1813 EK1 for Opinions

[streptile]

I am posting the cross, and the accompanying document (sales sheet) for one of our new members, kareldeeley.

He posted recently in our "Holy Grail" thread (post 39, HERE), about this cross. Rather than upload it directly to that thread, I will show it here for discussion first.

Karel, welcome to the forum. Please add whatever commentary you care to add to this thread.

Five photos/scans to follow.

[streptile]

A seam.

[streptile]

Original sales sheet (in two parts). Karel, I have blacked out the price for you as a courtesy.

[kriztof]

I'm sorry to say, this one doesn't light my candle. The sew on hoops are not a good sign. Remember the ebay hoop models a while back

It states the core is completely Black? looks pretty rusty to me.

Chris

[VtwinVince]

I also have to say that I don't like this one either. Core doesn't look right, and neither does the frame or reverse hardware.

[Biro]

...It states the core is completely Black? looks pretty rusty to me.....Chris

'Blank', chris... 'Blank'...

[Biro]

... In truth it is nigh impossible to fake all the characteristics of a 200 year old medal and have it accepted as "original. Even the best conversions I have seen (and I have seen dozens) simply look and feel wrong"....

I find the above extract from the sales pitch interesting.... I'm sure Andrew Biggers had the best of intentions when off-loading this 1813 EK1, but one would have to question just how many original 1813 EK1's Mr Biggers has handled, that allows him to make the claim that the dozens of conversions he has handled "..look and feel wrong..."

I've handled a bunch of fake 1813 EK1's myself and could no more claim that I can tell an original from the "look and feel" than fly to the moon.

The truth about this cross belonging to new member "kareldeeley" (welcome ) is that it could be absolutely ANYTHING dating from the early 1800's thru to about 20 years ago. It has no provenance, for what that's worth, and it has no documented period equivalent to 'frame match' to. It is a blank core and an anonymous frame, as it should be. It is purely and simply a case of a 'leap of faith'.

The remaining stock of the worlds original 1813 EK1's has got to be in the 10's at best... so there can be no universal acclamations of originality from even the most esteemed members of this forum because noone here can possibly know.

If 'kareldeeley' were inclined to get some forensic testing done on the elements of the core or the frame, there may be some partial resolution... failing that, it's all guesswork and sales pitch...


Marshall

[Montgomery Burns]

I find the above extract from the sales pitch interesting.... I'm sure Andrew Biggers had the best of intentions when off-loading this 1813 EK1, but one would have to question just how many original 1813 EK1's Mr Biggers has handled, that allows him to make the claim that the dozens of conversions he has handled "..look and feel wrong..."

I've handled a bunch of fake 1813 EK1's myself and could no more claim that I can tell an original from the "look and feel" than fly to the moon.

The truth about this cross belonging to new member "kareldeeley" (welcome ) is that it could be absolutely ANYTHING dating from the early 1800's thru to about 20 years ago. It has no provenance, for what that's worth, and it has no documented period equivalent to 'frame match' to. It is a blank core and an anonymous frame, as it should be. It is purely and simply a case of a 'leap of faith'.

The remaining stock of the worlds original 1813 EK1's has got to be in the 10's at best... so there can be no universal acclamations of originality from even the most esteemed members of this forum because noone here can possibly know.

If 'kareldeeley' were inclined to get some forensic testing done on the elements of the core or the frame, there may be some partial resolution... failing that, it's all guesswork and sales pitch...


Marshall

I 100% agree .......a wonderful choice off words to , Marshal .

[Montgomery Burns]

Original sales sheet (in two parts). Karel, I have blacked out the price for you as a courtesy.

and this sale sheet is an attempt off an
( pull you over to buy advertising expertise )

so good actually the seller almost reveals himself how little he knows about the ek1

looking at the prices these ek go fore ,,,no excuse for , or holding back,,, in my opinion about the selling party .

bad sign this sale sheet








,

[kriztof]

'Blank', chris... 'Blank'...

Say it Marshall, say it

Chris

[Ferg 1]

IMO modern fake with ,I suspect, a 1914 front frame . The rust on core is very new too. Look at old iron or steel (100 years plus) items that have oxidised over a long period they look nothing like this. I hope the buyer can get his money back !! Ferg1

[Ferg 1]

Here's something I have had for many years ,not really sure what it is,probably a marriage of bits but interesting as a ' what is it ' !!

[gregM]

...

[frankandfrank]

both are !!!

Has nothing do do with original 1813 Iron Crosses!

[streptile]

It has no provenance, for what that's worth, and it has no documented period equivalent to 'frame match' to.

Hi Marshall,

As usual I agree with what you have written. But I do wonder if there is a frame we can match it to. Looking at this piece, I am reminded over and over of the traditional shape of the 1914 KO frame, unique for its minimal curvature and narrow arms. Does anyone else see a similarity?

KO Pic George Stimson