Speaking of Wagner maker marks, on my "Wagner" marked 1870 EK 1 the "14" over "Loth" (with umlaut) is double-struck while no other part of the mark is. Does anybody else have one with this characteristic?
-
George -
--I've been pondering this and wanted to get all of my thoughts down together, but ain't gonna happen.
--In the markings of any style Wagner stamp, I have noticed a tendency toward uneven stamping, generally on the right side where on many occasions it is slightly deeper. Hand stamping by a right-hander would account for this.
Same effect can be found to some degree on the 'loth' stamping (we do agree that these were two seperate stamps, don't we?). Many stamps seem to suggest the probability of a sort of roll-over administration as opposed to a purely parallel stamping. Like the difference between getting fingerprinted and using a rubber stamp.
--I was thinking along the same lines as Eric, but I think that I can make
out a slightly deeper indentation to the rightmost
part "..N E R & S."
--Can I get a witness, is this true Marshall?
"Speaking of Wagner maker marks, on my "Wagner" marked 1870 EK 1 the "14" over "Loth" (with umlaut) is double-struck while no other part of the mark is. Does anybody else have one with this characteristic?"
--Just along the lines that I was talking about.
The top part may have been applied, then reapplied more firmly when the 'stamper' had better positioning. We've seen double-stamps on both good Imperial and 3rd Reich awards (CEJ Spanish Cross comes to mind). Like I said, these were two seperate stamps, so a double-stamp wouldn't be found on the 'Wagner' portion. No problem.
Last edited by Bill M; 03-22-2004, 12:00 AM.Comment
-
NHere is one that a has a deep 14. Not doubled, though.Originally posted by George StimsonComment
-
It's hard to see the double-strike here (I'll post a better pic later), but here's the reverse of the EK, showing the whole mark.GeorgeComment
-
A couple of questions asked to me, so here are the answers...
Bill....
Yes, my 'I', while not as lightly struck as some we see, is considerably shallower than "& S." at the end - and while not obviously double struck, it does get significantly deeper the further 'right' it progresses.....Originally posted by Bill M
Eric....
Unfortunately, I know nothing of the actual 'maker marking' process, or what the tool even looks like - perhaps you or someone can enlighten me....but even lacking that admittedly vital piece of information, what I said to Bill above would appear to indicate maybe it was stamped by hand.....??Originally posted by Eric Stahlhut
I however, like you, felt this was way to 'Tidy' and 'New' looking compared to the I & J marks I have on file but when I look closely at the blow up of "N E R & S." below, I can clearly see it is not a 'FONT TYPE' that some modern forger has 'chosen' as it appears too crude and 'hand made' looking - there dosen't appear to be too many truly straight lines or curves as this close-up shows.... a good or bad thing??
I guess the outline of these 'lumpy' looking letters is probably the result of metal splaying and buckling on impact, but then like I said, this is guesswork from me....Opinions???
Dosen't change the fact I've never seen a similar M/Mark or 14 Loth to this one though...
Comment
-
Yes, that's why I LIKE it.Originally posted by Biro
Comment
-
--Ok, I think that this cross is a keeper.
--When everything is put down - the pictures here in addition to those M sent to me along with the specs of the cross, I see little evidence of a forgery.
--I am a little more flexible in the idea of multiple stamps, as you all know. That is not to say that I think that every worker at Wagner or Godet carried around his own little stamper in his breast pocket, but I think that it is fair to say that ultimately more than one was used.
--When you look at Godet crosses, you may notice that there were two distinct and seperate cores. Those with the 'short 7' and those with the normal 7. When we look at the Wagners we see at least two different cores. It was my opinion until recently that there were only two different cores on these, but if we cross-reference the core on Bobby Lee's unmarked example with one of the 'J' Wagner's in the Iron Time we find a perfect match. This confused me because I was until then in agreement with Detlev in that the example pictured was bad - - muffin crown, 'bad' dates, etc...
Being that Bobby picked his up in 1973, I am turned on my head. I've rejected that style cross 'out of hand' in the past but may have been wrong in doing so.
--So we have both 1870 EK1 makers with multiple cores.
