1813 Iron Cross

[saschaw]

While I'm not sure what to think of tis cross, I'm sure it is not an altered 1914 cross. I think it does have chances...

[tgn]

While I'm not sure what to think of tis cross, I'm sure it is not an altered 1914 cross. I think it does have chances...

I agree with you on this. Altering a 1914 iron Cross is waaaaaay too much work for the value of this piece when it was last sold, not to mention when it was first sold to the previous previous collector.

BTW, the weight is 13.8 g and the rust is brown. The dimensions for height and width are 43 mm.

Tom

[streptile]

While I'm not sure what to think of tis cross, I'm sure it is not an altered 1914 cross.

I agree. The frame is not from a later-made cross as far as I can tell. It has the typical tight beading, and shape.

I think it does have chances...

I agree, but I think the chances are so miniscule as to not make it worth the risk. I think it is an early copy.

[streptile]

Hi Tom,

Can you determine the material of the frame?

[saschaw]

I agree, but I think the chances are so miniscule as to not make it worth the risk. I think it is an early copy.

I think it may be a 19th century replacemet cross - but I would not buy it. At least not for an usual price.

To big risk to burn money with it...

[tgn]

Hi Tom,

Can you determine the material of the frame?

I honestly think the frame is silver. I hate to try to clean it to prove that it is just tarnished, but...

BTW, can you comment on the oak leaves? They do not look like 1914 style oak leaves, or?

Tom

[streptile]

BTW, can you comment on the oak leaves? They do not look like 1914 style oak leaves, or? Tom

Hi Tom,

You're right -- the oakleaves do not resemble any (known) 1914 types. In fact they look damn close to the correct 1813 type. But they're just a little bit off. The texture of the leaves looks like lettuce, for lack of a better description.

I always use Marshall's cross as an example of a nice, perfect original sans-serif core type:



The crown on yours seems to be an attempt to replicate this crown, in my opinion. But this crown type (what I call the "jeweled hat" to denote that the jewels in the upper or "hat" portion of the crown are rather prominent) is only ever seen with a sans-serif 1813 date. The other original core type, with a serifed date, has a different crown style. These are consistent pairings (date/crown) across all original 1813 types. Here's the other core:



Yours incorporates the "jeweled hat" crown style, and the serif dates. This, to me, is the major problem with it. It's an unknown combination of elements. Now, obviously you were not asking whether this was an award-type, so why am I going into this explanation? Because it looks to me to be based on someone's concept of the award-type. But later-made replacement crosses that I know have an entirely new core type, not one that combines elements from the two known originals into a new, third design. It just looks to me like someone was trying to duplicate an award-type core, and did a decent job but got a few things wrong.

The other problem to me is the frame material. As I've said, the frame design (beading, shape) actually looks good, and argues in favor of your cross's authenticity, to me. But I could never imagine one of these, even a later replacement, being made with any material other than silver. So, since I assumed the frame was not silver, that was another strike against it to me.

I really can't say with any certainty what your cross is. If the frame is indeed silver, I might be inclined to give it a bit more of a chance. I have to say that Sascha's opinion that it may have a chance has also given me pause. I find he is usually correct.

Is the core magnetic?

[saschaw]

I have to say that Sascha's opinion that it may have a chance has also given me pause. I find he is usually correct.

Well, thanks. But as you have studied these a hundered times more than I did... it's no more than a gut feeling I'm having. As said, it might be good. Maybe it's not. I just don't know.

If the core is not iron, and the frame is not silver, I'd rather stay away. Have to agree with Trevor in these points. But I think the core is iron and the frame is silver...

[tgn]

Streptile, thanks VERY much for posting those photos. Impressive examples for comparison purposes. You are right, my example is trying to be one of those known original examples, but doesn't quite match either. It does prove one thing, though, this is NOT a modified 1914 E.K.2 as Tiger 1 suggested.

Just for the record, the core IS iron, and I think the frame is silver.

Tom

[Tiger 1]

Tom,

I have no bone to pick with you personally. I was commenting on the cross you posted. I'm about 95% sure that this is the same cross that was offered to me years ago. If I can find my pictures of it from that time I will bring it to the Concord Show in couple of weeks.

What concerned me about that cross I stated above. The measurements and weight (my memory was off several grams) were not what is accepted for an 1813. This is not what I 'think' but a compilation of weights and measures of known original examples in the prewar Max Aurich collection as published by Heyde. similar criteria is published in volume 2 of the Deutsches Museum book whose title skips my mind as it is published in German. It.s interesting that we don't use these easily determined facts i.e. dimensions and weight as being pertinant in determining originality.

Again, no offense intended, but an analytical individual should get a chuckle out of some folks ability to discern what the metalurgical content of something is just from a picture.

Tom, you know me from way before this marvel of technology called the internet. I have a life long serious love affair with collecting EKs. I've been at it for more decades than I care to think about. Call me a sceptic but I learned long ago that wishing so doesn't always make it so. It's also much easier on the wallet when one deals in facts an not wishes.

