1813 EK 2 - Opinions please

[regular122]

What I'm curious about are several things.

Seems obvious, but ...Is the core magnetic? YES

What are the dimensions (height , width, and thickness) and the weight? 41mm, 40mm, 3.5mm (including frame)

Is the core finish actually a paint or other applied finish? Cannot tell really. The pics make it look that way but in hand it looks like iron. Nothing like the later EK2s. See the comparison pic below.

As I mentioned above, it looks pretty good.......

Thanks!

Tony

Answers above and more pics below. Steve

[regular122]

The other side.

[regular122]

Comparison photos

EK2 1914 'HB'
EK2 1813
EK2 1914 'KO'

[regular122]

Front sides

[Tiger 1]

Hello Steve,

Thanks for the additional info.

The sizes and the finish seem to be okay or what one would expect. Do you have a way to weigh it in grams?

One major concern I have is about the frame. It's on the side with the core details, the original reverse side.


The frame has a very noticable and quite unsual inner flange or step.I'm referring to the extra metal where the beading should meet the core. I originally mistaken this for the stepped core which is usually prominent on 1813 EKIIs.

On earlier EKs, even into the TR era, the frames were hand cut from the stamped planchette with jeweler's saws. There are pictures attesting to this fact. The frames were usually cut out flush to the beading.

During the TR era the Gablonzer process was developed using extruded wire in a die press to form frames without the need to cut the waste out from a planchette thereby eliminating this time comsuming process. One of the tells of this process is a very slight step inboard the beading. This is usually visable on 20 and L/50 and L/52 marked EKIs and on other manufacturor's examples.
On your 1813 we see this inner flange.

Another observation is the lack of a stepped core on this EKII. Usualy a stepped core is one of the indicators of an 1813 EKII. Unfortunately the repro smucks have also put stepped cores on a rash of faked prinzen EKs that flooded the market recently. They used these stepped cores on 1813, 1870 and 1914 repros.

Anyway, I could fairly safely venture that the 1813 EKII that you show is not older than from the Jubilee period c. 1895. It just doesn't have the hallmarks of an earlier EK but has much in common with EKs produced 1895 thru the end of official awards of Imperial EKs in 1925.

JMO. I hope this helps some and that maybe some other guys will add to this.

All the best,

Tony

[Marc Garlasco]

Just back from some travel so chiming in late. I have to agree that this looks good, though Jubilee-period. The date is very nice, the paint and frame say 1890s to me.
Marc

[regular122]

Thanks guys for all the input. I am satisfied that it is original but a later date. What is a mystery is why an 1813 with cracked core would be as late as the 1890s. If made later, seems like the core would be of the better later iron techinques. And ribbon also would look more like the later ones.

What about the inheritance crosses that were awarded in the 1830s? V. E. Bowen, in his early (1986) but excellent work 'The Prussian and German Iron Cross,' describes the inheritance crosses as probably made by Godet and notable in that they had flat center plates without the characterisitic 'peripheral step.' He states that these crosses were completely awarded by July 1839. Given the wide ribbon and age of it, the correct core with crack, and the larger frame eyelet, is it possible that this cross would fall into the inheritance cross category? Thanks, Steve

[Tiger 1]

Steve,

Interesting and valid points.

Cracked iron cores are found throughout the Imperial Iron Cross series not just the very early ones. The crack is but one method of age determination. These cracks are said to be due to the type of iron used and probably the lack of stress relief after casting. Cast iron being brittle can be cracked if flexed enough. Like glass, the angle of deflection of brittle iron does not need to be great. For example, the deflection in glass needs to be roughly 5 degrees to crack along a score line or scratch. What the actual correlation for brittle iron would be I do not know.

On a parallel track , it is known that the cast iron plates used in early iron ship building also suffered failure due to cracks relating to cold temperatures. I remeber reading somewhere that the RMS Titanic suffered such crack failure of it's iron hull plates due to the cold and the shock of collision with the iceberg. The actual area of damage was not large enough to cause such comparatively rapid sinking. Later studies showed that the iron plates had cracked far beyong the impact area to cause the a swift flooding. Something to consider about iron technology in the 19th and early 20th century.

Anyway.................

Yes, Bowen does mention an 'inheiritance' cross. He is paraphrasing Heyde's work and states, in addition to what you mentioned, that these 'inheiritance' examples also had 'slightly wider rims'. Now, do we understand that to mean wider flanges or a combination of wider beading and flanges? I will go to Heyde's when I can dig it out of my library to check Bowen's source. The EK you show doesn't look to have a wide frame when compared with the other two Imperial EK examples.

Speaking of Heyde's book. If you have it, compare your ribbon with the 1:1 examples of the different period ribbons to determine era. Another thing to consider about the black and white EK ribbon is that it was also used in different proportions of widths for other Imperial awards.

Interesting discussion that stimulates further study and research for the diehard EK collectors. There's always more to be learned.

All the best,

Tony

[regular122]

Thanks Tony as always for your knowledge. Unfortunately I don't have Heyde's book. My sources are pretty limited and while I have Stepehn Previtera's 'Prussian Blue' I have not bought 'Iron Time' yet. I have Gordon Williamson's short book on the Iron Cross but it is really a survey. Bowen's is good but the pictures are poor and old. So I really appreicate the time you guys are taking to help me track this one down. And, like you said, we can all learn from it even more variations on this elusive and rare EK. Thanks, Steve

[Lance]

Perhaps a dumb question, but on the reverse frame where the step is, are there tool marks evident on the inner edge? In other words, could the frame maker have trimmed it this way on purpose from a planchet?