The biannual meeting of the "Holy Grail Club" 2010

[AlikN]

Here some more pictures,
...do we have any closeups to compare to?

[AlikN]

....

[gregM]

Here some more pictures,
...do we have any closeups to compare to?

Marc posted some great closeups of his 1813 Prinzen.
check out post #7 --------

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=466986

[AlikN]

Thanks Greg, I see what you mean the details look crisper there,
...so what the final verdict would be, I have a few day to return it.

[Marc Garlasco]

The letters and numbers are rounded on the face which is different from what I expect, besides the general softness. The cross' rim also seems less defined. They are definately not the same core, but WTF does that really mean? Does it mean yours was made by a different manufacturer? How many manufacturers were making 1813 prinzen? I can't say anything regarding the originality of your badge. Mine I am certain of because of the details and source.

MY ONE BASIC CONCERN is that people think I can make a soft 1813 because that was almost 200 years ago - they must have been soft. Not true! The 1813 crosses were made with care, and they were much sharper then people might think. Have a look at Bowen. Even though he has errors he got a hold of some very rare and early crosses and they are SHARP, or at least as sharp as they could be. Look at the revised Iron Time and you see the same thing.

It is certainly possible for your cross to be good. I think it would be helpful for us to do a good, solid core evaluation to see if we can detect how many makers and their fingerprints. You take our crosses and the books out there and we would have an excellent sample size. But I am also wary and if it is expensive I would pass until I am certain.

Just my thoughts.

[AlikN]

Thanks Marc,

Here I found one with similar core details - Tony's cross, unfortunately only one small picture.

The cross is 33mm wide and the weight is 8,5g.

[Roglebk]

Just finished cleaning up my database with pics of '1813 Prinzen believed to be made in 1830-40'. Had loads of pics of the same crosses, mostly Tonys Aliks and Marks

Ended up with 9 different crosses but not all pics are any good. All got, more or less defined, cast cores of the same type as seen here. Some are Blackened/Browned and some looks painted? Why anyone would paint a core in the 1840's beats me. They come in wide and narrow flange versions, and actually all wideness in between. Frames are more or less uneven filed and worn, very hard to match any together really.

Point is that there do not seem to be any continuity. Impossible to say if they were made by one maker or 9. This makes it easy for the fakers but they still have to cast a matching iron core, make the frames, put 'em together and make 'em look like 200 yrs old. This i imagine is not an easy task.

Considering the very few found over the years i doubt they ever been faked.

[streptile]

Here I found one with similar core details - Tony's cross, unfortunately only one small picture.

That is a very good match to yours.

[AlikN]

Thanks Carl ! Can you combine those 9 crosses in one picture even if they not the best quality shots.

[gregM]

bigger copy of Tony's prinzen----

[gregM]

The picture is a bit blurry. It's a scan of a photograph but you can still
see that the core details were still somewhat sharp. It's especially
noticeable on the date.

[AlikN]

Double post

[AlikN]

The picture is a bit blurry. It's a scan of a photograph but you can still
see that the core details were still somewhat sharp. It's especially
noticeable on the date.

Thanks for the big picture Greg....
So you are saying there is a possibility that the core was cast from that type of original?...or bad cast from the original?
I wonder if we can find similarities in frames beaded edge design.

[gregM]

I don't really know if it's good or bad. However the more I look at it,
the more it reminds me of the soft details found on the fake "short 7"
style 1870s.

[AlikN]

Here some more closeups , ... looks to me that there are signs of use.