--Why then is it so hard to digest the possibility of multiple stamps? Certainly an easier feat than cores to be sure. It's hard to digest because we walk a tightrope here. It is much easier to go with what we know is dead-on. I have a hard time with it too because the straight lines are blurring a bit and things like this tend to make life more difficult but.... whaddayagonna do?
--Anyway just another bit or two - we also notice in the Iron Time that the Wagner mark on some of their prinzen crosses was an 'I' mark, but not the 'I' mark on full-sized versions (or Marshall's for that matter). They obviously did not use a smaller stamp on these either, just a different one.
--It's getting harder for me to stay on track. Must be exhausted or getting adult ADD. I need a break to go over it and get back to regroup...Comment
-
I'm with Bill, but even more lenient. In the period photos of work shops, (like today) we see several people doing the same job. Several stamping, several cutting, soldering etc. I think it would be absolutely normal for each of the people (2? 5? 12?) who finished the rear plate prior to soldering to have his own stamp. It would make no sense to share stamps when people are at different work benches? And to the maker, it's just a stamp. To us, its a microscopic comparison of every grain of differentiation , thinking that one solitary "Holy Stamp" was removed from a velvet-lined case and ceremoniously applied to the rear plate during the full moon..........I see several stamps, sitting in tool drawers, getting grabbed and used by the worker as required.Originally posted by Bill MComment
-
That's thoroughly sound thinking Guys......and as we are the only ones chatting here anymore, do you have any idea then - (and this sounds 'anal' to the extreme..but I really don't have a clue) - who would have 'made' the 'makers mark' stamp...
I'm not necessarily talking about the silver content (14 Loth) part - that, I'm sure, could easily have been a common shop 'accessory' but presumably, whatever they used as a 'template' for the Wagner maker stamp (if indeed they do???) was at the very least, 'designed' by the Wagner company, and presumably then, one individual....
Multiples of the maker stamp, as you pointed out, makes complete sense to me too - what dosen't is why there would be any variation in 'design', let alone slight variation....
Just interested, because this is the area of construction I know least about - as no doubt, you can tell...Comment
-
"'template' for the Wagner maker stamp (if indeed they do???) was at the very least, 'designed' by the Wagner company, and presumably then, one individual...."
--Maybe there was one guy who made up the I Wagner stamp, but he got fired for being dyslexic and a guy who realised that 'Johann' began with a 'J' was hired in his place...
--C'mon guys, it was a joke!
--orrrrrrr was it?Comment
-
Hmmm........actually............on Pickelhaube unit stampings, Infantry Regts are marked "IR" or "JR". This is extremely common. Helmets from the same Regiment can be found with either stamp. IE: IR177 and JR177. This is accepted fact. And no, "JR" does not stand for Jager. Could the "I" vs. "J" business be connected with some obscure period German spelling or alphabet semantic that we are just not aware of?Originally posted by Bill MComment
-
--I had always assumed that in the old written language 'I' and 'J' were interchangeable in one way or another. Why else the would the 'I' be acceptable on a stamp when every other Wagner product was marked with the seemingly more correct 'J', 'Joh.' or 'Johann'?Comment
-
Right...Time to put this to bed..
It's going back.
First off, thanks to you all for your efforts and opinions...I'll do the same for you one day..
There are many many encouraging factors to this particular 1st class cross that will always leave me wondering...but on balance, I'll always wonder a lot more if I keep it.
And the reason? Simply, and only, the Maker Mark.
I've taken on board all the hypothesis and 'what-if's' regarding 'shop life' in the 1870's, but the simple fact of the matter is no-one, not Heyde, Detlev... (yes).. Iron Time, or anyone here, can produce a maker mark identical to the one on mine.
Given that it appears in 'the Iron Time', I guess - to a degree - it's a 'known' cross, but it's NOT a known 'I Wagner' maker mark and to that end -and until provenance proves me an idiot - I feel it will always condemn this piece by association.
FAKE? I agree, probably not - just not the one I want.
Thanks again boys..
MarshallComment
-
--A sound decision.
--Too bad ya can't just take these things to a psychic.
Comment
-
One last consideration....
Here is a close-up of the mark on mine, clearly showing the double-struck "14."GeorgeComment
Comment