Very dangerous EK fakes

[morel5000]

Hi,

personally I would not buy there.

IMO these are 1870 9th bead fakes:

http://www.liverpoolmedals.com/Iron-...1-pr-3591.html

http://www.liverpoolmedals.com/Iron-...4-pr-3560.html

http://www.liverpoolmedals.com/Iron-...4-pr-5340.html

So... If I am correct I personally would not buy a 1813 cross there..

Best regards,
Michel

[DavidM]

Hi,

personally I would not buy there.

IMO these are 1870 9th bead fakes:

http://www.liverpoolmedals.com/Iron-...1-pr-3591.html

http://www.liverpoolmedals.com/Iron-...4-pr-3560.html

http://www.liverpoolmedals.com/Iron-...4-pr-5340.html

So... If I am correct I personally would not buy a 1813 cross there..

Best regards,
Michel

Hello

I see what you mean. The ninth bead on all those 1870's is pretty prominent compared with the other beads. As I said earlier, they have more 1813s than I've ever seen in one place before, along with all the others, including what I am led to believe are the very rare 1914 bars as issued to people in WW1 who held an 1870 EK2 and then won one in WW1 - but got the bar instead of the EK.

I think I might give Liverpool medals a wide berth!!!

Regards
David

[Roglebk]

Hello

I don't know if the EK shown here is a fake or not, but that Liverpool medals site has more 1813 EK2s on it than I have seen in my life. Oh, and don't forget the 1870 EK2 prinzen size, 1870 EK1 prinzen size as well as their normal sized versions. If they are all genuine originals then they have some very nice stock.

The question is, are any of them any good?

Regards
David

Hi David, not sure about the 1813 Prinzen, better pics is a must. 1870 EKI Prinzen is the so called "stepped core fake". 1870 EKII Prinzen looks good, that one is on hold.

[Brian S]

I could do a better job with a hack saw than that EK... Not for me.

[AlikN]

My concern stems from two main factors.

1. The site is riddled with fakes, all of them passed off as good.

2. Their selection of five 1813 EK2s also includes this one, with the same exact core,
......Personally I wouldn't touch them. Although I do think they look quite good, so do many of their other ones which I also think are doubtful.

...So you are saying that all crosses with this type of core are fakes ?

btw ... some fakes on the site doesn't make everything bad

[streptile]

...So you are saying that all crosses with this type of core are fakes ?

btw ... some fakes on the site doesn't make everything bad

True.

No, I'm saying that crosses with that wonky frame cut-out are doubtful. Never seen it on a real 1813 EK2. Both these have it, which is why I think they're fakes, and yet the core looks good, which is why I think they're dangerous.

[lewjian]

No, I'm saying that crosses with that wonky frame cut-out are doubtful. Never seen it on a real 1813 EK2. Both these have it, which is why I think they're fakes, and yet the core looks good, which is why I think they're dangerous.

Look, the pre1815 made crosses are with poorer frame constructions. If our crosses are made around 1830s as Stephens book said, then the frames are exactly what they should look like, you can't compare them with 1870 and 1914standard.
In contrary I think the frames are good indications. If you look at those common fakes of 1813EK2 with stepped core, they all have the same frames, cores and the ring setup. The reason is simple, cause they are all from the same mass production. Same goes to 9th bead 1870EK and other fakes.
The cores are not problematic. Oak leaves and date are looking good, all these few examples are with good detail and varys from one to another. If there is not trace of re-assambly to the frames, I would say they are good.
By the way, if you really don't like Liverpool medals, here is one with wide frame from a better dealer perhaps.
http://www.emedals.ca/catalog.asp?item=GST479

[streptile]

Look, the pre1815 made crosses are with poorer frame constructions.

Yes, poor frame construction: split seams, even notch-and-pin systems falling apart. We've probably all seen what "poor frame construction" looks like on a good pre-1815 EK2. It does not look anything like those shown in this thread, to me. Plus, a poor frame construction on an 1813 EK2 without a stepped core puts in two different time periods: pre-1815 (poor frame) and post-1815 (no stepped core). How do you reconcile this?

If our crosses are made around 1830s as Stephens book said, then the frames are exactly what they should look like, you can't compare them with 1870 and 1914standard.

