Announcement

**Biro** · 02-14-2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Tamerlane

But what about Sedlatzek? I just looked through "The Iron Time" again, and I didn't see any reference to them. Tim

Hi Tim

That's kinda the reason why I asked the original question.....I don't see any mention of a fourth maker in the Iron Time either.

That dosen't mean it's not there, it just means I can't see it...

Regards..

**Bill M** · 02-15-2004, 12:03 AM

"Yes. The fakes that regularly appear with the "J" instead of the "I" have been labeled as fakes by Detlev Niemann, and even the more forgiving collectors out there consider them "later" copies. The core details of those pieces are completely different than the originals, so as far as I'm concerned, they are not for my collection."
--Tim, do I understand correctly that Detlev and yourself are both of the opinion that the 'J' marked Wagners are ALL fakes?

**Tim Tezer** · 02-15-2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Bill M

--Tim, do I understand correctly that Detlev and yourself are both of the opinion that the 'J' marked Wagners are ALL fakes?

I wouldn's speak for Detlev, but from my observations it seems that MOST of the "J" marked pieces are fakes. I would stop short of saying all of them, because there are many that I have not had the opportunity to examine, or have not seen photos that were clear enough to make a distinction.

It is, of course, possible that Wagner may have made private purchase pieces later that were marked differently than the original issued ones. It is also possible that they may have had completely different iron cores if they were made many years after 1871 - perhaps in the 1890's or even during WW1. But the sheer quantity of 1870 EK1s with the "J" hallmark is enough to convince me that something is wrong. I must have seen three or four dozen of them for sale in the last 5 or 6 years. In that time, Detlev has had maybe 4 or 5 original and totally correct Wagner pieces, and I have seen 2 or 3 other originals in auction catalogs such as Andreas Thies. That means less than 10 textbook original examples in all those years, and easily 4 times as many "J" examples available on Ebay, or from other sources.

The real issue here isn't so much whether they used the same die to stamp their maker's mark, or whether one die had a J instead of an I. The issue is that the style of manufacture of Iron Crosses changed over time, and 1870's had a particular look. If a faker uses a 1914 Iron Cross as his model, it will not look like an 1870 Iron Cross.

Tim

**Bill M** · 02-15-2004, 10:02 PM

--Tim, thanks for clarifying.
--Anyone else for going into this further?
--I for one have never seen an 'I' or a 'J' with identical core details - most specifically the dates differ in that 'I' crosses' dates are totally flat. I have had discussions about the Wagners with a few different people who I totally respect, but who erred, in my estimation - totally confusing the issue. I corresponded with one very reputable dealer who told me in one sentence that the dates on 1870's Wagners must be flat and that there are NO "J's" and in the next that one should never see an umlaut above the 'o' in Loth'; not the only one to say that, as a matter of fact - I've heard that a few times ('it's not proper German') but have yet to see a cross marked 'Loth' without the umlaut (if Max Aurich had one with the O 'umlauted' then that's good enough for me).
--There are also those who would never touch a 'Lotig' cross.
--My take is that if these crosses didn't appear in the old references - they didn't exist to some people.
--I've read statements in 'The' reference book regarding the relationship between the 'I'/'J' and 'Loth'/'Lotig' which I also think is not correct.
--Lot's of conflicting opinions!
--I think if they were ALL forgeries, the person doing the forging would be pretty stupid if all known examples were known to be only marked 'I'. Like cloning Frank Sinatra and giving him brown eyes, no?
--Now of course I have a "J Wagner & S 14 Loth", so going into this is a vested interest for me - the dates on mine are not flat, the 'o' has an umlaut and the detail completely crushes that of any of my 1914 EK1's and is only comparable to, yes, details of an 1870 EK2. The silver frame is also of fine construction. I will need to go to my other computer to post a pic, but I know that George Stimpson has a photo of his somewhere around and that mine is it's twin. This type cross can never be confused with the "J's" we all know are not legit.
--These last two paragraphs contain my slant on the issue, anyway!

**Brian S** · 02-15-2004, 10:23 PM

Please let's see a photo of this one Bill.

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 12:33 AM

ASAP, I promise!

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 01:38 AM

Sorry, the colors aren't quite right due to the lighting, but I was going for detail...
--uh, where is it??
--Ooops wrong post!

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 02:01 AM

--Here's the lightened photo. The crown should show up better here....

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 02:09 AM

...

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 02:13 AM

the back. Again, the colors are a little off...

