1813 Iron Cross

[streptile]

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!

Cabbage too.

This beautiful example belonging to my friend Tony (Tiger1) would surely attract much derision because of the 'bent stem' on the oakleaves...

That type (with the bent stem) is the other, later core I was referring to above. It is thought to be a post 1835 version, and member RAO AKA Mike Estelmann believes it to be possibly as late as the 1860s. I'm not sure precisely what his reasons are, but perhaps he will share them.

Here are some more:


Antti


Bob Hritz

[streptile]

If I offended I sincerely appologize.

No offense taken, Tony.

I am always willing to support my conclusions with evidence, so never hesitate to ask.

[tgn]

If I offended I sincerely apologize. Tony

You didn't offend me either, so no apology necessary. You know me, I love spirited debates...

Tom

[Tiger 1]

"That type (with the bent stem) is the other, later core I was referring to above. It is thought to be a post 1835 version, and member RAO AKA Mike Estelmann believes it to be possibly as late as the 1860s."

For what it's worth. The Dr. Klietmann certificate that came with the 1813 EKII that I own stated that the cross was of the 1830 contract. The certificate is was issued in 1985.

Tony

[paulj]

Here's another extended discussion with some interesting images. Unfortunately, the image quality is inconsistant so it's tough to see some of the details that would help the discussion. One could capture some of the pictures and manipulate accordingly.

The thing is, the cast cores do vary extensively. The most common similarities are the nummerals and the (usually) verticle stem. After that, the leaves are subject to the most variation. Achieving fine detail when casting iron is not easy but Berlin was known for its high quality iron work. Still we're talking about work done in the 1830's so each example is hand-made and subject to all manner of influences starting with the mold itself.

Anyway, here's the thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...n+Cross&page=7

[streptile]

The thing is, the cast cores do vary extensively.

Hi Paul,

There are two core types (serif and sans-serif) that are currently accepted as award-period cores, and one other (bent stem) that is thought to be later, but still 19th C. Within these cores there is some variation, but not so much that any given core is not identifiable as one of these main three types.

While it does not rule it out as a 19th C. piece, the piece under discussion here does not conform to any of these three types.

[kriztof]

an analytical individual should get a chuckle out of some folks ability to discern what the metallurgical content of something is just from a picture.

Chris

[streptile]

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.

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.

I just wanted to bring this thread back up to the top to say that I do now personally believe this cross to be a late 19th C. replacement EK witha core intentionally designed to resemble award-period originals, that my earlier uncertainty has pretty much been cleared up, and my questions resolved, to my personal satisfaction.

In my opinion, a keeper

[Montgomery Burns]

took some time

kay









.