1870 EK2 variant?

[Eric Stahlhut]

It is really a well made fake. AAAHHRRRRGGG... Its beginning, they are faking Imperial stuff GOOD!
Please transfer the pics of this cross to the "Imperial Fakes" thread.

Just want to remind you that I've had the cross for approximately 10 years...

[JensF.]

I think Bill M has thrown in an interesting thesis. Detlev is only a human, maybe he is wrong. I remember a discussion about a Luftwaffen Flak-Badge some weeks ago which was shown as a fake on Detlevs page and a forum member presented a similar one I think from a documented group or so which was real.

[Bill M]

--I personally think that when someone sees a date that is not flat (8), they run for cover. Mind you that these fakes would have to have been made a while ago as Eric has his 10 years and I have my 'fake' 1st for nearly that long myself. The patina is not artificial, so add a number of years on that as well as the patina on mine hasn't deepened.
--Bandwagoning is a dangerous thing, that's why doing the research myself is important. When I am able, I will be going to a lab with some EK's to have some work done. You guys know I've already been to a metallurgist, I'll go the extra mile unless Detlev can say why it's a fake beyond "I haven't seen one with provenence".
"Please transfer the pics of this cross to the "Imperial Fakes" thread."
--Don't dare!

[Tony & Kaiser]

Bandwagoning is a dangerous thing, that's why doing the research myself is important.

I believe the actual term is "group think", where consensus is not necessarily correct. As well, I am still amazed that when one person declares something to be good or bad, everyone agrees completely. Might I remind everyone that at one time when Ron M****n stated something to be original, it was gospel? Now look.

[Brian S]

Tony don't you think declaring something original is the profiteering self-motivated declaration about something questionable and declaring an item a copy a much more purist approach to the hobby? Wouldn't it be more profitable to declare something good and sell a bagful to the eager consumers of crosses? I have a problem with the comparison.

[Eric Stahlhut]

Tony,

I understand the point you are trying to make, but comparing Detlev to Ron is IMO like comparing a cat to a dog. One of those guys has consistently shown to have far more integrity and expertise. I'm not stating that I follow his word blindly, and I do not believe that Detlev expects this behavior from anyone but I definitely respect his opinions immensely.


....I never thought I would end up defending a DEALER, but there you have it.

[Tony & Kaiser]

One of those guys has consistently shown to have far more integrity and expertise.

Sorry Eric, I didn't mean to slight Ron like that.

I was just trying to make an example and was not trying to compare one with the other.

Brian, I agree to a point, declaring something original can certainly be self-motivated IF the declaration has an agenda. I am just hesitant to declare something a copy based on one person's opinion, and this never happens here, except when one name comes up. I find that odd.

[Tim Tezer]

I've been looking for a copy of "Das Eiserne Kreuz", but everywhere i look it's all "out of print". I would pay high dollar for that book...When compared with my collection, my list of referens books is way too short. Yes, Tim, that is indeed the best answer available at the moment. But, there is always hope. There are so many smart people in this forum, that we will have to figure it out, eventuelly.

Andre Huesken has a copy on his site for EU 81.90 - if he still has it:

http://www.andre-huesken.de/

That's about three times what I paid for my copy. Pretty good investment.

Tim

[Brian S]

..this never happens here, except when one name comes up.

That's because so many if not all of the rest have a self serving personal profit motive to declare everything either textbook (or grey if up against the wall). He's the only one who has a longer term agenda IMHO.

[Biro]

Just when you thought we've had enough....

I've just noticed that Detlevs 'copy' EK2 posted earlier by Brian S seems to be marked 'KO' in the same fashion as the one posted by Niedersachsen earlier in this thread.

I dont have Detlevs' written critique of why he thinks it's a copy, so Niedersachsen, you shouldn't presume anything based just on the picture....

I also seem to have found them both unmarked, (as with Eric's cross posted earlier in this thread) and one marked 'WuS' posted in a different thread by 'jani tiainen' for opinions.

They all appear to have the same 'enlarged and dipping' 9th bead in the crown that Frank H so helpfully pointed out in post #40 & #41 here..

Is it right for (at least) two different makers and an unmarked to crop up?, or is this why Detlev is unsure.....

I had a tough time getting full straight on obverse shots of the four different examples for your comparison, but I'll post the pics anyway, and then you can all tell me why I'm so wrong about this!!

cheers...

1st, the Detlev mark against Niedersachsen's KO mark.

[Biro]

The Obverses of the 4 in question - remember, the perspectives are the best I could get..

[Biro]

And in the same order as above, the crowns of the Obverse, showing the distinctive 9th bead..

[Biro]

I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but check this cross in Gordon Williamsons recent 1870 Eye Candy thread... a prominant bead in the 9th position? ......or wild speculation on my part?

[Brian S]

Well Biro, you certainly get the Barnaby Jones/Magnum PI Award for excellent detective work. But I'm not sure I can see the Gordon cross well enough to make that leap.

[Brian S]

I don't think it's the same. That would be weird to see good Weiderholungsspange and Oaks with a repro cross.

Gordon's crown looks just about crappy enough like mine to be real. But not too crappy. Certainly not as bad as a '14.

Here is the center of the Detlev fake.