1870 EKII, opinions?

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hello Gentlemen,

I think that Gordon answered the question in post #27 in referance to the oaks as wll as in Previtera's book. These were not rare and made my many with many different attachment devises. Not sure what we are looking for.

@ George , what is the objective here really,because quite frankly I'm cofused at this point. Your looking for absolution textbook and this example is not it. It is IMHO as well as others original.

I have the same thoughts on the spange, this example posssess some new as well as helpful insite. I hope that we can keep an open mind and look at the piece as a good learning tool.

Best,
JD

[Brian S]

Joe, I think we all want to know what it is. For my money, it is not a Wagner piece. But that's not necessarily bad.

Here is an extreme closeup of my Spange which matches the items in Previtera's book and George's.

I believe this photo sufficiently represents the shear marks of a struck original.

[George Stimson]

"George , what is the objective here really,because quite frankly I'm cofused at this point."

Joe, a lot of people have questions about his piece or the parts thereof. The only thing I'm trying to do is get some answers. If you (or anyone) make a statement as fact, that statement should be able to be backed up.

"Not sure what we are looking for."

What I am looking for is an example or two of this "common" safety pin attaching method for Oaks. I would also like to see a good Spange that looks like this one. And a medal bar with such a pin attachment. Examples. Answers.

It's fine to keep an open mind, but I don't believe in having a mind so open that any piece that doesn't conform to accepted good examples can just be explained with, "Well, we haven't seen this before -- it must be a newly discovered original!" That can be an explanation, but a likelier one is that the piece in question is not good.

(Just MHO, of course....)

[Brian S]

Sauerwald, the dean of the followers of "Probemassigkeit". It is either EXACTLY like a piece known to have been made and awarded during the time of award, or it's not.

Joe, George, Tim, et al,

I think we have nailed the Wagner piece.

We have not nailed, 'the other period example'.

[George Stimson]

Tim

"Interestingly, the cross in the center of the original piece given in that article has NO beading around the edges."

I would like to see this.

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hello Gentlemen,


@ George, sorry George I have to disagree with you on on this especially your statement " That can be an explanation, but a likelier one is that the piece in question is not good."

What is that based on ? because you have never seen one with that attachment on the oaks as well as no ones has a spange to compare it to .

You asked Gordon to respond and he did, more correctly based on working knowledge and an open mind.

Your trying to get some answers as I am as well, but you keep asking the same questions loud and clear and keep getting the same response.

Cross is good,oaks are fine , spange is one that we have not seen before, at least not yet.

It is just a unfortunate to bless a fake as it is to disregard an original.

Best Regards,
JD

[Tiger 1]

Okay,

I will keep my comments as neutral as possible as we are all fellow collectors here in search of what is true.

First of all some ground work. Reference books are in all cases not infallable. Stephan Previtera's "The Iron Times" which is being heavily refered to is a lavishly illustrated book that deserves to be on every serious Iron Cross collectors shelf. But, there are to many questionable, misidentified, or incorrectly captioned examples shown to make one cautious about taking everything shown as correctly researched. Many examples are captioned with nonplausible explainations. The other weak point for serious collectors is the examples shown are not credited with any provenance other than it's pictured in the book. This is not about a book revue as that's a separate topic in itself. This is just my opinion. If we are to use Iron Cross references let's go much further and include the works of Prouse, Bowen, Heyde, Kleitmann, Geissler, Williamson and the myriad artilcles written about the Iron Cross over the years.

When it is said or implied that what is important is that the pieces be from the period there needs to be a further question asked. Were these pieces originally put together this way at the time of manufacture? If not then we may have genuine pieces that are representing something that it ORIGINALLY didn't start out as.

Enough ground work.

The 1870 EK is a later Jubilee or even a 1914 era piece. It is not an early one. The details in the crown and the oaks on the reverse side lead us to a later cross. Most likely a WWI era example.

I have seen 25 year oaks with a pin back assembly on the back along the way of collecting EKs. Personally I don't believe they are that old and haven't found any solid reference to them being comtemporary to the Jubilee period. The shape of the "wall" around the edge which usually slopes down, seems borrowed from the Oakleaves we usually see on a 1939 KC. Sometimes you have to go with the old unscientic gut feeling.

