What do you folks think? I ask because I truly don't know , not to insinuate any doubts over the cross. http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=288542
Best, Sal
Best, Sal
-
-
Okay....I'll shoot first....
I don't believe it to be as early as stated on the COA.
The lack of a stepped core and the style of the frame suggests a later piece. A Franco-Prussian War era or a later Jubilee period example IMO would be more likely. A quick look in Heyde or other works on Imperial era EKs will show examples of early 1813 EKs.
Have at it gentlemen, I have my kevlar cap on.
TonyAn opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
"First ponder, then dare." von Moltke -
this comment was to quik,,
better study helpsLast edited by Montgomery Burns; 05-10-2008, 04:36 PM.Comment
-
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...hlight=ek+1813
hope the link works
i found axample'a fromm flak 88
seems to me that his example's have a simular core than the one on the e stand
this ek might be a good one if the one from flak 88 is a good one
only the frame is different
so hope this helps
regards kayComment
-
I have no problem with it. The cross may be slightly later than what the COA says, perhaps as late as 1830's IMO. I wish I had the money.pseudo-expertComment
-
To me it passes the authentic test but I could not be certain of any date. Hairline cracks are almost always a good sign. SteveComment
-
I agree entirely with Don - I have the same type with a slightly narrower frame.Originally posted by Don Doering View Post
The core on mine below is stepped - the core on the estand one may be... the average pictures make it hard to tell.
This type do appear in the Heyde book mentioned by Tony (Tiger 1) on pages 18 and 20.
IMO this is a very safe buy and a nice piece.
MarshallComment
-
I agree with Marshall that the core features (specifically the 3) the dimensions and weight are very close to C3 (20) in Heyde's book.
It is different from C1 (18) by roughly a millimeter both ways in dimensions and close to a gram lighter in weight. The 3 in the date is not a match here.
Also, while C1 (18) and C3 (20) are visually very close they are not similar enough in the weights and measures departments to be considered identical. That may be why Heyde chose to show these two as separate items.
************************
Now what I don't see on Sam's cross is the stepped core which is readily seen on both C1 (18) and C3 (20) in Heyde.
The other point and probably most important is that the angles and curvature of the beading and flanges on Sam's cross does not come close to matching either C1 (18) or C3 (20). There is also no rounding of the inside corners of the beading on the two shown in Heyde to accomodate the oakleaf sprig as is on Sam's cross. The center 'square' formed by the inner beading corners on the two C's are wider and taller proportionally than the cross here, so no rounding was necessary to accomodate the oaklef sprig.
IMO, Sam's cross displays a later frame styling.
Maybe Sam can take some oblique pictures of where the core and beading meet that would show the existance of the stepped core. That would be a great help as we cannot view this cross 'in hand' as rarities of this caliber should be for an accurate appraisal.
I don't doubt that this cross is legit. What I have doubts about is the veracity of the COA stating that this cross is of very early manufacture.
All the best,
TonyAn opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
"First ponder, then dare." von MoltkeComment
-
It appears that it could be a 2nd or 3rd version/series cross when they were produced in the three-part frame/core instead of the earlier multi-part frame. The dates seem to float around 1815-1830/ 1830-1840's as a time bracket. I'd research the serif dates and see when they were used. Overall it looks good to me but the dating is difficult. I'd get it except a 1st class 1813 is my main effort now!Comment
-
My 1813 EK II
Hello Gents,
If I may wade into the fray.......I used a 30 power magnifier, and see an identical appearance to Marshall's EK II, save for the extra crack, and the ribbon ring. The ribbon is 1 1/2 inches wide. No damage, no excess solder. I'm sorry that I don't have a digital camera to help you out.
Cheers,
Bill (Sam)Comment
Comment