--The weights and measurements are up to code, I'll look for them as well or do them again as soon as I can...

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 02:18 AM

---Tried to get a depth perception of the crown, don't know if it's an effective picture but....

Attached Files

zWEMcrwn18701.jpg (123.0 KB, 325 views)

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 02:22 AM

--Specifications:
-Weight is 14.6 Grams
-Height is 42.9mm
-Width is 43mm
*Just noticed upon returning downstairs to the other computer that there is a difference between my two monitors. The photos look darker down here, less detail/darker crown (not as good a monitor, I'm afraid). Let me know if I have to lighten the photos a bit, would you?
{fixed it, thanks!}

**Biro** · 02-16-2004, 09:11 AM

I corresponded with one very reputable dealer who told me in one sentence that the dates on 1870's Wagners must be flat.....There are also those who would never touch a 'Lotig' cross...Bill M

Guess it depends whose camp you're in.....

Detlev, it appears, is not exactly what you'd call 'undecided' about these.....

Attached Files

Detlev Orig & Copy.jpg (101.6 KB, 310 views)

**Biro** · 02-16-2004, 09:14 AM

.

I corresponded with one very reputable dealer who told me in one sentence that the dates on 1870's Wagners must be flat.....There are also those who would never touch a 'Lotig' cross...Bill M

Whereas Mr Previtera, with a 'rounded' date AND a 'Lotig' seems a little more forgiving...

Attached Files

previtera.JPG (55.1 KB, 303 views)

**Bill M** · 02-16-2004, 04:18 PM

--Ok I have found the main bit of correspondence here, it seems I was mistaken regarding the 'dates must be flat' part of the exchange (could have been a different time or person. I didn't save my outgoing inquiries, but will fill in the blanks as I recall the inquiries.
--I don't think I am being out of line here, it's just that I usually am very sensitive regarding privacy. I have the utmost respect for Detlev, if I am out of line, please let me know but as it is nothing slanderous or mean-spirited I figured it would be ok.

--The dates of the correspondence are between 7/9 and 7/10 of 2001 and primarily regard photos that I wanted his opinion on in "The Iron Time".

Subj: AW: AW: Just a question if you have time...
Date: 07/09/2001 7:26:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: dn@detlev-niemann.de (Detlev Niemann)
To: JgdPanzer@aol.com

Hi Bill.
Unfortunatly I'm flooded with work for today and tomorrow and don't have my archiv at hand.
Please tell me on which page in I"ron Tiem" the IC is
regards
detlev

--Upon which I provided the page numbers of the Cross(es) in question:

Hi Bill.
I have never seen an IC 1st class 1870 with "Lötig" from a good source or provenience.
I wouldn't touch the IC on page 113.
The cross on top page 114 looks fine.(Exept the repaired/changed pin).
regards
detlev

--Upon looking to clarify the statements on page 115 where it states "Lotig is also used on the back of 1870 First Classes, but always in conjunction with the first letter preceding "Wagner" appearing as a "J". When the letter appears as an "I". the spelling "Loth" is used." I inquired as to the use of "J" and "Loth" because I felt that the author's deduction was wrong:

Hi Bill.
No the reverse should be "I" and "Loth" not "J" and "Löth"
regards
detlev

--And finally, upon asking whether I was correct to assume that any cross with an umlaut over the 'o' was not correct, as he left the umlaut out of the former:

Yes,exactly this is the common opinion in several german leading reference books.
Keypoint is that it should be "o" and not "ö"
regards
detlev

--I am not so closed minded and afraid that I have been wrong to accept the truth and have done so graciously in the past when a clunker has slipped by, but in this case I am far from convinced that this is the case here.
--I think this is a very important issue before us as we have experienced collectors here with J Wagner crosses such as those pictured, and delegating these to the garbage would be a crime at best if they are not in fact 'copies'.
--We know of the influx of fake "J's" from Eastern Europe and the paranoia they have instilled in us, but those are a far cry from the 'J' crosses I am talking about.
--I am going to take a break to eat and form my thoughts as to the implications of the information I've presented here when referenced with other available information and attempt to clarify. I may start another thread dealing with this in an effort to get the highest possible input.
--At the moment, whatever the ultimate conclusion and with all respect to Detlev and Stephen Previtera, let's look at the evidence alone and then from whence it comes.
--Please feel free to comment as you see fit, see you soon!
--Oooooh, this is very exciting, isn't it?!

Announcement

1870 EK1 makers..

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread