Hello all,
I've recently joined this forum, and today I was doing some research on Prinzen EKs in advance of purchasing one for my collection. In the process I came across a thread here which, in turn, pointed me to this thread on GMIC Forums:
http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopi...rt=#entry33463
The above thread, written by "Biro" or Marshall (who I do not know but whose photos, composites and work I am referencing here...I hope that's okay) is a persuasive demonstration that a certain well-known step-side variety of 27mm "Prinzen" or Half-Size EKs are of doubtful authenticity. I felt, upon reading this thread, that I wanted to add something to the conversation, as I myself have a step-side 1914EK2 in my collection that I have long considered to be authentic. Here's why.
This is the obverse side of mine:
Below, on the right, is the obverse of one of the suspect 1914 Prinzen examples (alongside a suspet 1870 example):
They look identical, as well they should. This is sort of long, but bear with me...
I was told, and subsequent experience has upheld this belief to the extent possible, that the Prinzens examined in the GMIC thread are indeed fakes, but are in fact copies of an original 1914 Prinzen of the same basic dimensions and characteristics. Like most copies, they did not get everything correct. The fakers also saw fit to make ones from 1870 and 1813, easily bringing their deception to light. But I believe there does exist a genuine 1914 step-side 27mm Prinzen EK2.
In the post below I refer to "fake" or "copy" crosses, and "genuine" or "authentic" crosses. This is merely a shorthand, for what follows is supposition and deduction based on my own observation and experience, and ought not be confused with established fact. That said, I believe it to be accurate.
The differences between the fakes and the genuines are to be found in three places:
1) Quality of workmanship.
The quality of workmanship on the the genuine 27mm is remarkable. On the fakes, it is less so. the space between the "step-up" in the core and the beading-edge of the frame is often irregular, and the core details are indistinct, especially on the reverse side. Quality of workmanship is difficult to demonstrate in photos (sometimes you have to hold examples to recognize differences), but Biro shows some rather poor quality workmanship in every cross in his thread, namely the unremoved flashing of the frame (well highlighted below in his photo composites):
If you can see, such flashing does not exist on the center beading of the authentic cross:
Another quality of workmanship issue is the beading. Fake examples always have sharply-cut beading arms with an identifiable cross-hatching effect (like all authentic Juncker RKs). Again, see Marshall's excellent composites of fakes:
And compare again to the photos above, where the beading is clearly not as deeply cut, and no cross-hatch pattern exists. Also note that no cross-hatch pattern (as illustrated in the top row of three photos above) exists on any outer arm of the genuine cross.
2) Crowns.
The crowns on the fakes are quite different on the obverse and the reverse.
The fakes (obverse):
And the fakes (reverse):
Notice that the crowns on the reverse are significantly fatter, with a large cross on top as compared to the obverse's small, quite elongated crowns.
The originals will have subtle differences between obverse and reverse, but are approximately the same, and are about the same size as well.
On a genuine cross, the obverse crown is the same as the fakes:
But the crown on the reverse above the FW cipher is quite different from the fakes, being more similar to the obverse's:
The crown on the genuine cross's reverse is distinguished by the distinctive high arch of the outer two arms.
3) Oak Leaf Cluster.
The last and (in my opinion) easiest way to differentiate fake from genuine is the form of the Oak Leaf Cluster on the reverse. A simple illustration will suffice to show the differences.
Fake:
Fake again:
Genuine:
And while Marshall's observation about suspicious round-shaped paint flaking effect (see his thread, linked above) is news to me, I should note that the cross in my possession does have wear to the paint, but not in that manner:
It is my view that this type of cross was made during or shortly after the war for private purchase. In some contemporary catalogues one can find crosses of this type and measurement being advertised for sale, but (in the ones I've seen) the item itself is either not pictured, or is represented by an artist's sketch (as on p. 197 of "The Iron Time" 1st Edition), so it's difficult to verify. But in some ads, the one mentioned above for example, the 1914EK2 is available as a full-size, in two reduced sizes ("Prinzen"), and then in tiny ("stickpin") size. Today, it's commonly accepted that there are genuine EK Prinzens (of both classes) of about 36mm size, and that there are genuine stickpin miniatures. But, as we've seen, period catalogues advertise a size in between. Where are the commonly accepted genuine examples of these? There must be some still extant.
