1870 EK1 makers..

[Brian S]

Isn't this an umlaut?

I imagine the one Detlev had could have been cleaned because the lack of 130 years of patina makes does not make me more convinced...

I remain unconvinced of what's right and wrong here.

[Biro]

Brian - I spotted that umlaut as well...

and I'm with Brian and Bill - all I'm convinced about at the moment, is that two of our three 'luminaries' in the field (and I'm referring to Detlev and Stephen Previtera so far..) are not even in agreement about what is REAL let alone what is fake.......and that's pretty disconserting stuff considering the only 1870 EK1's most of us will ever get the chance to purchase will inevitably be marked - you guessed it - ......Wagner!

Naturally, they are perfectly entitled to differ in opinion on various things, and we must be very careful about how we use Bill's transcript of his discussion with Detlev - but we must endeavour to get some 'high level' input into this discussion.....no offense to the contributors so far, OF COURSE...

This, as Bill pointed out, effects a LOT of people here one way or another.......

[Brian S]

This cross warrants some research or at least illumination of research already done. I agree Biro.

[Tim Tezer]

I asked Steve Previtera if he thought that the "J" marked pieces weren't later - possibly fakes - and he said "Sure, they're probably made later, but I don't think they're fake." So even he agreed that they were not a variant made at the time of award. That was a couple of years ago, and in the intervening years I have come to accept that the crosses marked "J" that we've been seeing all over are pure fakes. That's just my own conclusion, but as the photo comparison from Detlev's site illustrates, there are HUGE differences between the "J" crosses and the "I" originals.

Whatever happened to the mention of Friedrich Sedlatzek, though? I'm curious is anyone has more information about that.

Tim

[Tim Tezer]

But there may be more than meets the eye

Bill,

I looked over the photos you posted and here's a possible explanation that would make all of this make some kind of sense:

As I said before, I don't doubt that Wagner made private purchase examples, and may have still been making them up to 1918, or even after. Hindenburg was an 1870 EK1 recipient, and he wore all his bling-bling on state occasions right up until he died in 1934 (without looking the date up - I hope that's correct).

What I'm getting at is maybe there ARE "J" marked pieces that were made by Wagner at a later date, and maybe the cores were completely different than the 1870-71 made pieces. Maybe the fakers got hold of an original Wagner piece (but a WWI era example) and made their knock-offs from that.

If that were the case, it would muddy the water considerably. But in order to prove it, somebody would have to come up with an example of a "J" marked piece that is still in a group to an original recipient - and that's not an easy task. Hindenburg's family probably still has all of his awards, but I don't think they are letting anyone flip through them. Too bad.

Tim

-
--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!

[Tony & Kaiser]

we must endeavour to get some 'high level' input into this discussion............

As requested, I have brought in an expert.

<img src=http://www.kaisersbunker.com/kaiser2/k44.jpg>

[Brian S]

If anyone sniffs out the truth, it will be Kaiser the Amazing Wonder Wiener Dawg.

[Biro]

Heh heh ...........

Mood nicely lightened, tony!!

[Bill M]

--Alright, Tony! I am hanging on by a 'thread' here heh heh what does Kaiser say?

--Seriously, I'll be back in a minute and sorry for hijacking the thread!

[Eric Stahlhut]

Hi guys, sorry I'm late!

To answer the original question posed by Biro:
Please look at page 445 of the Iron Time. Sedlatzek is mentioned as a maker of 'late 1870 remakes'.

Anyways, I fully agree that the only true issue pieces should be flat. I thought that it was so obvious that I neglected to mention it in my previous post. Any type of vaulted EK1 should be considered a private purchase piece regardless of what the hallmark (or lack thereof) says.

As far as the J vs. I theory, well, that's a tough one.... I would tend to wait until further info is discovered, as Tim points out.

[Bill M]

--OK, I just lost a post in which I did a lot of work.
--I am going to try to go through most of it again now if I can, actually I am going to go through my logic in steps as I am not Lundstromlike and will go insane if I try to put it all down at once.
--Tim said: "As I said before, I don't doubt that Wagner made private purchase examples, and may have still been making them up to 1918, or even after...What I'm getting at is maybe there ARE "J" marked pieces that were made by Wagner at a later date, and maybe the cores were completely different than the 1870-71 made pieces. Maybe the fakers got hold of an original Wagner piece (but a WWI era example) and made their knock-offs from that.
--I totally agree that the differences between the I's and J's are pronounced, they are about as different as the cores of the 'tight' J's are to those of the 'sloppy' J's we see on ebay. "Maybe the fakers got hold of an original Wagner piece.." I tend to think that they have gotten their hands on a good 'punch' for the maker marks, noting the aforementioned differences in cores.
--"I don't doubt that Wagner made private purchase examples.." Another good point, I don't either. Let me go off a little and bring up a little ditty I discovered while researching, whether I am stretching will remain to be seen but I think it has some bearing regarding the single-mold mindset.
--Look at the spread on pages 110-111 of the Iron Time. Now I have no reason to think that the cross pictured is not that of Emperor Bill, and it is an unmarked private purchase piece. In my estimation, that cross is a Godet. If you would go to this thread and have a look at Tony's 1870 1st Class you will find the exact core details as those on the Kaiser's cross.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ght=godet+1870
--I am certain that Tony has an authentic Godet EK1 there, am I wrong? The bearing? If you go into your references, pictures or whatever you have with images of issued Godet 1870's, you will find that the core details are similar, but different enough to make a solid claim that there were two Godet core molds. Specifically note the '7', although it's not the only difference it is the most glaring. {We've also seen 2nd classes with this 7, so maybe we can assume that they too are Godet's?}
--Anyway, the fact (if it is so) that Godet had more than one mold for their crosses lends a good amount of credence to the supposition that Wagner had more than one as well. Something we've seen is that even the 'textbook I's' outnumber the Godets in the marketplace. It has always been my belief at least that Wagner produced the lion's share of the 1870 1st classes. They'd need a second die more than Godet would, no?
--Anyway, been typing all night - be back later with more...
--P.S. Hey Tony, did Kaiser figure out that you had him sniffing out a 1914 Cross?

[George Stimson]

I'm a bit confused. Detlev says he has never seen a good 1870 EK 1 with "Lotig." Are my eyes deceiving me, or does the example he posted as good have "Lotig" on it?

Here's my 1870. I'd have to admit that it does look a lot like the one Detlev calls a copy.

[George Stimson]

Reverse, with side-pins. Surely not a sign of an official award piece?

[George Stimson]

Maker mark.

(Have people really been seeing a lot of these? The only other one that I'm aware of is Bill's.)

[Tim Tezer]

OK, now I see the Sedlatzek mention - in the appendix. I never noticed that before. Still, I think he was mostly known as a post-WW1 maker, so an 1870 EK1 is a possibility by Sedlatzek, but should probably be assumed NOT to be a period example.

As for the Wagner maker's mark, if you look closely at the marks on known originals such as the one in Max Aurich's collection, you'll see that there is a barely visible umlaut over the O, and that there is a sort of vestigial letter after "Loth", but it is not enough to make it say "LOTIG" by any estimation. So I can see Detlev's point.

Where does that leave us? I'm not really sure. The only 1870 I actually have in my own collection is a 2nd class that has a 25 year oakleaf on it, and probably was made after the war for private purchase. But I still think of it as a legitimate 1870 EK2 even if it was made in 1895 or later. There are a lot of grey areas and a lot of Imperial German collectors these days refuse to venture into the grey at all. They want known "probemassige" examples. I hope there aren't a lot of perfectly good period private copies out there that end up in the dustbin because they are shunned as fakes. But that could happen.

Tim