Interesting EK1

[Ron P]

By the way, I believe it is made of brass. Regards, Ron.

[Ron P]

By the way, I believe it is made of brass. Regards, Ron.

More likely bronze or tombac. Ron.

[Ammersee]

I copied these pics of a "strange cross" that sold on ebay. I didn't know what to make of it. It looks old and well made, but the style...

Anyway, the core of this cross looks very similar to the one Ron posted. Ammersee

[Ammersee]

back

[Kraal]

Its the same cross just with filed down "frame"...

I don´t have much pics of one piece Crosses on my PC, but heres a an original one piece EK1.



Notice silvered brass, structured core, the 11 pearls on the crowns wreath, the inclined middle part of the W, the 9 that doesn´t close correctly and the wide open 4. That is the type if the Cross I consider to be Original, I´ve seen it as EK2 version too.

There are several pretty similar crosses I´ve seen, that have one or more of the following points:
- 12 pearls on the crowns wreath
- straight middle part of the W
- teardrop on the 9´s
- closed nine
- near closed 4

Not sure about this ones, I consider them to be fakes, but still working on this to find proofes for originality. Anyhow, they are pretty equal to the EK1/EK2 of the type I posted, but they have nothing to do with such crosses shown here.

(if anyone has pics of one piece cross bearers I´d be happy if he shares)


greetings
kraal

[Montgomery Burns]

I understand Kraal ,,,and he is right to be hard on this .

but maybe we should remember advertisement I found ,,,
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=423496

and realise that in the past the ek was not only made fore awarding soldiers ..
it has being abused fore many reasons

fore myself ,,,I rely don't know about this one .

aim not holding it in hand to see what going on with this one .
so ,half off the things needed to give it a good judgement is missing

from the pictures I say
I wood not buy it and give it a chance to be between originals to be honest .
but that wood be only gut feeling to ( and only judged by pictures I see )

questionable cross ,,and maybe fore ever

regards kay

[ekhunter]

One Piece

Thanks for the photo Kraal! I know when most people think of one piece crosses, that a red flag usually goes up, and rightfully so, but I personally don't have any problem with the example that Ron showed. I like the detail and size of the crown, as compared to the others shown. It is not exactly like any of the others shown. If they were fakes, I believe that you would see a lot more of them around, they wouldn't have the detail that they do, and they would have been faked/made at a time when a WWI second class could have been bought for 5 to 10 dollars, as I know for a fact, that examples like the one that Ron possesses is at least 40 years old. I believe these to be made of tombak, or something similiar to a higher zinc content. I wouldn't be too quick too discount these particular one piece crosses. Just MHO! Good Thread! Enjoy reading the opinions on these. I would love if Micha reads this and comments.

[Ron P]

Thanks for the photo Kraal! I know when most people think of one piece crosses, that a red flag usually goes up, and rightfully so, but I personally don't have any problem with the example that Ron showed. I like the detail and size of the crown, as compared to the others shown. It is not exactly like any of the others shown. If they were fakes, I believe that you would see a lot more of them around, they wouldn't have the detail that they do, and they would have been faked/made at a time when a WWI second class could have been bought for 5 to 10 dollars, as I know for a fact, that examples like the one that Ron possesses is at least 40 years old. I believe these to be made of tombak, or something similiar to a higher zinc content. I wouldn't be too quick too discount these particular one piece crosses. Just MHO! Good Thread! Enjoy reading the opinions on these. I would love if Micha reads this and comments.

I absolutely agree. Believe me , the cross is old, not artificially aged. The one posted by Ammersee is vaguely similar in style and not made of the same material. Regards, Ron.

[streptile]

The one posted by Ammersee is vaguely similar in style and not made of the same material. Regards, Ron.

Hi Ron,

I believe the one Ammersee posted is identical in every respect, except that the "frames" have been trimmed narrower. Thus, I have no problems with that one, either.

I have held this cross (well, this type), and I have 1000% more confidence in it than I do, for example, in this one-piece, that is accepted as a period piece by most:



I also agree with Andy that the most accepted authentic one-piece EKs are these:



In my opinion these were made by Otto Schickle in the 1920s and 1930s. They may be found in both classes.

There may continue to be questions about Ron's piece -- that is fine. But, for me personally, I am happy with the authenticity of it. I am also happy to be proven wrong, if that happens.

[kriztof]

Greetings Gentlemen

My name is Chris Also known as Kriztofer on ***, WTG & GMIC. This is my first post on this forum to date.

I would like to comment on Ron's EK2. I realize that I'm unknown to most of you and that my opinion probably means zip but, here it is anyway

I see no problem with Ron's Ek2. It has every attribute of an original, 1914-1918 piece albiet it's differences which, for me, makes collecting Imperial EKs the most interesting part. I believe this to be a war time produced cross because of the design of the date which is concurrent with war time production.

I don't believe this to be a copy and I agree with EKhunter, there was/is not a profit margin for faking Imperial EK2's, a short time ago you could buy one for 20 euros.

Ron, I will gladly take this cross off your hands if you have any doubts as it's the first one I have seen like this so, to me, that makes it very unique, almost as unique as the Blue core/sheet metal EK2s which, are far and few between.

Best regards,

Chris

[Ron P]

Thank you for your comments Chris. I too collect Imperial EK's because of the many variations to be found. I do not have any two that are identical. Regards, Ron. P.S. I just noticed I listed this as an EK1 in the heading!

[kriztof]

Ron, I took the liberty of copying your image and I enlarged it for a better view. I noticed a small detail which I have never seen on the 20-TR Imperials and that is the pebbling on the base of the acorns, I've only noticed this feature on certain 1914-18 pieces. This is only my personal viewpoint and I've not seen every 20-TR model.

The other thing I found interesting was the flute of the oak sprig is reversed. Definitely a very interesting Cross worthy of more study.


Chris

[Ron P]

Ron, I took the liberty of copying your image and I enlarged it for a better view. I noticed a small detail which I have never seen on the 20-TR Imperials and that is the pebbling on the base of the acorns, I've only noticed this feature on certain 1914-18 pieces. This is only my personal viewpoint and I've not seen every 20-TR model.

The other thing I found interesting was the flute of the oak sprig is reversed. Definitely a very interesting Cross worthy of more study.


Chris

Hi Chris. Feel free to post the enlarged photo if you want to. I did not notice the flute until you pointed it out. Very interesting.

[kriztof]

Would if I could Ron but I think I need a certain amount of posts' before I can attach images. Not sure how many I need?


Chris

[Ron P]

Would if I could Ron but I think I need a certain amount of posts' before I can attach images. Not sure how many I need?


Chris

You need to pay $25 membership fee. Worth every penny. Regards, Ron.