Some raise the question of whether or not "step-side" production techniques (commonly associated with 1813 early-model EKs) would have been still in use in WWI. Well, if a 27mm Prinzen were to be made with the exact same materials in the exact same proportions as the 42mm award piece, the iron core would be so thin in the center as to be extraordinarily brittle. If the core thickness were increased to maximize rigidity, the 27mm Prinzen would be ungainly - too thick - and unattractive. And as it happened, the engineers from the Napoleonic period had developed a system designed to address brittle cores - the "step-side" core. While that system proved unnecessary on award pieces after advances in manufacturing technique in the 1830s, it could easily have been seen as a still-useful model for someone faced with the problem of a too-thin core on a significantly reduced-size piece 100 years later. So, using a thin core for sandwiching between the frame halves would allow the thickness of the frame (beading to beading) to be proportionally correct, while "stepping-up" the core size for the center portions would allow for the decoration to be strong enough for wear. After all, manufacturers of the time weren't concerned with whether or not their products would pass muster wth 21st C. collectors - just early 20th C. soldiers.
Also, I think it would make sense for a faker to base a fake on a known original, and I believe this to be the model for the fake. For some reason it seems the faker did a good job with the obverse core, but not the reverse, for that is where 2 of the 3 telltale signs are to be found.
One additional factor leads me to believe that these Prinzen fakes are based on a genuine original: while the "fake" type is often encountered (on eBay, for example), the "genuine" type is very rarely seen, at least in my experience.
There is a 27mm step-side 1870 Prinzen pictured on p.95 of "The Iron Time" (1st Edition). Without seeing the reverse side, I think it's impossible to say whether it's genuine. However, I have been told (by the gentleman who told all of this to me in the first place) that authentic 1870 27mm EK2 Prinzens do exist, and that in every particular they are the same as the authentic 1914 listed above; in fact they are WWI-era productions made by the same company for veterans, made at the same time in the same workshop as the 1914s. To my knowledge there are no authentic 1813 examples. As stated, all 3 Imperial issue years may be found as fakes.
This is in no way definitive, but it's what I've been told, and what I believe personally to be true about these controversial little fellas. I am most interested in evidence in support of, or in contradiction to, this hypothesis.
Thanks,
Trevor
And let me say again "Thank You" to Biro/Marshall for the photos and composites. If the way I've used them makes you uncomfortable, please let me know and they will come down immediately.
I've recently joined this forum, and today I was doing some research on Prinzen EKs in advance of purchasing one for my collection. In the process I came across a thread here which, in turn, pointed me to this thread on GMIC Forums:
http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopi...rt=#entry33463
The above thread, written by "Biro" or Marshall (who I do not know but whose photos, composites and work I am referencing here...I hope that's okay) is a persuasive demonstration that a certain well-known step-side variety of 27mm "Prinzen" or Half-Size EKs are of doubtful authenticity. I felt, upon reading this thread, that I wanted to add something to the conversation, as I myself have a step-side 1914EK2 in my collection that I have long considered to be authentic. Here's why.
This is the obverse side of mine:
Below, on the right, is the obverse of one of the suspect 1914 Prinzen examples (alongside a suspet 1870 example):
They look identical, as well they should. This is sort of long, but bear with me...
I was told, and subsequent experience has upheld this belief to the extent possible, that the Prinzens examined in the GMIC thread are indeed fakes, but are in fact copies of an original 1914 Prinzen of the same basic dimensions and characteristics. Like most copies, they did not get everything correct. The fakers also saw fit to make ones from 1870 and 1813, easily bringing their deception to light. But I believe there does exist a genuine 1914 step-side 27mm Prinzen EK2.
In the post below I refer to "fake" or "copy" crosses, and "genuine" or "authentic" crosses. This is merely a shorthand, for what follows is supposition and deduction based on my own observation and experience, and ought not be confused with established fact. That said, I believe it to be accurate.
The differences between the fakes and the genuines are to be found in three places:
1) Quality of workmanship.
The quality of workmanship on the the genuine 27mm is remarkable. On the fakes, it is less so. the space between the "step-up" in the core and the beading-edge of the frame is often irregular, and the core details are indistinct, especially on the reverse side. Quality of workmanship is difficult to demonstrate in photos (sometimes you have to hold examples to recognize differences), but Biro shows some rather poor quality workmanship in every cross in his thread, namely the unremoved flashing of the frame (well highlighted below in his photo composites):
If you can see, such flashing does not exist on the center beading of the authentic cross:
Another quality of workmanship issue is the beading. Fake examples always have sharply-cut beading arms with an identifiable cross-hatching effect (like all authentic Juncker RKs). Again, see Marshall's excellent composites of fakes:
And compare again to the photos above, where the beading is clearly not as deeply cut, and no cross-hatch pattern exists. Also note that no cross-hatch pattern (as illustrated in the top row of three photos above) exists on any outer arm of the genuine cross.