The Weiderholungsspange shown is at best a poor quality example. The detail is just not there when compared to contemporary examples. There has been some discussion that only the slip on versions are correct. The jury is still out on this . The picture of Gen. Ltn. Otto Graf von Schwerin that Gerd posted clearly shows a pinback and not a slip style spange.

It's hard to get the "feel" of an medal just by looking at some pictures. But sometimes pictures do show more than we see at times in person. The ageing of the various components seem to be at odds with each other here. Parts are toned and other parts are shiney. This anomaly makes it difficult to accuarately judge the piece as being originally whole. Genuine parts not withstanding.

This is just my opinion of what I see and should be taken as one man's caveat. If what I wrote upsets anyone then my sincere applogies as we are in pursuit of what is true. But please do show me where I'm wrong with proof.

Best regards,

Tony

[George Stimson]

"'That can be an explanation, but a likelier one is that the piece in question is not good.'

What is that based on ?"

It's based on statistical fact. The vast majority of "military items" which don't meet the criteria of known authentic pieces are reproductions. They are not new discoveries of good pieces by previously unknown manufacturers.
And people who think they are are leading this hobby in a dangerous direction.

[George Stimson]

"Your trying to get some answers as I am as well, but you keep asking the same questions loud and clear and keep getting the same response."

And I'm not really getting any response to my questions.
I want to see:
1. an example of 25-Years Oaks with a safety pin attachment, an allegedly "common" item.
2. a medal bar also with a safety pin-style fastener.
3. an example of a 1914 Spange without beading on the EK.

Just show me.

[Tim Tezer]

My focus here is still on the spange, because I have always been puzzled by these and I have always thought there were far too many of them on the market for all of them to be good.

So, to provide some input, I fired up my 5-year old scanner and lifted some copyrighted pictures. (All credited, but I have not paid any royalties).

First, the photo of a supposedly original bar from the Sauerwald article, with the 1970's fake below it.

[Tim Tezer]

Now the backs of Sauerwald's original (top) and fake (bottom):

[Tim Tezer]

Next, a scan of Saurwald's close-up comparisons, with the original on the left and the fake on the right. Note the crispness of the edges on the original:

[Tim Tezer]

Now, per Brian's request, I have scans of the two spanges from the Max Aurich collection, taken from Heyde's book.

Item C29 in the collection:

[Tim Tezer]

... and C30:

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hello Gentlemen,
@Tim, I agree on the in reference to the book we are using as a medium. I just thought it to me more of the common reference books, so that everyone would be able to follow along accordingly. I certainly did not intend; as stated for Previtera's book to be the best medium. I do not think that any book will provide definitive data as one source.
@ George, respectfully, I do not entirely agree with you opinions on the piece, so a healthy debate amongst collectors is fine. I also hope that amongst our vast numbers of members we will continue to see more examples posted that may help us take another step.
I believe as others the example that I have or sold to be original. I would think that this is a positive piece and should not cause frustration, as nobody gets hurt in terms of money. So, the goal is to provide province, which I think I have, I do not own any other examples so we will have to rely on those that do.
Most importantly is the preservation of our hobby and keeping the standards to an acceptable level of the known statistical data that you speak of.
But, with all do respect George; can you honestly say the piece and all its components are not original?
See, this is where get confused, you state that;
“It's based on statistical fact. The vast majority of "military items" which don't meet the criteria of known authentic pieces are reproductions. They are not new discoveries of good pieces by previously unknown manufacturers.
And people who think they are leading this hobby in a dangerous direction”

But, then your basis is of your opinion.
There is textbook pieces and those that are not, both original, how many ribbon bars, parade mounts, variant hardware have we seen posted and accepted, that will not be found in any textbook.
I think that as a result of the Internet, we will see more things that are original and presented in a different format. I think that sticking to the basics is the best source of working knowledge. To apply what we know about period finishes, manufacturing signatures and willing to accept that not all things are going to fit into neatly square boxes. This is the new generation of collecting. We know more now than we did and will continue to know more as time progresses. To not accept that is ignorant. A perfect example is John Angola’s early books. Still good in some respects, but the badges he used some questionable, same with Foreman’s. I hope that in the end, we will learn more about this example, but honestly to say the piece is not original because of the mounting design is not in my opinion a reason to say the badge is not original. The spange, well, as I said not textbook, but I still vote the piece original based on my earlier comments.
I guess that we will just disagree on this as no one can prove with absolution the cross is not original, the oaks,spange or why the pieces is mounted the way it is.
Best,
JD