against all opinions

[Montgomery Burns]

so,,,, beside all I presented here ...


I do not want to convince anyone,,,,or push it in originality

I rely don't care ,,,this cross is pushed in to the fake corner ,,
and you can leave it there .....




only want to say that ,,,,keep an open mind ,,,

I am on my own path ,,no turning back .


the End


.

[Montgomery Burns]

before i forget

here a picture off modern (2008) jewellery. silver

.

[Don D.]

Interesting work Kay. Hard to argue with period books. I will have to reopen my mind on this one.

[Tiger 1]

[QUOTE=Montgomery Burns;4539172]it also told me that silver off the old was very expensive and valuable and hard to produce from the sources that there where available in the old day's
.

also different composition ...

in 1813 silver wood not be so pure as modern time .

also the proses of melting an forming the silver wood leave periodical manufacture traces that are typical fore the period .


so ,,,under a microscope an 1813 silver frame wood look different then a 1957 produced ek ...



Monty,

Are you suggesting that the frames of the two EKs you show are cast instead of pressed?

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that TR era and the post war '57' EKs were made of neusilber which is nickle silver and contains no silver at all. In that case the comparison would not apply.

The fact that this type of 1813 EK was pictured in a book printed approximately 100 years later, is that proof enough to positively say that the cross was made 100 years earlier?

Your suggestion that the pieces shown in the other thread you mentioned above could be fakes is a non starter as most of the types shown have been matched with other crosses that have been in the Aurich collection that have been photo documented pre WWII.

I pose these questions in friendly curiosity in seach of what we may ultimately learn from these unusual pieces.

All the best,

Tony

[Montgomery Burns]

[quote][quote=tiger 1;4539574]

it also told me that silver off the old was very expensive and valuable and hard to produce from the sources that there where available in the old day's
.

Also different composition ...

In 1813 silver wood not be so pure as modern time .

Also the proses of melting an forming the silver wood leave periodical manufacture traces that are typical fore the period .

to my surprise to ,the 1957 ér i have is full silver ,,i tested it .

in the old day's silver was mixed with nickel to make it moore workable .
Second,,, commonly don in the old day's ,,,due nickel silver lost its white appearance ,,and so they silver plated it afterwards .


Air bubbles are indicating casted silver ,, but don't know if they can appear in pressed silver sheaths to .

. .

tony
i just summed up the reasons wy and how i came to believe this ek is original .

All collectors should start investigate they're own ek's with silver testing and microscope off there own ...and other way's to .

From there we can see what new facts and findings come out..

And maybe new way's to make a better identification off period an non period items ..off all era's

maybe i get proven wrong ,,ho knows .
Maybe i was dead right ?



I just gave you my different approach ...that is it .

And i think i made a lot off progress building it with plausible logic.

But i certainly do not want to make this ek a hard case ..
Or looking fore followers ... Hell no .

i am the fool on the hill ,tony , and i like it there .

still i am honoured by your answers ,,and happy you did applied



regards kay

[AlikN]

....
THERE IS A BIG CHANCE 1813 MEDALS WHERE STILL PRODUCED WITH REASONABLE NUMBERS 1860/1880 ...

I think if 1813-eks were produced at that time we would see examples of 1813 crosses with frames identical to 1870 crosses and even maybe with similar 1813 side of core design from 1870, ....but we don't see anything like that.

[Montgomery Burns]

I think if 1813-eks were produced at that time we would see examples of 1813 crosses with frames identical to 1870 crosses and even maybe with similar 1813 side of core design from 1870, ....but we don't see anything like that.

1880 maybe overenthusiastic ,but 1863 official remembrance off 1813 where going on so ...maybe then ,,and a lot disappeared in a stock ,,handed out later ,put on display everything is possible

maybe the same core still used ?
crazy frames we found ,,
and there we already known some crazy frames ..so .

just keep an open mind and look careful ...

maybe just because all differences off the known are approached with mistrusting,,,,some collectors are shied off showing they're variations ,,

looking at the cross i started this thread with ,,,,
it being put down quit hard ,,,

if you paid a lot off money fore an cross ,,you don't want to make it worthless by disposing it to such a distrusting audience .

it a risk .....only me left to buy it




.

[Montgomery Burns]

one Moore thing ..

,what is the logic off a fake ek,, with unknown frame anomaly's

pointing out unknown frame anomalies ( discovery's ) on original Iron crosses ?

what is the point off a fake ek with unknown anomalies at all . ?

I know I am doing the right thing and specialise on 1813 ,,,
there is the lost arch off Noah...





.

[Reginaldo]

I do not believe in crosses of 1813 in good condition. We must not forget that any dealer could do a cross then.

[morel5000]

I do not believe in crosses of 1813 in good condition. We must not forget that any dealer could do a cross then.

? Bold remark without any proof.

So you mean that things that are old cannot be in good condition. Where do you BELIEVE is the year things will start looking good?

Hence artifacts from the Romans cannot be in good condition at all?

Please if you have an opinion than at least try to give some convincing arguments.

Best regards,
Michel

[Reginaldo]

Morel,

EKS from 1813 All I know are never in good condition. I once read an article by Gordon Williamson in which he talked like he was tricked with a EK from 1813. If it is that authority on the subject can be fooled imagine a poor deadly like me.

I've seen many fakes very good and I'm very gullible. I really have no technical knowledge to point out errors, so I suspect all of them. I have my EKS but always get the suspicion of having been deceived...

[morel5000]

Reginaldo,

this one looks in good condition... a fake?

Best regards,
Michel

[Roglebk]

1. All 3 cores looks similar but the pics are not good enough to draw the conclusion that they match eachother.

2. All 3 frames looks similar but there is also differencies between Kays 2 crosses and the one in the book, again the pics are not good enough.

3. How a die stamped metal surface will look in under a microscope depends on many variables. For example oxidation, wear, mold material, post processing like polishing etc. One can not draw a conclusion about what timeperiod a cross where manufactured in based on microscopic study of the surface.


Just to make one thing clear:

No Silversmith or any other knowledgable metal worker in any time period would cast an item like the frames of an EK. Even all "later manufactured" one piece crosses are die stamped, exept for the post WWII Spanish made -39 EK1's and EK2's



For what it's worth believe the crosses is at least made before the 1860's. Base that on the "overall feeling" and the word of a fellow experienced collector who had the opportunity to handle them. It's hard to beat that "in hand" feeling.

[Roglebk]

I really have no technical knowledge to point out errors, so I suspect all of them. I have my EKS but always get the suspicion of having been deceived...

Being suspicious is good, but to discard a cross just because it's in good condition will make people do like John Cleese and "fart in your general direction". Study well and buy only crosses that are approved by the bulk of collectors and stay off the discussed ones.

[Roglebk]

Reginaldo,

this one looks in good condition... a fake?

Best regards,
Michel

That is a very nice fake Michel! Like new condition with multiple made die stamped frames and sand cast textbook stepped core. It's probably made as late as 1813-1817!