1870 EKII, opinions?

[Brian S]

I'm sure Detlev could give an expert opinion. He's seen so many family pieces I know he'd have an informed comment.

[Brian R]

I have three different sets of oakleaves to share - they all look different, but I feel confident that they are all legit. This just shows that there must have been quite a few makers/dies for the oakleaves over many yaers.

Number 1...

[Brian R]

Number 2

[Brian R]

Number 3...

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hello Gentlemen,



Well............as predicted a busy day in restaurant world, so as promised I will follow up on my shared thoughts on the piece.

Agreed that the set up is interesting in that it does not include other decorations as one would expect, but I have to be honest I have seen stranger things. Their can be countless reasons for the set-up being the way it is, none official. So I think it was the recipient’s choice to have the piece this way. I only suggest this because of the even wear and patina to the three pieces with the exclusion of the Cross-.


I think the main concern for me would be are all the components original period pieces.

I would like to share my thoughts on the cross itself as a starting point. In comparing the piece I recently sold; to ones in my archive files as well as a few reference books ( I like the pics in Previtera’s book, “The Iron Time). Therefore, if we use this as a medium as well as any posted examples we can all be somewhat on the same page, so to speak.
The example that I sold Jani is well made an additionally the detail characteristics display the same signatures as the pieces in Previtera’s book, in reference to date, crown, serifs, beading and construction.

I also like the finish on the piece as I feel it would be correct as it displays natural aging, even patina as well as wear et. I really like the way the black looks with that flat almost course look, with wear to the high points. All of what I would expect to look for in such an example in this state of condition.
On the reverse of the cross, the oak leaves are centered as well as the date 1813 on the lower arm, and the Royal Cipher "FW" and a crown in the upper arm all seem correct to me as well as the beading.

The 25-year Jubilaumsspange is unlike the examples shown in Previtera's book, as well as the examples posted by George and Bill, but the piece shows striking detail as well as good patina. The example on the one I sold had the safety pin attachment and was hollow .The numbers themselves came in many different variations and the piece itself is not all that rare. If Previtera's production numbers are accurate then that would be 25,000 examples were produced from many different makers, as well as individuals were responsible for purchasing these on their own ppg 152

I think a reasonable approach would be that if the piece demonstrates good period characteristics as I believe mine does, it is original. Unless the piece is way off the mark, then I feel my approach would be considered a fair standard for appraising whether a piece is period or not. I am not sure that one can conclusively say with total absolution that the piece is not a period piece, taking into consideration the points mentioned above.

Lastly, the spange, certainly not textbook in the sense that if we use George's examples as a medium as they appear to be textbook Wagner & Sohn examples as well as the different examples used Previtera’s book;
then my example does not conform, simple.

However this does not mean that it is not original, it means that was not likely, made by Wagner & Sohn. We may never know whom the maker was, as is the case with the other examples posted in Previtera’s book.
My example also is not like any of the examples posted thus far, as well as the ones posted in Previtera’s book. I think the most distinguishing difference is the lack of beading on mine as well as the general appearance. However, the example is does fall within the dimensions given as well as period used composite materials.

What I like about the piece is the pebbling, the edging the attachment device and the enameling. I just feel in my opinion this is just another variation, perhaps a later war issued piece.

If we use the Third Reich era awards to illustrate this point, the early pre- 1939 awards changed significantly compared to the later war pieces in almost every aspect.


Final thought, if I were 18 years old at the end of the Franco Prussian war, that would make me 43 years old and eligible to purchase the 25 year Jubilaumsspange and the year 1896, then W.W.I. breaks out and in 1915 at the age of 63 I am conscripted or I am already in the armed forces so thus I become eligible for the 1914 Spange.

At this stage of the war Germany was using everything they had, including old men or the award would not have been needed.

I also feel the need to express another thought, important to me anyway, that production records as well as documentation of the amount of awards actually awarded is useful, but I think that they provide more of a feel for the award in question at best. I do not feel their can possibly be be any absolution to the amount of pieces produced or awarded with of course the one of a kind, but even in that arena, second examples surface that were alternates, or whatever the case.

Well, again thank you for letting me share my thoughts, as I am sure that we will disagree on some points. However, I tried to keep a very difficult topic simple.


