Opinions on this 1813 EK2

[Doug See]

Any other EK collectors see this one on eBay? To me, it looks like a 100 year anniversary reissue from around 1913, or maybe even a jewelers piece made 1870-95. As such, it's a nice piece with the jewelers envelope. I just couldn't bring myself to believe it was an early 1813-1830's piece. I could be wrong and may have missed a good deal...? Any other opinions?http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=1085489122

[Eric Stahlhut]

While I doubt that is an original issue piece, I can assure you that it definitely is not from Latvia!

[stogieman]

Well, I liked it

I liked this one. My best estimate was ca. 1840-1870. I took a fly, but based upon construction style, it's not an issue piece, type I, or II. Still a nice cross, but maxed out at a final bid of $610.

[Doug See]

Rick, I liked it too, but not quite that much, at least for now. I bought one very similar to it (1860-90 period), but minus the envelope, at a show for under $400.
I wonder if the new owner will research the jeweler to see when he was in business. Ever seen the 1913 100th anniversary reissue 1813's? There were a couple on eBay about two years ago, and came with the printed envelope 1813-1913. That's why I am always a little suspicious of 1813 EK's which look to be post 1830's. They seem to have frames that look very much like late 1870's or 1914's.
It will be a while, if ever, before I am totally comfortable identifying a real issue (1813-1830's) 1813 EK, unless I know it's provenance.

[Bill M]

--The only EK's 1st or 2nd that I am comfortable with are as different in features than the vast majority out there as night and day. That is not to say that the ones that I avoid with the more modern core and 1914 style frames are bad, just not as early as to be pitted in the 'right way' or have the thin, cruder frames which I would prefer to see.
--I have no way of knowing anything about 'real' centennial issues or late 1900's pieces for that matter. To me (my perception - not the facts, mind you!) these pieces are all 1914's with the core gound down.
--I had my share of grief with these, a lot of aggravation before I was able to track down a good 2. Two went back, but I got burned with another ( too late came the truth on that one ).
--I would be very interested in hearing about the FACTS on the centennial issues, or would at least like to see if any of you guys has pictures of them.
--I'll try to post a pic of the one that I got burned on if anyone is interested in scrutinizing...

[stogieman]

Bring 'em on!

Hi Bill, I'd like to see the pictures. I've never subscribed to the Centennial re-issue theory as there are not any period references to this as fact. I've only owned one real 1813, 2. kl., and it came from Detlev Niemann. Was circa 1840, and the construction type is what we are used to seeing an 1870 and 1914 pieces. BUT, it had a significantly wider silver frame. I am comfortable with the differing construction techniques as there is so much solid evidence that winners of this cross waited well into the 1840-50's to receive their awards. (Due to all the initial production problems).

[stogieman]

Regarding Rosenthal

Court Jewelers of The World, by Jeffrey R. Jacob, cites a Rosenthal, Berlin, as being in business circa 1860. I do not know how they researched this information, but I suspect they were there prior to that.

[Doug See]

Good info on Rosenthal, thanks. That's the way we all learn.

I wish I had saved the photos of the 1813-1913 pieces that were on eBay about three years ago. One can never tell until you hold it in your hand, but the two color, red and black envelopes that came with these looked pretty convincing--old script, lots of engravings, and aged. I'm in the printing industry, and it would havebeen difficult to counterfeit the typestyles and engravings, unless someone made a litho photo from an original, which would again indicate there were original envelopes to copy.

Someday, we'll find out....

[Eric Stahlhut]

Another interesting aspect of this example is the ribbon. It looks to be of the earlier type which had the flimsier and'flaky' properties on the white sections, which are not seen on later production pieces. My best guess is that it is a piece from between 1830-1860 made for those veterans who were on a regimental inheritance list.