9th bead fakes

[joelhall]

i was curious looking through previous threads on these... this type of 1870 cross was featured on detlevs fake of the week some time ago, so im led to believe, though i have never seen this and wondered apart from the characteristic worn larger 9th bead to the crown and the under/over style of 8, what was the basis for assuming this to be a copy, or is it rather questionable rather than an out and out fake? i ask as i have one of these crosses (bought from a reputable dealer i might add, and am happy with everything else i have bought from him) and certain things make themselves apparent.

this example i have in front of me as i type indeed has a worn 9th bead, although rather than seeming purposely bulbous it actually gives the impression of being flattened though this could be due to the wearing over the years or that the 10th bead is actually VERY slightly smaller as opposed to the 8th (its obvious it wasnt made yesterday). it also has the over and under style of 8, and of course the date appears to be ever so lightly higher than on other crosses. though this is not very discernible and measuring seems to show it at the same position so i would assume that the style of the letters causes this appearance.

what strikes me is the sheer quality of this fake. the example i have ( i dont currently have photographs) is very crisp the frames are very well soldered (obviously not as perfect as an rk but just as good as any imperial cross i have seen).

there is only fleeting examples of silver showing through the paint (ie the 9th bead, parts of the w and other highlights, though even these are showing iron oxide formation), whereas where the paint has come away there is characteristic rusting of the iron (i believe the cross was magnetic when i tested it after purchase - i dont actually have a magnet to hand at the moment). however this ive found not to be too reliable a test especially on later crosses. however smelling it, it certainly appears to be iron

the cross itself is certainly not soft of course and will not bend even with considerable pressure, and the weight seems to be consistant with 1914 examples - though again i cant actually test this gram for gram as present to compare with any known examples.

the rim beading is perfect, apart from the very occaisional dint which i have seen on many original eks (not surprising given their age and the fact they were often worn or at least presented on the front line) and there are no flaws to the frame that one can readily find, nor are there cracks or warping at all.

the core fits tightly there is no rattling or movement when attempting to move the core with the fingers.

also the ribbon looks and feels just like one would expect, just like on other iron cross ribbons. there is no hallmark though the frame definitely looks to be silver (not a white metal or german silver or any other cheaper or ersatz metals used when silver became scarce during the war etc - and i have cleaned the silver to check!! no dont have a go!!!), though there is a stamp on the ring which seems to read VAG though this is not very simple to work out, but definitely VA?

the original patina was just like silver oxide, no evidence or burnishing or acid/ chemicals used at all. the paintwork is very well applied though certainly appears to have the frailty i have seen on other 1870 crosses (which do not display this spurious bead or date), so without trying too hard i can say that the paint dies not mark or come off with light scratching or abrasion.

please excuse my brief examination (but long winded description ) but i still really have a question mark over this cross (which i have owned for several years) rather than believing it to be an out and out fake. it seems to be very well made (which would be obvious if it was intended to deceive), but other than this apparently spurious bead and 8, etc., what reasons are there for taking this variant (as thats what i must believe it to be until i really see evidence otherwise) to be a forgery?


now im not one to simply just disagree with detlev or anyone else unnecessarily and without any type of basis, as they have far more knowledge and experience than me with this field, but can anyone shed light on as to when or where these were produced?

or as to what makes it appear as a fake rather than say a privately purchased award, type of jewellers copy, or perhaps made after the war (1895 for instance) from newly made dies? or just another varient such as one produced outside of prussia for example, say by makers from another region or even foreign ally?

any background to this i would find very helpful.

also in my own opinion, it seems like a lot of effort for a faker to go to to fake an award which, although scarce and dearer than some others, would not make such a lucrative market as say 1914 first classes or third reich crosses, where there is more interest and a larger collectors base. just an opinion of course , it just seems the scope for sale on what is clearly not a cheaply or crudely made item would be somewhat smaller.

also there appear to be a great many of these from what i have seen and not all with the same makers marks or hallmarks (if any)

this certainly beats the quality of fake i have seen of any other type of cross, apart from fake rks.

can anyone shed any more light on this story for me?

thanks for your time folks and apologies if ive offended anyone with my ignorance

joel hall

[gregM]

HI Joel,
You ask a very good question. One that I don't really have an answer
to. I have been hanging around here for a number of years now and
the 9th bead 1870s were the first crosses I was warned to stay clear
of. Back in 2003 or 2004 there was a very long debate here over
these crosses. I will see if I can find that thread. I have seen where
these were listed as Mr. Niemanns "copy of the week"

Some of the 9th bead crosses I have seen in hand have had very
good quality to them, especially when compared to some of the
1895 Jubilee 1870s.

Detlav is a member here. You might try sending him a PM with a
link to this thread. You never know. He might give us a little more
insight to this.

[joelhall]

im hoping so, ill look him up.
to my mind they seem to have the air of a varient, more than likely a later imperial version rather than just a fake.

[Don D.]

Given the number of them we see and the "sellers" that seem to have a regular supply of them i doubt they are good.

[gregM]

I agree. There does seem to be a never ending supply of them.

[joelhall]

true there are. but that seems yet another point - the most common type are these. and given the construction i find it hard to believe that a faker years ago would have a good enough set up to produce such good dies and create them from original type materials.

just seems a little too fishy to be fake if you get me. perhaps this type has been faked more than the others found though, if you get me. i would have imagined that the fakers would have made a cast of an original, but the style of the 8 seen on these means that an original die was used, giving such a very precise set of numerals this would have been one talented faker.

and given also that on the posts made in 2004 and four more than one member claimed to have owned this cross for around 10 years or more suggests that this is not a new fake at all if indeed it is one.

call me picky of course, but the fact it is different and seems to be more common doesnt strike me as great grounds for labelling it as a fake. in fact if it were a later version as i suspect, and taking into account the shortage of supply in the 1870s which led to them being produced long after for recipients, i would hardly be surprised to see this more regularly.

can anyone actually shed any more light on this problem???

[joelhall]

just waiting on the detlev-niemann site which is being updated. hopefully this mystery will clear up soon but does anyone else have any insight at all?

[Don D.]

I think this fits here too:
Bottom line is that an item must prove itself to be real. That is done by comparing with known good examples. If you can't find one in a grouping with provenance or other known source then you are looking at a piece you will have to defend forever. The "prove it is fake" is a endless battle because none of us were there when they were made and the fakers will not step forward to claim thier wares. The word variant is used by people, dealers and collectors alike, to flog of questionable pieces to unsuspecting buyers.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[joelhall]

thats true, why couldnt fakers stick to one-piece soft lead pieces to make life easier for us all

my intention wasnt really to challenge 'prove its a fake' (although i admit thats how it comes across) but rather what the background to the story is. its already difficult enough sometimes to tell real from fake, and id like to learn everything i can about the my chosen interest - for some reason those crosses get addictive

which reminds me my copy of iron time (the newest edition) will be coming soon. its taken me a few years to track down a copy in the uk (yes im slow), but it should finally be arriving next week!

[Don D.]

One of the "reasons" it was spotted as a fake is becuase they started to appear all of a sudden, and never in a proven grouping. You will see this alot as more high quality fakes start to come in to the Imperial collecting field. The same thing has been happening far longer in the TR stuff.

[joelhall]

ah i see, when was this and do you know where they came from?

[Don D.]

You would have to ask some of the older collectors to be sure but I believe they were first noticed 6 years or so ago. I don't know where they came from but probably from the east (former commie land) as they had the skills, tools and monetary incentive.

[joelhall]

ok thanks alot for your help don