1870 ek2

[tinmantis]

hi guys
is this one any good? if so, any idea of maker, and when it was made?
much appreciated
regards
jon

[tinmantis]

last:

[streptile]

What's up Jon.

It's a bit tough to say from these photos, since there are good fakes of these (see HERE), but it does look fine and the jumpring repair is a good sign.

If it's a good one, and I suspect it is, it's a Type B -- often attributed to Godet, but in fact not possible at this time to assign to a specific maker.

[VtwinVince]

Looks good to me, and one with real character

[Ammersee]

Interesting repair. I can't imagine why they used that much solder. Maybe fixed at home or in the field. Ammersee

[morel5000]

The main characteristic of the fake Trevor pointed out is the flaw in the reverse FW.

From your pictures I cannot tell if its there.

Anyway interesting cross, and I like it.

Best regards,
Michel

[tinmantis]

Hi
thanks all, and interesting read Trevor
the core is in pretty rough shape, the FW is a little beaten up too
the size of the core looks OK, but can anyone see anything wrong with the FW?
regards
jon

[morel5000]

Hi Jon,

I can see nothing wrong. There is much detail in the beads of the crown, and there is no big flaw in the right leg of the W. In my opinion it is good. Let see what others say.

Best regards,
Michel

[Montgomery Burns]

here's the fake from the files,,,
the wider frame and his ww1 measurements are a first indication.
soft details clearly show here

regards kay

[tinmantis]

anyone know when mine was likely to have been made?
regards
jon

[streptile]

anyone know when mine was likely to have been made?
regards
jon

It's a pretty tough question to answer -- the best we can really say at the moment is, sometime between 1870 and 1918. If you can provide us with very accurate mm measurements, h and w, we might be able to narrow it down (prewar versions were usually a bit smaller). The jumpring repair also probably places it in the 19th C., but -- again -- that's very inconclusive.

[Montgomery Burns]

provide us with very accurate mm measurements, h and w, we might be able to narrow it down (prewar versions were usually a bit smaller).

interesting

is that a fact ? tell us how you came to that conclusion ?

I think there is something new and important to learn here

regards kay







.

[streptile]

Hi Kay,

It is a fact. 1870 EK2s contemporary to the award period rarely exceed 42mm in width, whereas WWI issues, and 1914 EK2s, often do. I arrived at this conclusion from personal observation and, more importantly, from the BDOS article, as well as the followup piece on Type B fakes. Here are some relevant quotations from Mike Estelmann's work:

• On Type As: The size varies by tenths of a millimeter, and only very rarely exceeds 42mm.
• On Type Bs: The size varies by tenths of a millimeter, and [only] occasionally exceeds 42mm.
• On WWI-size crosses: The crosses are larger and vary in size from 42 to 44 millimeters.
• On Ninth Bead Fakes: Size and weight of these pieces correspond to the average values of World War I Iron Crosses and are significantly over accepted tolerances for core Type A and core Type B 1870 Iron Crosses.
• On Type B fakes: Size and weight are approximately on par with genuine examples of the 1914 EK2.

[Montgomery Burns]

so the godet 1870 wide frame with hooks are ww1 or later ?

,










.

[saschaw]

Are they 2nd classes? I thought you were talking about these...