Maybe I'm getting old as there seems to be a lot of 'new' theories about who,what,where,when etc. that is bandied about with thrilling regularity of being a new discovery about how it could have happened or been. One problem that I see is that there is so much info offered up but sadly so little actual proof to support these castles of thought built on the shifting sands of the internet keyboard.

Thanks for listening. I'll bow out now as I got a concert to go to. Some old fart named Jeff Beck is in town tonight.

All the best,

Tony

[gregM]

Maybe I'm getting old as there seems to be a lot of 'new' theories about who,what,where,when etc. that is bandied about with thrilling regularity of being a new discovery about how it could have happened or been. One problem that I see is that there is so much info offered up but sadly so little actual proof to support these castles of thought built on the shifting sands of the internet keyboard.

Well said, Tony

[tgn]

Tony, I am a little bewildered by your long diatribe. Bone to pick? There are no bones to pick between us. We are both long time collectors, kinda sorta friends and like bantering around thoughts on anomalies, or at least I thought we did?

I was also commenting on the cross, not attacking you. You gave a long detailed description on how it was cleverly made from a 1914 E.K.2, almost like you made it yourself. I was just pointing out that it was not. It is not a 1914 E.K. core. If you were offended that I referenced you to your theory that you just stated, I apologize.

In my very first post I clearly stated this is not an original 1813 issue cross, so what does the weight or dimensions of an original issue have to do with figuring out what this example is?

We all know they couldn't even make enough crosses for the original recipients, and they did a second run in the 1830's for those still alive that didn't receive one in the first place. This cross is clearly neither one of those. But what was made after that is more cloudy. Surely someone made replacement crosses in the 1840's, 50's, 60's and beyond. The only question on this one is how much later was it made - 1850's or 1950's???

The core is clearly iron. I have it is hand and can see that. The frame is not magnetic so I believe it is tarnished silver.

This may very well be the cross you looked at many years ago. I came from a long ago defunct Chicago area collector and went away into another down south collection. But this all seems to annoy you and I can't understand why? Are you saying you already looked at it and dismissed it years ago, so it is a waste of time to look at it again? I thought that was what the forum was for - to use today's knowledge to better examine things, or can't old dogs like us learn anything new anymore?

From my perspective, it looks like a pre-1914 made replacement cross. Probably even pre-1870 as the core doesn't even match one from that era.

Hope you enjoyed the concert...

Tom

[streptile]

...there seems to be a lot of 'new' theories about who,what,where,when etc. that is bandied about with thrilling regularity of being a new discovery about how it could have happened or been. One problem that I see is that there is so much info offered up but sadly so little actual proof to support these castles of thought built on the shifting sands of the internet keyboard.

Hi Tony,

If there are ever any "new theories" that you are unfamiliar with, why not simply ask for the evidence? It may be there after all, lurking beneath the surface of the post; it's not always possible or convenient to support every observation, assertion, opinion or fact with all the necessary evidence in every post. But a vigorous discussion, out in the open here on the forum, will certainly bring the truth, or falsity, of any "new theory" to light.

Respectfully,
Trevor


.

[Biro]

... The texture of the leaves looks like lettuce, for lack of a better description...

That is freakish because when I looked at this cross the other day, that is EXACTLY the description that I was going to use, but my analogy would have been cabbage!

Sadly Tom, I can't offer too much more than what has already been said here. There are elements of the design of this cross that are perfectly in character with the period, notably the crown, which almost has a Grand Cross quality and look to it. Trevor pointed out that there were certain things about it that were just slightly 'off', and when comparing it as potentially from the same mold as an original such as the two Trevor posted above, that is certainly the case.

Nonetheless, 'off' is not necessarily a bad thing thing when you are dealing with something unique, which to the best of my knowledge, yours appears to be.

This beautiful example belonging to my friend Tony (Tiger1) http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...95&postcount=6 would surely attract much derision because of the 'bent stem' on the oakleaves if it weren't for the existence of the ONLY other example of Tonys cross I know of where this is also the case.. (that belonging to Field Marshal Blucher and pictured in the original Iron Time pg 34)

As has been pointed out, the absence of a proliferation of others - in fact ANY - of this type you've shown us would have to be considered a mark in the plus column. The 'frosting' that appears to be evident on the frame would naturally go down as a tick in the negative column.

The wideframe would be extremely uncommon and more akin to an 1870-1890's era cross, but while probably not a period piece IMO, I might consider hanging on to this one for a while in case something else cropped up that either vindicated or vilified it.

Marshall

[Tiger 1]

Tom, Trevor and others,

If I offended I sincerely appologize.

I was engaging in a spirited discussion on my part, albeit in a contrarian way that may have been mistaken as hostility.

I was being the devil's advocate. I was curious to see how people would react to hard nose questions that we should entertain as students of the hobby.

I am here as others are. To enjoy, learn, contribute when we can and as my friend Marshall once said 'to throw the cat in among the pigeons' every once in a while. With that said I'll sign off for the evening.

Oh yeh, Jeff Beck and the Imelda May Band was kick a$$!

All the best,

Tony