EK1 Opinions wanted

[saschaw]

The core design is one that was yet used on WW2 era replacemaents, but this kind of needle and pinback is unseen on WW2 (or earlier) crosses. Of course, there are similar WW1 replacement crosses from WW2 era. The core design, however, is none that was in use pre-WW2.

[Steve Campbell]

The 1957 versions as they are referred to share much of the same hardware as the 57 versions of 1939 series crosses. This hardware is not seen in any other series or era, so that's where the name comes from I would think. I believe only a limited amount of core designs were used in this era, unlike earlier eras, and overall construction is similar to the actual 1957 era pieces in terms of material used. But it is true, these are not technically "1957" versions as they did not change in thier basic design. I'm guessing it was the same few makers involved, like Stienhauer and Lucke.

[Don D.]

The core design is one that was yet used on WW2 era replacemaents, but this kind of needle and pinback is unseen on WW2 (or earlier) crosses. Of course, there are similar WW1 replacement crosses from WW2 era. The core design, however, is none that was in use pre-WW2.

And since the core would not have to be changed because thier was no TR symbology it makes sense that manufacturers would use the tooling that they had and perhaps also left over stock.

[Jesse]

Indeed Don, but what should we call this type of cross? Post war replacement? 57er type Imperial? Post war copy? Post war reproduction? Or am I getting too carried away! I have had this conversation with Peter on the 57er forum, maybe it's all just a play on words or how we as collectors want to see them.

In my mind this cross is a legitimate piece. I wish we could know for certain for whom they were produced and why. Though I suppose that does not really matter.

Jess

[streptile]

Personally I think this one should be called a "jeweler's copy," which is, of course, an accepted term in the hobby.

I think to call it a "57er" piece is technically incorrect, as that then opens the door too wide on what can be legitimately called that: why not then an S&L RK produced last week? I believe "57er" must apply only to those TR awards officially permitted to be made and worn under the law promulgated in, well, 1957, and produced into the 1960s.

But it goes way too far to say this one is a "post-war reproduction," as it was almost certainly made by an officially licensed manufacturer of awards (look at the hardware and core, as Sascha and Steve pointed out) for purchase and wear by veterans, usually to replace (or safeguard) the original award-issue piece. This is precisely the description that we in the hobby use to describe "jeweler's copies." Thus I'd call this a "jeweler's copy." If you'd like to get more specific, you could qualify it by saying, "postwar jeweler's copy."

I love this piece. Steve, can you post photos of yours in this thead?

~TR

[Don D.]

Perhaps wearer's copy.

[Jesse]

I have an identical one, I will post it tomorrow. I prefer replacement cross, but as I said, maybe I am just playing word games!!

Jess

[streptile]

I have an identical one, I will post it tomorrow.

Yes, please do.

The one at the top of this thread is on it's way to me. Thanks, Eric!

[Steve Campbell]

If we are to use the terms post war copy, etc, any cross made after 1918 would be termed as such wouldn't it. This would put alot of classic crosses in that category.

[Steve Campbell]

As requested, here's mine, said to be made circa 1962 by Steinhauer and Lucke.

[Steve Campbell]

The rear, showing the distinct hardware used on the 1957 series. I just found out I have not incluced this one in my 1914 EK1 thread.

[Steve Campbell]

One more shot of the front, just because it was such a nice shot.

[speedytop]

Hi,

Steve Campbell:
"If we are to use the terms post war copy, etc, any cross made after 1918 would be termed as such wouldn't it."

No, the award period for the Iron Cross, instituted in 1914, was finished officially in 1924.

All later made crosses are not originals, these are copies or fakes (or wearer's copy or jeweler's copy or 1957 version or replacement cross or whatever you want).

The different names are only helpful for better sales prices for a copy.

They are not originals.

And therefore an Iron Cross 1914 made in 1957 is a post WW II copy.

Regards
Uwe

[Steve Campbell]

Hi,

Steve Campbell:
"If we are to use the terms post war copy, etc, any cross made after 1918 would be termed as such wouldn't it."

No, the award period for the Iron Cross, instituted in 1914, was finished officially in 1924.

All later made crosses are not originals, these are copies or fakes (or wearer's copy or jeweler's copy or 1957 version or replacement cross or whatever you want).

The different names are only helpful for better sales prices for a copy.

They are not originals.

And therefore an Iron Cross 1914 made in 1957 is a post WW II copy.

Regards
Uwe

Interesting. This topic is fascinating to me. When you say the award period was ended in 1924, what does that mean? No more awards were given? But Iron Crosses were still sold. What about the AWS pieces and all these other makers that continued on into WW2? What about the LDO marked 1914 EKs from the WW2 period, or the makers that made Iron Crosses during both World Wars? Are those items copies? I think that is the wrong term. Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy? It was produced so veterans could buys a duplicate if they wanted. I thought that was the premise behind the 1914 versions that were made after the First World War had ended. I know crosses being made into the 50s and 60s is a stretch, but if veterans were still alive, and they were, the concept still has validity.

[streptile]

What about the AWS pieces and all these other makers that continued on into WW2? What about the LDO marked 1914 EKs from the WW2 period, or the makers that made Iron Crosses during both World Wars? Are those items copies? I think that is the wrong term. Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy? It was produced so veterans could buys a duplicate if they wanted. I thought that was the premise behind the 1914 versions that were made after the First World War had ended. I know crosses being made into the 50s and 60s is a stretch, but if veterans were still alive, and they were, the concept still has validity.

Totally agreed. Although official awards ceased in 1924, anything made thereafter with the intention of providing an original recipient an EK to replace his original award-issue -- whether TR-era 1914 EKs or anything else -- should not be called a "copy." This term reeks of duplicitousness and is often used interchangeably with "fake." It's not only misleading, it's incorrect.

If the term is modified as "jeweler's copy" or "wearer's copy," it differentiates it from those items manufactured with the intention of deceiving collectors. These terms, by virtue of having been in use in the collectors' community for years, have no stigma attached to them. They denote something specific - no more and no less. "Dupla," I think, generally refers to a "jeweler's copy" or "wearer's copy" that was produced during the award period.

these are copies or fakes (or wearer's copy or jeweler's copy or 1957 version or replacement cross or whatever you want).

With respect, the terms Uwe lumps together above are not interchangeable. I know there is a school of thought (prevalent in Germany) that holds that any decoration that is not an official award piece is a "copy." I may be wrong, but I think Jorg Nimmergut is an exponent of this view. One of those big guys is, maybe not Nimmergut. It is too restrictive for my liking, as it excludes all LDO pieces, Prinzengroßen, etc., from inclusion in any "correct" collection.

I think this is a valuable discussion.

~Trevor