1813 Ek2

[Eric Stahlhut]

Core rattles.

[Eric Stahlhut]

.

[JensF.]

Looks like an example from about 1914 around.

[McCulloh]

Hmmmmm...

Yeah I agree with you. It looks unlike any 1813 piece I've seen-but a lot like a twiddled 1914-beading on the rims and the crown are unusual.
Where did you get this cross?
Cheers,
JeMc

[JensF.]

Do you see the small "nose" where the small ring is attached? I know this construction only from "KO" marked crosses. Is there a makers mark on that cross?

[Doug See]

I agree. Late 19th/early 20th century, best case. Worst case; a recent fabrication. I 'd look at that paint on the plain obverse VERY closely.

[Eric Stahlhut]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for bringing this one back up. Forgot about it. I agree with some of your observations.

I do, however, have to mention that certain 1813 EK2's DID in fact have 'tabs' on the ring assembly. Style of beading is identical
to 'Schinkel style' 1813 EK2's. The paint is good- just a scanner anomaly. Seams along the edges are uniform and fine-no evidence of fiddling.

As soon as I figure out how to use my scanner to take adequate oblique pics, I'll post!

[Tiger 1]

1813 EkII

Hello Eric,

Several things would indicate a later manufacture date than an earlier one.

The absence of the step in the core.
The lack of tilt or angling of both the the date numerals and the royal initials to follow the curvature of the cross arms.
The pointed stem of the oakleaf sprig is off to one side instead of pointing directly down to the date.

I would very much be interested in the height, width, and thickness measurements and the weight of your cross.

Just some thoughts.