms. Try to take a picture of this if I can...

[Brian S]

Worn down or over cleaned with a buffer... Still.

[Bill M]

"Granted, that detail is nothing that a buffing wheel couldn't accomplish,"
"Worn down or over cleaned with a buffer..."
--Yep, the buffer conspiracy rears it's ugly head.

[Eric Stahlhut]

Bumped up for Biro

What, no opinions? For the last two weeks everyone has been yammering incessantly about '70 this and '70 that!

I am sure that he would like some opinions, guys....the refund period is running out! (JOKE!!!)