1813 Iron Cross

[tgn]

I know this is not an original 1813 made Iron Cross, but could it be a later manufactured one from the 1830's or so?

1

[tgn]

2/3

[gregM]

Interesting cross. I think this one get some discussion.

[Mike Kenny]

As the frame appears to be plated/frosted, I'd personally put this one as no older than TR period (1930s or later).

Regards
Mike

[tgn]

I don't think it is plated. It is extremely thin.

Tom

[VtwinVince]

Interesting core details, especially the oak leaves.

[streptile]

It does not match any known originals. The core tries to replicate the details of original cores, but makes a few elementary mistakes. I don't care to enumerate them here, but they are total giveaways in my opinion. Later-made crosses usually have a known reverse core and a blank front, not a badly-done copy of an original. For these reasons I think it is probably through-and-through fake.

I could be proven wrong, but I would not have it in my collection, and if it's not already yours, I would advise you against buying it.

[morel5000]

Hi Tom,

is it a stepped core?

Hi Trevor,
could you please elaborate on

but makes a few elementary mistakes

?

I think the frame is very interesting.

Best regards,
Michel

[Ammersee]

I will have to agree with Mike K. The frame appears plated with the plating flaking off. Crosses marked "MFH" share this characteristic. If your cross is made the same as the MFH crosses, the frame should be magnetic. Gary

[tgn]

Answers to questions: It is not a stepped core. The frame is not magnetic as far as I can tell. The cross is and has been in a collection for over 30 years, and when acquired, it came from a much older collection. So, if it is a blatant fake, it was done a very long time ago. Has anyone seen another one like it (maybe identical ones are for sale all over ebay ). I ask you this seriously because the combined knowledge of all you guys usually gets to the truth, which is the true value of this forum...

Tom

[streptile]

Hi Tom,

As far as I know this is not a known fake. I've never seen one before, at least.

[streptile]

Hi Trevor,
could you please elaborate on ?

Hi Michel,

There are two known (or accepted) award-period 1813 EK2 cores. They are very similar, but nevertheless there are differences between them.

The core we see here incorporates elements of both those original cores. But these elements are never mixed on originals -- how could they be? They are two different cores from two different molds. This leads me to believe that this core was manufactured to resemble the originals.

Tom, if the frame isn't plated, is it silver then? It doesn't appear to be, but appearances can deceive.

[kriztof]

All the points made so far are valid. A couple of the pro views, the flaking of the plating looks age/wear related to me, the little repair or reinforcement to the ring is not uncommon, and the core, unusual as it is, seems to show age related wear.

I wouldn't spend a huge amount of money on it but I wouldn't kick it out of bed either. I would have it in my collection because it definitely is different, and who knows, in a few years it might turn out to be something more........or less.


Chris

[Tiger 1]

Answers to questions: It is not a stepped core. The frame is not magnetic as far as I can tell. The cross is and has been in a collection for over 30 years, and when acquired, it came from a much older collection. So, if it is a blatant fake, it was done a very long time ago. Has anyone seen another one like it (maybe identical ones are for sale all over ebay ). I ask you this seriously because the combined knowledge of all you guys usually gets to the truth, which is the true value of this forum...

Tom

Hi Tom,

If my memory serves me right I have seen this cross before.

What are the height and width dimensions? Also what does it weigh in grams?

The reason I ask is that I believe this cross wad made from a 1914 with similar reverse charactoristics to a 1813. The plated frame was the first clue to something being not quite right.

The more I studied the cross the more convinced I became that it was a cleverly altered 1914 EKII.

The cross was taken apart and the core had the crown, W and date removed from the obverse. In flattening and smoothing the front of the core resulted in a thinner core. The two frame haves were then thinned to accomodate the thinner core. That is why this cross would be very thin in the flanges after assembly. In order not to distort the jump ring the small rectangular metal plate was fitted to take up the space.

If my memory is correct this cross has a height, width dimensions of around 43mm instead of the 38 to 41mm of an 1813. The weight was also too light at 9.5 to 10.5 grams. The much lighter weight due to the metal removed from the core and frame.

Just some thoughts,

Tony

P.S. I believe George L. had seen this same cross when I had it to authenticate back then.

[Tiger 1]

Forgot to mention that the core was not stepped and that the rust was orange rather than dark brown. Orange to red rust is fairly new whereas brown to dark brown rust is much older.

All the best,

Tony