1870 EK2 variant?

[Eric Stahlhut]

Take a look at the details. The date, for example is smaller and placed higher on the lower arm than most examples, I believe.

[Eric Stahlhut]

smaller ring, overall very sharp details.

[Blitz]

Hmm.. I don't remember seeing those kind of numerals or that kind of crown anywhere else before. I like it.

[Eric Stahlhut]

here are a few further pics

[Gerd Becker]

Hmm.. I don't remember seeing those kind of numerals or that kind of crown anywhere else before. I like it.

I like it, too. Fantastic details. Look at the crown . And i agree, the numerals are placed higher.

Very nice piece, Eric .

[Eric Stahlhut]

reverse.


Thanks, guys!

[Eric Stahlhut]

No further opinions?

[Blitz]

Be patient, Eric. They still haven't examined it in-detail and found it's beauty. So they must be blind.

[Tim Tezer]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and say that I don't like it. I have seen a number of "high date" 1870 EK2's coming from unreputable dealers, and they have soured me on any EK2 where the date is too high. I have also noticed some other consistent features to those crosses, particularly that there is never any dark patina on the iron core around the worn high points on the relief. You always see grey metal showing through. That's not impossible, of course, but it just makes me suspicious. I have never been able to come up with much conclusive evidence on this, but I would be confident in saying that this piece is not from the period of the war and at best is a jubilee era or early 20th Century piece.

Just my two bits. Let's hear some more thoughts on this.

Tim

[Brian S]

Great details. Pure esthetics it looks great. I'd love to see it on an unmessed with medal bar.

[Biro]

Brian or Tim....

To my eye, (and please correct me on this) the obverse core of this 1870 EK1 Detlev 'fake' (which is currently causing misery to members of this forum..) is the same as that of the EK2 cross posted by Eric..... (the crowns I can't see too well, so I'm hedging a little here...... )

I'm learning, so maybe you can help me (and Eric in the process) by explaining what (if any) relavence this might have to this discussion.

(P.S. Yes - I realise ones an EK1.....)

[Eric Stahlhut]

Tim,
Thanks very much for your input. I tend to agree with you in that the cross in question is probably not an original '70s issue piece. The thing about this cross which interests me, and the reason I why I posted it in the first place, is the sheer quality of the piece. The details are very sharp. I've never handled a questionable cross that could even come close to matching this one in quality.

I've had it for approximately ten years or so-well before the newer (and more accurate) fakes appeared on the market. We all are aware, however, that these crosses have been reproduced since the 50s.

Biro, the crowns are different, and the numerals on Detlev's example appear to be rounded. The main similarity seems to be the placement of the date.

[Eric Stahlhut]

Here's a closer look at the crown. The poor lighting has affected the colors of pic. Now, for example, take a look at any of the crowns featured in the 'Iron Time'. None of them seem to be able to match the detail found on this one. It even has details on the sides of the crown!

[Gerd Becker]

Here's a closer look at the crown. The poor lighting has affected the colors of pic. Now, for example, take a look at any of the crowns featured in the 'Iron Time'. None of them seem to be able to match the detail found on this one. It even has details on the sides of the crown!

Can´t believe, this could be a reproduction Scary!

[Tony & Kaiser]

Can´t believe, this could be a reproduction

Too often is a piece declared "reproduction" just because it is not a commonly seen pattern; I do not believe it is a reproduction. There were too many manufacturer's making these well up into the Great War to say that. The details are phenomenal, and exactly what I would expect with my limited experience to see on an 1870.