1813 EKs - ...question.

[AlikN]

So would it be correct to say that those three types were used to award in 1830s and not a private purchase pieces?

[Brian S]

No, please show me one good fake of GC that looks like an original in all aspects, meaning cast iron core with correct finish, correct frames and the way they assembled.

Floch.

[oldflagswanted]

current technology examined too ???

No, please show me one good fake of GC that looks like an original in all aspects,
meaning cast iron core with correct finish, correct frames and the way they assembled.

...and also spectro tested for no zinc traces in the IC metal,
zinc being added to the modern smelting process for bulk iron and
other metal ingot molding circa the late 19th Century.

[AlikN]

Floch.

Can you point to a picture of the GC made by Floch.

[AlikN]

...and also spectro tested for no zinc traces in the IC metal,
zinc being added to the modern smelting process for bulk iron and
other metal ingot molding circa the late 19th Century.

Yes technology is good also, depending on what period the item supposedly from, should be identical materials as on known originals from that period.

[Brian S]

Can you point to a picture of the GC made by Floch.

Sorry, this conversation is getting tiring, now we are restricting conversations to GC's only? Good luck with your collecting.

[Montgomery Burns]

interesting , and a lot to learn from this thread

[Elmar Lang]

Yes, I see that the discussion has gone a little bit off-topic; but I think that a picture of a Floch EK-GK/1813 would be appreciated from most of us...

Best wishes,

Elmar Lang

[Brian S]

Any one of the fake GC 1813 could have been manufactured by Floch, he doesn't sign his work.

Here's something for 4,000 on ebay now, with a COA... COA genuine? Cross has the 'look'.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-1813-Ir...item4cec9388de

[AlikN]

I don't think those type of fakes were ever made by Floch, ....never seen one, ...he never signs his work and we always recognize it one way or the other, so if you don't have any evidence to support your theory, than please don't start an other roomer.
...Here is another question about re-cycle of 1813 EKs, ...lets say in 1840s-1850s production of EKs were picked up by other companies or the same companies made enough EKs that there were no more shortage for the awards, ....did they still taking the EKs back from families of passed away veterans?

[Brian S]

You do understand you started the thread you don't own it? Nor do you own the right to put words in my mouth. I didn't say Floch made these... You asked about fakes that looked right in all respects and for the longest time Floch EKs were considered good. We know EK1s from him by his pin and hardware. I'm saying fakes of 1813's are out there and we've seen them. Who made them is immaterial. You asked about fakes, I gave you an example. Please don't make this so personal. You've done this before and I don't appreciate it. Why don't you show us your 1813 collection and explain to us why it's so beyond reproach?

[AlikN]

The problem of Floch made item that they NOT in all aspects looks like an original (maybe to a new collector), but if you put side by side to an original the best looking Floch, any half advanced collector will point out the difference for you, the same goes for any GC or EK if side by side it looks identical in ALL aspects, not just because it's an iron cross and looks like a good quality. Just like the one you point out on e-bay, side by side it looks identical to one made in 1830s, ....do you see any connection to Floch? ....and that what I mean in post # 41 side by side identical in ALL aspects .

[streptile]

This cross is being sold by a WAF member, and I personally think it is a good one.



As I understand it (and as I've said), these cores were cast in tress, which means that a few different molds existed side-by-side, presumably with minor differences (serifs, etc.) between them. The core on the eBay cross seems to have been cast in the same mold as Marshall's (next to it in Alikn's montage above), which I find to be among the most beautiful of the EK2s shown in this thread. It is the same mold, again to my eye, which cast the core of the cross attributed to King Friedrich Wilhelm III in The Iron Time (pp 36-37 2nd Ed.).

However, Brian's point should not be taken lightly. Everyone must decide for themselves how comfortable they are with one of these crosses they decide to buy; just because a given cross matches known originals in all particulars that we now recognize, does not mean that something will not become known in the future to change that. The Floch 1939 EK1s are the perfect example of this phenomenon, just as Brian says. They were magnificent forgeries... until they were not. It was our understanding of what constitutes an original that evolved, not the crosses. To think that a similar change could not occur with respect to 1813 EK2s would be, well... unimaginative at least.

[AlikN]

.... Please don't make this so personal. You've done this before and I don't appreciate it....

Please show me when and where, ..........I think you are the one who should read more carefull............

....to me feels like you are making it personal and I can point it where on the forum, .... because I sad that his LCTB is cast repo he is on my tail now.

[AlikN]

I understand that fakers are getting better, but I have not seen a perfect fake yet that is in every way as original, ....dies don't lie and no way how close it will look, it will never have an original dies with the same identifiable micro die flaws and some other characteristics of the core and frames combined together, fakers always getting something wrong and usually product shows in quantity, meaning in year or two every dealer at shows will have one of that type.