Speaking of 1st Class 1870's...

[Bill M]

Marked Sy & Wagner? Has anyone seen this? Any thoughts? Only ones I've seen by a Wagner have been J Wagner & S http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1137541851

[Bill M]

Here is a blow up of the stamp, and then my W&S stamp. Does the 'SY &' on the former look out of place? What I mean to say is that it sorta looks added on. I just didn't think Sy & Wagner made these (but what do I know?)

[ 24 April 2001: Message edited by: Bill M ]

[Tom Y]

It's a lousy scan, but doesn't the "Wagner' look like it's going downhill? I'd pass on it even if I had the $$$.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Bill,

I'll comment on the seller, not so much on the cross. From what I've seen of his wares, he's way up on my list of eBay sellers to avoid, on par with Cave Creek Az. and Polish "pwojtowicz". I've never dealt with this seller and and I would never even consider it. I guess he might have got lucky and found a genuine Imperial piece (all the Third Reich Badges I've seen him selling looked like repros to me) but personally I wouldn't take the risk.

Regards
Mike K

PS: regarding the J. Wagner marking, I thought the "J" was always represented as an "I" on originals? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Bill M]

Mike,
--Sometimes 'J', sometimes 'I'. Both are OK.
Regards, Bill

[Billy G]

I was close to buying this very piece several months ago. First problem was the maker mark. Previtera's Iron Time does not list Sy Wagner as a maker of the 1870 1st Kl.In fact no one I spoke with has ever seen a Sy Wagner 1870. Sy did make 1914 EKs, so I suppose it is possible for the piece to be a later edition of an 1870. I don't like to suppose. I asked Stephen Previtera and he basically confirmed this. Although he said he had never seen one, he supposed it was possible. There's that word again. Alright, suppose the piece is a correct 1870. There's the question that begs an answer. The catch assembly appears, in some pictures, to be repaired. I don't know if this is a period repair or somewhat more recent. Stephen P. also said that someone had asked him also about this piece prior to me writing him and he felt it was more than likely a good idea to stay away. This is at least the third time I can remember that this piece had been up with no bidders. I think if it were good it would have been snapped up a long time ago. Here's a clearer picture I got from the seller a while ago.

I also had contacted an entirely different seller some months prior to the whole fiasco, like fall last year. This seller showed me pictures of what I would swear is the identical piece, same maker, same wishbone shaped patina smudge on the lower arm reverse, etc. Although there was no admission of anything fugazy I just was wierded out and decided to wait. Helmut Weitze got my money, a lot more in fact, but I'm pretty happy in the end.

[ 27 April 2001: Message edited by: Billy G~ ]

[Bill M]

--I can't make out the obverse too well, but the hinge assembly does resemble that on a Wagner & Sohn 1870. What do Sy & Wagner's reverse look like regarding their 1914's? Anyone recall any 1914 makers utilizing the W & S style hinge arrangement?
--I am not defending this cross - I certainly wouldn't be comfortable buying it - but exactly how well were these faked? The only fakes I've seen weren't fooling anyone, and this one (granted, the scan of the obverse could be better) looks OK, but for the maker. What is the story on the fakes out there? Any insight?

[Billy G]

Doesn't the "Sy" part of the mark appear to be a different typeface than the "Wagner" part? The "Wagner part looks almost identical to the original example in the thread above. Is this plausible or am I seeing things? Wouldn't be the first time.

[Bill M]

I made that point above too, It looks as if it may have been added. but why????