1870 with oaks and spange

[gregM]

Here is a 1870 Ek2 that might inspire some discussion.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1870-Iron-cross-...3A1%7C294%3A50

Disregard the prinzen, it's an obvious fake. This is about the fullsized
version.

The spange is of coarse a big question mark. So are the oaks in my opinion. So that leaves the cross. Look at the core. It's not a 9th bead
fake. It's got a "flat 8" and good detail to the crown. But my gut says
FAKE.

Notice the provided pictures of the core details are way darker than
the other pictures. Accident? I think not. Thank goodness for photoshop.

[regular122]

I find it interesting that he has three spanges for sale including the one on this cross. He also had a questionable Meritorious Unit Citation for an Australian Unit on his auctions. Seal was marked 'War Office' instead of Department of Army, as it would have been in 1970 and it was printed instead of a gold foil impression.

The oaks have the letters in straight style rather than the legit serif style. All the circumstances add up to lots of doubt. Still, interesting that a cross is there that has good characteristics on the crown and 8. Maybe the fakers are getting better? Steve

[gregM]

I can not say 100% about the core. I would really like to see a good
straight on shot of the front of the cross. The reverse date looks a
bit wonky but other than that there is no evidence the core is good or
bad. (need better pictures)

Did anyone else notice the KO marked ribbon ring?

1914 spange, sans-serif style oakleaves, KO marked ring, all say fake.
But the core scares me. Either this is a good core that has been fit into
this fake setup OR we've got a new fake 1870 core that is really good.

[Biro]

The 1914 WHS, non serif oaks and 'KO' marked ribbon ring are usually paired up with the 9th bead fake core. They are offered time and again on ebay and by some dealers.

Looking at the mis-aligned lower right hand arm of the full size EK2, I would guess the frame has been taken apart and the core replaced, because the core looks absolutely genuine from where I sit.

The prinzen is the usual 'small crown' crappy fake.

[RAO]

My english is unfortunately so bad, could someone with the seller is a picture of the front crown and revers cron request?
I guess the cross is a complett copy, unfortunately.
Thanks + Regards, Mike

[streptile]

My english is unfortunately so bad, could someone with the seller is a picture of the front crown and revers cron request?
I guess the cross is a complett copy, unfortunately.
Thanks + Regards, Mike

I will make a request. Whether I receive any photos in reply is another question

[streptile]

New Photos

New photos from seller.

My considered feeling, given the KO marked ribbon ring and the seemingly indistinct details of the core -- especially the reverse date -- is that this is probably a very dangerous new fake with a core newly cast using an original as a mold. Given the suspect accessories (well-known, as Marshall says, from many 9th Bead Fake sets previously available on eBay), I'd guess the same folks made up this piece. They've no doubt learned from their mistakes.

Alternatively, it could be a real core swapped into an Imperial EK frame like the 9th-Bead fakes. But where would someone get a real core without a real frame?

I guess it could also be a piece made up during WWI with a leftover (reject?) core, but this seems so unlikely as to be almost ridiculous.

I am very curious to hear others' thoughts.









My thanks to the seller, if you're reading, for the new photos.

[gregM]

Trevor,
Thanks for the additional pictures. At best this is a period core that
has been transplanted.

My opinion, given the new photos, is that this is a cast fake core. I have
no proof but looking at rough finish (air bubbles?) to the date and "W",
It certainly lacks the finish of a good original.

This is scarey.

[Don D.]

Thanks for the heads up Greg. I'm sure we will see more of these popping up.

[streptile]

Hi Greg and Don.

My opinion, given the new photos, is that this is a cast fake core. I have no proof but looking at rough finish (air bubbles?) to the date and "W", It certainly lacks the finish of a good original. This is scarey.

Yes, this is exactly what I thought (see above the new photos). Scary indeed.

I think we know how to spot the problems with this exact one, but change a few more little things and...

You know, I have noticed that there are a lot of 1870 EK2s on dealer's sites recently. A lot.

[RAO]

I do not believe, that we see here is an original. There are enough 100% original why buying this cross? For me

Regards Mike

[regular122]

Also is a shame that so many good 1914 EK2s get sacrificed to make bad pieces. I know there were a couple of million of them, but still sad.

This is definitely one to watch Greg. Thanks for alerting us. Steve

[Marc Garlasco]

VERY interesting. Time to watch out for more of these. If indeed a casting as it appeas, we will start to see more. Watch the W, looks to be the key to identify it. The casting picks up the details of the original. Gotta start looking for siblings!

[Tiger 1]

Good eye!

As Marc mentioned the W looks weak.

Check out the shape of the 3 on the reverse 1813. It looks out of sorts also. Overly thick at the lower curve.


Tony

[streptile]

Good eye! As Marc mentioned the W looks weak.

I agree. Also the reverse date, especially the '3' of 1813, looks soft to me.