I said nothing about your crosses, unless you are Liverpool Medals. Are you a representative of Liverpool Medals (seriously)? And I rather compare them to good 1813 crosses such as these, not 1914 or 1870s:





The Liverpool ones look very different to me.

In contrary I think the frames are good indications.

Please show me a known original 1813 EK2 with frames that have this kind of problem, and I will happily agree with you .

The cores are not problematic.

I believe the cores are very problematic, as they look very much like originals, but are in my opinion fakes. This, to me, is a big problem!

[lewjian]

Yes, poor frame construction: split seams, even notch-and-pin systems falling apart. We've probably all seen what "poor frame construction" looks like on a good pre-1815 EK2. It does not look anything like those shown in this thread, to me. Plus, a poor frame construction on an 1813 EK2 without a stepped core puts in two different time periods: pre-1815 (poor frame) and post-1815 (no stepped core). How do you reconcile this?

My point is the random quality in early corsses that gives all kind of werid looks, which is a very insteresting part. Alikn and my examples are with relatively regular frames that we both agree now are good, however it doesn't mean the different ones are bad as I said before.


For the cores, I have to say they are just as good as the others.



By the way I have nothing to do with Liverpool Medals, have not even been England before.

[morel5000]

Hi,

not being an expert on 1813 crosses, however I think that a dealer should:

1) post good pictures; (I even think the ones on Detlev are too small, Schultze got it right, the 1813 cross on Liverpool medals is not good enough.)
2) should at least react to emails about fakes.*

* I sent an email to Liverpool medals on the 26th January 2009 about one of the 9Th bead fakes, Never got any response.

So I don't want to argue if the 1813 is good or bad, but If you buy a cross there and pay roughly 1500 Pounds for it I myself would not sleep well as I don't trust the dealer.

It's too bad they do not offer better pictures. I would not buy anything
from them based on these poor images.---Kind of makes you wonder
if the bad pictures are on purpose.

By GregM

As already mentioned, it looks like the 1813 crosses detailed pictures are scaled (I see smudged jpeg features) while the 1870 ones are at least in original resolution. On purpose?!

Best Regards,
Michel

This is the mail:

Dear Sir,

While searching for Imperial medals I found your site (google) and browsed to your rather nice German Imperial section. However I have one remark:

I'm convinced that your L13634 : Iron Cross 1870 2nd class (L13634) G.V.F. £345 is a reproduction commonly known as the "9th bead fake" (due to the fact that the 9th bead of the 1870 side crown is rather pronounced). It also possesses the "over and under 8", which also a core detail of that reproduction.

Hoping to have informed you,

Sincerely Yours,
.

[gregM]

I agree that the pictures look to be jpegs that have pixeled out do to being
enlarged. It's a nice trick--posting thumbnail pictures that get blurry when
you try to see the details. Makes it look like it's (not) on purpose. I don't like their crosses. I think the 1813s are 1914s using a very convinceing
cast fake core. I think the core details are all to week.

Can I proove it --NO. But I just don't have a good feeling about them and
for that kind of money, I want to be sure.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[AlikN]

The cross I posted not mine, but I know who has it and I wanted to buy it (assuming it's accepted original from 1830's, ... just like the iron book describes), owner of the cross and I haven't agreed on $$$ yet,
......so... I should pass on it ?
....here are the pics of both sides.

[streptile]

The cross I posted not mine, but I know who has it and I wanted to buy it (assuming it's accepted original from 1830's, ... just like the iron book describes), owner of the cross and I haven't agreed on $$$ yet,
......so... I should pass on it ?
....here are the pics of both sides.

Yeesh. I don't feel qualified to make an absolute judgment myself, but if it was me? I'd buy it because I think it's original. The frame cutout looks like other originals I've seen. The core looks correct. The photos are good. The ribbon ring is large, which is also correct. I would not buy it without knowing its measurements, however, which should be pretty close to 41mm h and 41mm w.

[regular122]

I'm wary of any 1813 era EK2 without a cracked core personally. Don't know a lot about these but any site that has many of them kinda makes me think of Snyder's.

Here is the only example of one I can offer for comparison. Steve