2) Crowns.
The crowns on the fakes are quite different on the obverse and the reverse.
The fakes (obverse):
And the fakes (reverse):
Notice that the crowns on the reverse are significantly fatter, with a large cross on top as compared to the obverse's small, quite elongated crowns.
The originals will have subtle differences between obverse and reverse, but are approximately the same, and are about the same size as well.
On a genuine cross, the obverse crown is the same as the fakes:
But the crown on the reverse above the FW cipher is quite different from the fakes, being more similar to the obverse's:
The crown on the genuine cross's reverse is distinguished by the distinctive high arch of the outer two arms.
3) Oak Leaf Cluster.
The last and (in my opinion) easiest way to differentiate fake from genuine is the form of the Oak Leaf Cluster on the reverse. A simple illustration will suffice to show the differences.
Fake:
Fake again:
Genuine:
And while Marshall's observation about suspicious round-shaped paint flaking effect (see his thread, linked above) is news to me, I should note that the cross in my possession does have wear to the paint, but not in that manner:
It is my view that this type of cross was made during or shortly after the war for private purchase. In some contemporary catalogues one can find crosses of this type and measurement being advertised for sale, but (in the ones I've seen) the item itself is either not pictured, or is represented by an artist's sketch (as on p. 197 of "The Iron Time" 1st Edition), so it's difficult to verify. But in some ads, the one mentioned above for example, the 1914EK2 is available as a full-size, in two reduced sizes ("Prinzen"), and then in tiny ("stickpin") size. Today, it's commonly accepted that there are genuine EK Prinzens (of both classes) of about 36mm size, and that there are genuine stickpin miniatures. But, as we've seen, period catalogues advertise a size in between. Where are the commonly accepted genuine examples of these? There must be some still extant.
Some raise the question of whether or not "step-side" production techniques (commonly associated with 1813 early-model EKs) would have been still in use in WWI. Well, if a 27mm Prinzen were to be made with the exact same materials in the exact same proportions as the 42mm award piece, the iron core would be so thin in the center as to be extraordinarily brittle. If the core thickness were increased to maximize rigidity, the 27mm Prinzen would be ungainly - too thick - and unattractive. And as it happened, the engineers from the Napoleonic period had developed a system designed to address brittle cores - the "step-side" core. While that system proved unnecessary on award pieces after advances in manufacturing technique in the 1830s, it could easily have been seen as a still-useful model for someone faced with the problem of a too-thin core on a significantly reduced-size piece 100 years later. So, using a thin core for sandwiching between the frame halves would allow the thickness of the frame (beading to beading) to be proportionally correct, while "stepping-up" the core size for the center portions would allow for the decoration to be strong enough for wear. After all, manufacturers of the time weren't concerned with whether or not their products would pass muster wth 21st C. collectors - just early 20th C. soldiers.
Also, I think it would make sense for a faker to base a fake on a known original, and I believe this to be the model for the fake. For some reason it seems the faker did a good job with the obverse core, but not the reverse, for that is where 2 of the 3 telltale signs are to be found.
One additional factor leads me to believe that these Prinzen fakes are based on a genuine original: while the "fake" type is often encountered (on eBay, for example), the "genuine" type is very rarely seen, at least in my experience.
There is a 27mm step-side 1870 Prinzen pictured on p.95 of "The Iron Time" (1st Edition). Without seeing the reverse side, I think it's impossible to say whether it's genuine. However, I have been told (by the gentleman who told all of this to me in the first place) that authentic 1870 27mm EK2 Prinzens do exist, and that in every particular they are the same as the authentic 1914 listed above; in fact they are WWI-era productions made by the same company for veterans, made at the same time in the same workshop as the 1914s. To my knowledge there are no authentic 1813 examples. As stated, all 3 Imperial issue years may be found as fakes.
This is in no way definitive, but it's what I've been told, and what I believe personally to be true about these controversial little fellas. I am most interested in evidence in support of, or in contradiction to, this hypothesis.
Thanks,
Trevor
And let me say again "Thank You" to Biro/Marshall for the photos and composites. If the way I've used them makes you uncomfortable, please let me know and they will come down immediately.
Comment