Holy Grail Club Request

[tegunn]

With something nearly 200 years old you're really never sure! It looks better in the pics than if you were holding it..The photos were shot in natural light, so a lot of the white ribbon looks whiter/brighter than it is..

[gregM]

One of the few multi-piece frames I have seen pictures of and
I believe only the second one posted on the forum. I am
certainly not an expert on 1813s, (I doubt that anyone is) but
I like what I see.

Welcome to the club

Here is a link to our last club meeting for anyone who might
be interested----

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ght=holy+grail

[tegunn]

Thanks Greg!
I'm quite happy to be a member. Obtaining this was an opportunity I didn't want to pass up! Now for a first class!
Randy

[Biro]

Nice worn piece.

Not at all convinced about the ribbon - the weave, width and wear are not at all what you might expect... but in the grand scheme of things, who cares - you have a nice early 1813 EK2.

Well done Randy.

Marshall

[Brian S]

Take it for what it's worth but I have a serious and real skepticism regarding these pieces. I see the quality and workmanship of the Floch EKII's and EKI's and I see how "crude" these 1813's are "supposed" to look and I think, "how easy would it be for a guy like Floch to create a 'crude' 1813 piece?" My great great grandfather was there and won the EKII, I would love to own one. Believe me, I would like to believe, would like to get one, but...

[tegunn]

Brian, I hope you are joking. I think most could tell the differrence between a Floch copy and an 1813 1st version, 1820's /30 and 50's version. When in doubt save your money. BUT early 1813's were crude by later standards-this is pretty well known. The mass-production problems had yet to be worked out until better methods were found. Also the iron/phosphorus content was still a problem as well. There are too many boxes checked with this one! I'm happy with mine.

[FrankS]

Brian,

are you also sceptical about the 1813 Iron Crosses in the Aurich collection?

Those Iron Crosses are excellent reference crosses, since several of them were bought in the 1920ies and 1930ies.

There are original 1813 Iron Crosses around, but they are rare. If you are not convinced by any 1813 cross you better save your money.

Take it for what it's worth but I have a serious and real skepticism regarding these pieces. I see the quality and workmanship of the Floch EKII's and EKI's and I see how "crude" these 1813's are "supposed" to look and I think, "how easy would it be for a guy like Floch to create a 'crude' 1813 piece?" My great great grandfather was there and won the EKII, I would love to own one. Believe me, I would like to believe, would like to get one, but...

[Brian S]

Brian, I hope you are joking. I think most could tell the differrence between a Floch copy and an 1813 1st version, 1820's /30 and 50's version. When in doubt save your money. BUT early 1813's were crude by later standards-this is pretty well known. The mass-production problems had yet to be worked out until better methods were found. Also the iron/phosphorus content was still a problem as well. There are too many boxes checked with this one! I'm happy with mine.

I don't think you're getting my point. I'm not saying Floch is making 1813's. I'm saying look what a great job he does on the difficult crosses making them perfectly well constructed crosses. Now look how easy it is for 'someone' to make a 'crude' 1813. That's the whole point. They are crude. Much easier to manufacture than a 1939. Crude, easier to make, and the payoff is much much higher. Basically, do the math... Look up the manufacture technique in some of the books. They were originally all very individually cast given the technique. So, much harder to point to die flaws as originally there was no 'die'.

A good old collection like Aurich's can't really be questioned unless you're just throwing stones at every piece which I'm not. I had a chance to pick up a bar several years ago and passed. My stupidity. If I could find it on a bar I'd be much more convinced it was the real deal.

Not going to throw any stones at any cross any of you post. I'm just opening up the discussion to the relative ease with which a fake of one of these is much more easily created than a convincing 1939.

If I were to get one of these I'd want to know how much carbon dating was going to cost me on top of the cost of the cross...

[Biro]

Brian, I hope you are joking. I think most could tell the differrence between a Floch copy and an 1813 1st version, 1820's /30 and 50's version. When in doubt save your money. ....

Hi tegunn

Brian knows his apples from oranges and dosen't need the advice - his point is quite valid. There is more than one cross/plm/badge out there that has integrated its way into the collective consensus as 'original' when really there is very little to go on by way of absolute proof - which Brian is right to require when considering a cross of this era. 'Provenance' just dosen't cut it any more - too much time has elapsed and it's too easy to marry a cross to a document and a photo.

Sadly the Max Aurich collection still remains by some distance our best pictorial reference of what we consider to be genuine 1813/1870 period pieces. I personally beleive it to be 99% accurate - I know of one piece in it that has serious questions surrounding it but every other piece has consistently been succesfully cross referenced against the various pieces that occaisionally crop up in Thiess's auctions or on Niemanns site for example. I know the book is held in very high regard among the few good top end German imperial dealers.

I take great comfort in the fact that the Aurich collection exhibits only a small handful of examples from the 1813 period and does not try and validate all manner of crosses as many subsequent publications have done. Its breivity is its strength IMO. The core designs of the 2nd class peices are easily recognisable and memorable.

In short, if it dosen't appear in the Aurich book, it dosen't belong in my collection. Your new piece does and therefore together with its multi-part construction method I personally consider it to be not only genuine but early. The iron core has the correct look to it for a sand cast piece.

With a cross from this period we all take something of a 'leap of faith' and this I'm afraid is the best any of us can do - and is exactly Brians point..

My two cents worth...

[tegunn]

Biro & Brian,
Wasn't trying to infer or imply any ingnorance. This audience is not only you all but for everyone. You are correct in the fact there are no hard guidlines for the 1813's. If a copier wanted to put his effort, it's not impossibe. I refer to the current "Latvian fakes". They didn't get it quite right on their crosses but time will tell. They were relatively good in the fake world but the similarities began showing up between their 1870's, 1914's, and 1939's.. The problem for a copier is that for the effort and cost to mass produce it, he will have to make a lot. One could assume that some of these traits would be repeated on all the crosses. Couple that with usually the flood of said copies that appear at times usually gives the collector(s) reasons for doubt. The problem with the 1813's-mainly the early multi-part frame, is that these were hand made, each piece soldered together. I've encountered fakes in 1813's, but it was individual pieces, one example being a good early 1813 core with a later (1870 -1914) frame being passed off as an 1820's 3-piece cross..Again, these were parts already existing but assembled..
If a faker was to produce one, which one would it be? For pay-off the extremly rare version is the one-piece frame with two riveted iron centers. If multiples of these start showing up in the market watch out! The biggest threat for 1813 collector are altered 1914's. Less effort to alter a cheap source. But even then, the ribbing count on the frame is a tell-tale.
Again, for all, my prime directive Rule #1 If you don't feel good about the piece-don't buy it. Dump any emotion for the piece you might have..The little voice is usually correct!
Biro, thanks for the input.. Where can I get a collective photo essay of the Aurich collection? As for my cross, the well-known collector/author I obtained it from(who wishes to be un-named) was convinced as well..
I will add that this is a good group of collectors and forum. I enjoy the discussion and trade of experience..
Randy out

[Blitz]

It seems that our little club has a new member. Welcome Randy.

[George Stimson]

[gregM]

George,
I am sure you will be back among the holders of the grail at some point.