Before I mortgage my soul....

[Tom Y]

I'd like some opinions on this one. Stepped core, 2 piece frame, original ribbon, purportedly 1813 issue. Costs the earth.

[stogieman]

RE: The details...

Hi Tom, the reverse does not have the crispness and detail I would have expected for this piece. Also, note how "jammed-together" everything is on the back. I'm not positive when this was made, but it sure doesn't look like any of the pre-1870 ones I've handled...

[JensF.]

I don't like it too. The ring is too big and it lacks detail especially on the frame.

[Tom Y]

Thanks, guys. It looked a little off to me, too.

[Brian S]

It was 1813, not 1066, I'd expect a little more quality.

You say there IS a stepped core? Can't tell???

[Tiger 1]

1813 Ekii

Hello Tom,

Looking at the pictures you posted of the 1813 EKII I have the following questions and some observations.

First the questions.

1. What are the dimemsions of this cross? Height, width, and thickness?

2. What is the thickness and diameter of the ribbon ring?

3. What is the weight of this cross minus the ribbon?

4. What is the width measurement of the ribbon and the measurement of the individual color bands?

Now some observations.

The 1813 EKs are not noted for their crispness of detail when compared with later issues. The cores were sandcast and the very early frames were of multi piece assembled construction. The second type, which is the most commonly(?) seen, is generally from around 1830 onward. This later type was more or less standardized as to constuction details such as two frame pieces, a cast core and the rings attached. The size at this time also became somewhat standardized at about 38-40 mm.

The main problem with identifying original 1813s is that there were more than several makers and that the process in the manufacture created slight variations on the theme as better constuction techniques evolved. We can't forget that the 1813 EK was the first award intended to reward bravery for both the officer and the common soldier. The demand for this prestigious award lead to a backlog in the manufacture and supply because of the complex nature of it's construction at the time. Originally, it was stipulated that the cross had to be returned after the death of the original recipient so it could be reissued to another awardee. There are many accounts of soldiers not recieving their Iron Cross until they were much older.

Looking at the pictures I don't see anything that particularly alarms me as to it's constuction or layout of details. The crown, oakleaf sprig and the numbers are of a known style consistant with original examples. The fact that the frame crowds the core is not that great as to cause concern. The stepped core is plainly visable on the oginal obverse of the cross. These were hand made on an individual basis and minor fitting variations were not uncommon.

The most important factors are not yet known. The measurements and other questions asked above. The source of this cross would have to be forth comming with that and any other info pertinant to establishing it's originality. A return period for inspection and/or verification should be firmly agreed to with the dealer. This should not be a issue with a reputable dealer on an item of this rarity and cost.

I can send you detailed photos of the two 1813s in my collection. I unfortunately deleted your address when I cleaned out my mail box. PM me again if you want them. Thanks!

Best regards,

[Brian S]

Sand casting certainly was not as distinct a detailed cross as a die but I would not allow myself to put a lot of money on the faith of a cross because it is 'crude' and therefore genuine. I know that's not what you are saying but as I own several RK's I would only purchase one if it exhibited exacting details as known originals.

If this is indeed one of the very early crosses then the frame should exhibit very early production processes and be held together with pegs. But that could be covered up with solder which was peanut buttered on these early crosses.

No disagreement here, I'm just a skeptic. If this cross could be matched to a known original, great. If not, it's value is faith based.

I don't think those sand molds held up for long so finding another exactly like this one could be very tough.

I've seen one I would place faith in and it was entirely because it was pegged together. But NOT enough faith for me to seperate me from my money.

So although height, weight, thickness, etc. are interesting, I do not believe it proves nor disproves this cross as they were so individually put together a little solder here and there could tip the scales either way.

So, yes, my skepticism pretty much causes me to poo poo all of them until I see one handed down in a family. Until then, they are all either fakes or just made a 'long time ago'.

I would thoroughly enjoy seeing crosses with provenance displayed!!!

BRIAN'S FIRST RULE OF COLLECTING:

As the price of an original award increases, so too does the effort and workmanship to create a facsimile.

[George Stimson]

Here's mine, which I feel pretty good about.

[George Stimson]

The back. (Or is it the front? )

[Brian S]

Why do you like it?

Not that's not OK to like it, I don't know what to think, but as a prospective collector of one of these because I'd LOVE to own one!!!

I have a couple of family portraits showing a great great great (give or take a great) grandfather and his son wearing one and I'd love to get a real one.

[George Stimson]

I like it because it matches the characteristics of other originals I have seen (in photos), it came from a good source (so I never have to worry about getting my money back should it ever turn out to be bad -- not that I expect it to), I've shown it on this Forum numerous times without a single Imperial collector expressing any doubts about it, and because it feels good.

[Tony & Kaiser]

BRIAN'S FIRST RULE OF COLLECTING:

As the price of an original award increases, so too does the effort and workmanship to create a facsimile.

TONY'S FIRST RULE OF COLLECTING.

Never, absolutely never, touch ANYTHING in your collection if you have been drinking.

[Brian S]

Brian's THIRD Rule of Collecting. Never, ever CLEAN your collection after you've violated rule 2 DRINKING!

George, that works for me! Under those conditions I could put out the cash and 'get comfortable'.

[stogieman]

Sorry, but I...

... disagree. if you put Tom's reverse photo, side by side with George's, the detail is neither similar, nor consistent. There are radical differences between the oakleaves alone that would put me off. Never mind the different thickness of the FW, shape and slant of letters, etc., etc., etc. George's cross is of much earlier construction (IMO) than the photos posted by Tom. I've lost photoshop, so I can't mesh the two together, but if someone has the ability to enlarge tom's, paste it next to George's, and post it as one photo, you'll see what I mean...

[Brian S]

Did someone say they were the same Rick? I think George was just showing his which he believes in and why. I think the one Tom shows looks early. From the pics although not perfect you DON'T think that's a sand mold?