Just thought I would share this e-mail that just came in from a very good friend and EK collector that I sent the pics to, I know this is just one mans opinion, but he is of the same collecting level as our EK pros;

Hello Joe,

Nice to hear fro you, LOVE the piece. stone cold original cross, and
the eichenlaub are sweet. i wish i could see
the back of that spange, but am strongly inclined to
agree with you. just on generalities, the spange
appears period, but to team it up with the other
parts of the medal bar, hey, some german officer
paid some good money to a good jeweller to get
that piece done. nice find!


Best Regards,
JD<O></O>

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
What we do in life, echoes in eternity. <O></O>

<O></O>

<!-- / sig -->

[George Stimson]

Well, I'll stick with the opinions I expressed in Post # 4.

[Bill M]

--I think that photos of the reverses would definitely be in order if at all possible.
--I am of the opinion that the cross at least is real and period.
--Am I right in that the Oaks have a safety-pin attachment? This would be a first for me to see, is it possible?

[George Stimson]

Here's the back of the EK.

[George Stimson]

And here's the back of the whole piece.

[Brian S]

Be great to get Gordon Williamson's general opinion of the individual pieces as there's some various opinions. I am still not decided on the Wiederholungsspange. For my records and photo archives I'd like to try to get to a final resolution. G

[George Stimson]

I've asked Gordon to take a look at this thread.

[Gordon Williamson]

I've asked Gordon to take a look at this thread.

I have to point out right away that Joe also asked me for comments, sorry I haven't had the chance to get to this yet.
My own gut feeling is that the EK2 is a good one and that I have no real problem with the Oakleaves either. There are many many variants of this and the quality of Joe's piece is in its favour. Problem with things on parade mounts like this is that it is impossible to see the reverse of the attachments, something which would help tremendously.

The only thing I have reservations over is the Spange. The overall quality doesn't, to my mind, quite match that of the known originals I have seen. Again it would have been nice to be able to see the reverse. I'm hesitant to condemn it, but it's not one I would feel 100% comfortable with in my own collection.

[George Stimson]

How are the Oaks attached?

[jani_tiainen]

Dear Friends,

I would like to thank everybody for giving their opinions on this thread.

I bought this item knowing, that the cross with all these devices would "require" long group with it, but I agree that there are weird constructions and It did not matter. I am totally junior with these spanges, but Joe is good guy and I though (Still think He knows what he sells.

This would be perfect example on my slowly growing (Imperial) / EK collection since I would need only one EK2 1870 to show all devices... So my main concern is now the spange.

I looking forward that we will find conclusion what would help mo to decide what to do with this and again, I am grateful to you and this forum for giving me opportunity to purchase items with really experienced help!

Jani

[Tim Tezer]

Well, I just painfully read through the article from "Orden und Ehrenzichen" #17, the journal of the BDOS, February 2002. The article is by Peter Sauerwald and Claus Zimmerling. (Sauerwald is the dean of the followers of "Probemassigkeit" in the German collecting fraternity, and his views are not very friendly to private purchase examples of anything. It is either EXACTLY like a piece known to have been made and awarded during the time of award, or it's not.)

The crux of his article is that a lot of copies of the spange appeared on the market in the 1970's, and a close examination of them reveals that they are castings - rounded corners and edges, rather than the sharp edges of a die-struck piece, etc. These characteristics are hard to spot without using the 50-power magnification that he uses for some of the photos. The fake example he shows has prong attachments, using round prongs soldered onto the back, and is marked "JOH. WAGNER & SOHN / BERLIN".

The example that he claims is an original awarded type is a slide type, i.e. with a silver backstrap that allows it to be slipped over the ribbon. It has no makers mark or silver mark whatsoever, but awarded originals are known to have been made only by the firm of Wagner. Interestingly, the cross in the center of the original piece given in that article has NO beading around the edges.

Cross-referencing with the examples from the Max Aurich collection, pictured in Friedhelm Heyde's book, shows that both of Aurich's have beading around the cross, and both are slip-on types without any makers marks.

If we accept Sauerwald's contention, supported at least partially by the photos from the Aurich collection, then we could conclude that all the original AWARDED spanges were slip-ons, but there might easily have been PERIOD spanges that were prong-back. The slip-on type does not lend itself to court-mounting - in order to do a mounting like the one pictured here, it would be necessary to either remove the backstrap from the original award, or simply purchase a copy.

I don't know if that helps, but there it is....

Tim