My Holy Grail of 2011

[AFF96]

Welcome to the club

Thanks Greg! Actually I was fortunate to join last year
Greg

[römischIX]

nice one.

a sign of freedom for a free germany.

there`s a joke i read in the simplicissimus about the war 1813/14:

two french men and a prussian veteran talk to each other: mon dieu this iron cross is the best prussian order and doesn`t have the worth of 5 sous?

the prussian: yes, of course, but it costs you your napoleon


regards joe.

[streptile]

Trevor for president I'd say

Thank you for lightening the mood -- I was getting embarrassed.

The truth is that I am often wrong, and always learning. But at least when I am advising friends about spending their money, I try to be very, very sure, and very conservative.

On this type of cross, with the bent oakleaf stem, we have had this discussion before. Most everyone dates it to after 1835, and some more expert than I date it to as late as the 1860s. But no one doubts it is a good 19th C. piece. This information is exactly what I told Greg at the S.O.S., where he got this one directly from Stephen Previtera.

HERE is a good thread which illustrates two important points:

1. The two different known award-period core types (serif and sans-serif), and the later, bent-stem type.
2. I am always learning.

,,and as far as I know no one can date these 1813 crosses fore sure to first and second pattern ...

I think it is an issue of semantics. I never used the terms "1. Pattern" or "2. Pattern," but rather explained the two different cores in use for award-types, the known frame-construction techniques of the very earliest types, and then the later, bent-stem core we see here. I think Greg was using a shorthand.

[streptile]

two french men and a prussian veteran talk to each other: mon dieu this iron cross is the best prussian order and doesn`t have the worth of 5 sous?
the prussian: yes, of course, but it costs you your napoleon

Very good one Joe

[AFF96]

""I think it is an issue of semantics. I never used the terms "1. Pattern" or "2. Pattern," but rather explained the two different cores in use for award-types, the known frame-construction techniques of the very earliest types, and then the later, bent-stem core we see here. I think Greg was using a shorthand.""

Correct-a-mundo!
I apologize for any confusion I might have caused, it's just how I classify them. Like with the 1870 crosses types "A" & "B." Easier for my simple mind!
It's just me....
Thanks!
Greg

[Montgomery Burns]

Thank you for lightening the mood -- I was getting embarrassed.

The truth is that I am often wrong, and always learning. But at least when I am advising friends about spending their money, I try to be very, very sure, and very conservative.

On this type of cross, with the bent oakleaf stem, we have had this discussion before. Most everyone dates it to after 1835, and some more expert than I date it to as late as the 1860s. But no one doubts it is a good 19th C. piece. This information is exactly what I told Greg at the S.O.S., where he got this one directly from Stephen Previtera.

HERE is a good thread which illustrates two important points:

1. The two different known award-period core types (serif and sans-serif), and the later, bent-stem type.
2. I am always learning.

I think it is an issue of semantics. I never used the terms "1. Pattern" or "2. Pattern," but rather explained the two different cores in use for award-types, the known frame-construction techniques of the very earliest types, and then the later, bent-stem core we see here. I think Greg was using a shorthand.

well the 1813 era is a challenging sector ..fore all off us

by the way ,,the special ek 1813 we seen from tgn is in my collection now ...

regards kay












,

[streptile]

by the way ,,the special ek 1813 we seen from tgn is in my collection now ...

Very nice.

Then perhaps you can do a frame comparison with this one for me? The similarity of the frame of tgn's to this example is what made me change my mind about it.

[VtwinVince]

Excellent example TrevorYou know where this one can always find a good home

[streptile]

Excellent example TrevorYou know where this one can always find a good home

Thanks Vince -- I like it too Both the EKs I show above are owned by Kay though.

[Jleb2]

Great stuff!

[Montgomery Burns]

Very nice.

Then perhaps you can do a frame comparison with this one for me? The similarity of the frame of tgn's to this example is what made me change my mind about it.

trevor ,,

both my crosses do look regular wide frame variants ,,,but

both are extreme frame production anomaly's beyond anything excepted generally
those pictures you have do not give away those secrets clear enough.
and therefore moore off these very special frame production anomaly's are travelling amongst us (unidentified as such) as period original regular 1813/ 1830 examples ,,,

well as fore the internet collector community...
it is still very uncomfortable with the idea off ek 1813 produced 1870/1890 .
extreme variants deviating from the generally accepted and known in general are quickly demonetised .

((and are just perfect to be in my collection by the way ))



so you understand a presentation off those findings wood be to soon yet ...and to complicated


regards kay

[Tiger 1]

On this type of cross, with the bent oakleaf stem, we have had this discussion before. Most everyone dates it to after 1835, and some more expert than I date it to as late as the 1860s. But no one doubts it is a good 19th C. piece. This information is exactly what I told Greg at the S.O.S., where he got this one directly from Stephen Previtera.

HERE is a good thread which illustrates two important points:

1. The two different known award-period core types (serif and sans-serif), and the later, bent-stem type.
2. I am always learning.

d.

Trevor,

About the bent stem 1813. Something that Marshall mentioned in the link you refered to openned my eyes by the sheer simplicity in dating this particular type.

Marshall mentions that the bent type is one of the 1813s GFM Blucher owned. If this statement is accepted as correct, also being corroberated in The Iron Time, then the bent stem 1813 II is in fact earlier than 1820.

Yes! Earlier than 1820.

Think about it a bit and the logic behind my statement is very apparent and incontrovertable.

All the best,

Tony

P.S. This is an excercise in expanding our collective sleuthing abilities as students of the Iron Cross in persuit of what is true.

[streptile]

Hi Tony,

Yes, Blücher died in late 1819. As for his sash pictured in The Iron Time, I'm not sure what to make if it. The 1813 Gross Kreuz on it has a core that is very, very much closer to the 1870 reverse type than the award-period 1813 type, so I tend to think of the sash as something assembled later in the 19th C. to honor him, perhaps after 1870.

Truly, honestly, I don't know if the bent stem type was made in 1814 or 1860. For this reason I always try to say, "it is thought to be post 1835," rather than "I think it is post 1835." I know that Detlev Niemann dated it to after 1835, and Mike Estelmann to as late as 1860, for good reason. But I would be very pleased to learn it is an earlier type; three friends of mine (Greg, Mike, and you) would then own an early EK2, which would make me happy.

Here is a fairly good thread about the type.

[AFF96]

Great discussion! To help with this thread & continue, here are my 2 types next to each other to compare on this thread.
Thanks!
Greg
Both EK II 1813 007.jpg

Both EK II 1813 011.jpg

[Tiger 1]

Hi Tony,

Yes, Blücher died in late 1819. As for his sash pictured in The Iron Time, I'm not sure what to make if it. The 1813 Gross Kreuz on it has a core that is very, very much closer to the 1870 reverse type than the award-period 1813 type, so I tend to think of the sash as something assembled later in the 19th C. to honor him, perhaps after 1870.

Truly, honestly, I don't know if the bent stem type was made in 1814 or 1860. For this reason I always try to say, "it is thought to be post 1835," rather than "I think it is post 1835." I know that Detlev Niemann dated it to after 1835, and Mike Estelmann to as late as 1860, for good reason. But I would be very pleased to learn it is an earlier type; three friends of mine (Greg, Mike, and you) would then own an early EK2, which would make me happy.

Here is a fairly good thread about the type.

Trevor,

I understand your point. My point is based on the statement that the decorations shown in the Iron Time were 'owned' by Blucher himself. My contention is if Blucher 'owned' these crosses, then he had to be alive to do so.

There in lies the conflict in what is actually written and what is interpreted from what iswritten.

All the best,

Tony