your comments on this ek2!!!!!

[paddywhack]

so what do you guys think about this nice little peice!!! http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1059336321 or this!!!! http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1059338220
or this orginal!!!! http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1059545274
what are your comments guys!!

[Bill M]

--I've got no problem with the 2nd class (even though I question putting an 835 frame on a core with such poorly formed dates) and would consider the 1st as it looks ok in the photos, but I'd stay the hell away from the 1813.
--I had to go back and study my own photo archive to see if this one was the very same cross that I had investigated (it made 2 trips to Germany) and that I ultimately returned (phew!). Not the same one, but CLOSE.

[Doug See]

I don't like ANY of them.
1) The EK2 looks like a newer one. I've heard reports of a faker in Germany stamping EK2's with bogus silver and maker marks. 835 and "OK" are a little suspicious, at least to me.
2) The EK1: No comment. It's humorous.
3) The workmanship on the 1813 EK1 looks like the same as on the fake 1870 that Charbador has been selling on eBay and Epier. The metal does not look like silver in the photo. The frame looks hand cut with tin snips. The seller of the 1813 has sold too many bad German repos on eBay (as original). I don't think he knows his Imperial German militaria. Considering it sold for $400++, someone overpaid by 1000 %, in my opinion. It may look different held in the hand than it does in the photos, but.......

[ 14 January 2002: Message edited by: Doug ]

[JensF.]

Hi,

the EKII is original. There ARE "835" stamped EKIIs (I've got one, even one with a "750" mark) and maybe the maker mark "OK" meaning "KO" is a typo in his descripton.

The EKI might be an original too (in my opinion). The pinback is OK, but the rest of the cross don't has an oxidation. Maybe someone cleaned it, but this is an item I must hold in my hands, before I would buy it.