ek 1813 price question

[Montgomery Burns]

as fore the soldering

sadly some publications off the BDSO lead to the general believe
that bad soldering wood mean fake .
or at best some hobbyist played with it

so it is alway wise to have a look ( correct )

well 1813 are known to have at some occasions very bad soldering
and it is documented in period history book that there where problems with the assembly off the silver frame and metal core

but they where solved

unknown until today the technical detail behind those problems .

thanks to this cross and this discussion I can come out with some interesting detail about those technical details

but first the soldering .

fore those who can read slowly ,heres the full research about mu soldering
http://ironcross.vpweb.nl/soldering.html

[Montgomery Burns]

the top ring and arm off this cross is soldered perfectly

and as my research showed me done with a hard solder silver alloy

[Montgomery Burns]

the other arm are less well soldered

in a way that my research wood see as a soft solder tin alloy with lead .
http://ironcross.vpweb.nl/soldering.html

a method and visible production method you will find on iron crosses up to 1918

a small Grey line between the frames and a missing Grey line on the top off the arm ,

that represent to me the production method
that solved the problems off soldering a iron core in to a silver frame in the beginning off the history off the cross

problems like ,cracking iron
loss off blackening on the iron core
or melting and bending off the frame wile soldering .

all coming down to temperature involved soldering and keeping it as low as possible

hard and soft soldering and mixtures had to be found and resulted in many experiments and results

but here the pictures

[Montgomery Burns]

except fore the upper arm with the ring , the 3 other arm look all the same

[Montgomery Burns]

sure all this needs a very strong mixture off thinking out off the box and imagination..

aldo some off it has some good foundations ( all period books and documents ) ,,,therefore

so tell me about your research - do you have pictures from other pieces?

the next pictures speak a clear language

the same frame and core
only a worn example ,,
that even with the ayes closed stays period ...

by the way part off an heritage with a lot off other stuff

by the way have to thank Michel fore the pictures

[Montgomery Burns]

a lot off my research is to complicated and to big to post it all here

but please ,give it a chance ,,,here you can find the details

http://ironcross.vpweb.nl/

sure always open to answer questions and press on in this discussion .


regards kay

[römischIX]

ok i am back.

winkler is a good guy, but in my opinion some of his pieces were/are not good ones. i know clasps to the iron cross which were not good, iron crosses, and also other medals in the last few years. i know collectors friends who gave it back and got their money return. for me the cross is no evidence, that this version is a original (period) one. a dealer wants to make money, thats all. i don`t think that the dealers care about fakes or not.
but today we have collectors forums and internet - and it`s harder to
sell these things.

and in germany everybody could write an expertise - if we would you and i too.

is the eyelet of your piece one time verlötet or not?

all of the known versions of 1813 period ones did have the schinkelform because carl f. schinkel created this cross of freedom.
(heyde collected iron crosses many years bevor US and other authors were writing about it) it`s not the holy bible - but why did he not show your version, if it would be period? he had the posibility to get enough information
from the aurich collection and wrote it into his book (think about the historical zeughaussammlung of prussian kings, please)

if i looked right, the frame of the 70s cross and yours are different, aren`t they? for sure in 1870 and 1914 they made wideframe versions. but we are talking about 1813 pieces.

i am staying on my opinion: it could be a zweitstück or a modern copy - may be the frame of a 39 piece ?

and our bundeswehr museum is very nice but in the past they had wrong medalbars on uniforms and other mistakes... no evidence at all...

the measures of heyde`s shown pieces (period!) were all between 40 - 41mm one very early piece of the first hour has only 38 mm
weight: between 15 - 18 gramms - the very early pieces did have 4 parts. 2 thin iron cores and two frames. and the parts of the frame
were putted together with thin "nägel". ; it was only made of silver and not alloy or something other (says louis schneider, too).... i saw two pieces in the last years...

[Montgomery Burns]

ok i am back.

winkler is a good guy, but in my opinion some of his pieces were/are not good ones. i know clasps to the iron cross which were not good, iron crosses, and also other medals in the last few years. i know collectors friends who gave it back and got their money return. for me the cross is no evidence,
but you where asking fore it and i gave you a full twin to mine ?
and now it is no evidence to you ?


that this version is a original (period) one. a dealer wants to make money, thats all. i don`t think that the dealers care about fakes or not.
but today we have collectors forums and internet - and it`s harder to
sell these things.

so the second one you also declare fake ?

and in germany everybody could write an expertise - if we would you and i too.
well ,,,expertise in Germany are not guarantee fore originality but a money return policy fore the client off the dealer


is the eyelet of your piece one time verlötet or not?
dos it matter ? ,your opinion is fixed

all of the known versions of 1813 period ones did have the schinkelform because carl f. schinkel created this cross of freedom.
wrong, the king did ,schinkel only polished the rough diamond


(heyde collected iron crosses many years bevor US and other authors were writing about it) it`s not the holy bible - but why did he not show your version, if it would be period?

that the cross is not in your book is not an argument

and especially a wrong interpretation of the book that everything outside the book is fake or low grade or a secondary cross


he had the posibility to get enough information
from the aurich collection and wrote it into his book (think about the historical zeughaussammlung of prussian kings, please)
first off all
the zeughaus was plundered completely in 1848 it effected the 1813 crosses to ..and later collections ,,


if i looked right, the frame of the 70s cross and yours are different, aren`t they? for sure in 1870 and 1914 they made wideframe versions. but we are talking about 1813 pieces.

well unfortunately the wide frame is generally accepted fore 1813 crosses
by all experts .


i am staying on my opinion: it could be a zweitstück or a modern copy - may be the frame of a 39 piece ?
these are no arguments

and our bundeswehr museum is very nice but in the past they had wrong medalbars on uniforms and other mistakes... no evidence at all...

people make mistakes ,but that dos not mean they're all amateurs
and here you are making a no good cross off ,,,cross number 3



the measures of heyde`s shown pieces (period!) were all between 40 - 41mm one very early piece of the first hour has only 38 mm
weight: between 15 - 18 gramms - the very early pieces did have 4 parts. 2 thin iron cores and two frames. and the parts of the frame
were putted together with thin "nägel". ;
those are the basics we all know off ,,,,but it dos not mean all others are not period or fake or low grade
the general idea off possible variations to that are accepted a long time ago


it was only made of silver and not alloy or something other (says louis schneider, too).... i saw two pieces in the last years...

I wood like to know how you can see the silver content with the naked aye

and I wood be interested in how Luis schneider determen the silver content of such crosses without damaging them or destroying them



no ,, you have a fixed disliking off this cross ,,,

I respect that as it is
and leave it here as your right off an discussion and opinion .

regards kay

[römischIX]

- if you want - no longer discussion.

but please read this article http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/se...eil.pdf?hosts=

about the historical prussian zeughaussammlung, one of the biggest collections worldwide in this time. - the collection was burned in the fire of war or stolen by soldiers. but not in 1848!

carl friedrich schinkel created the iron cross of 1813 - and the prussian king fw III signed his work. you can find a lot of information about the iron cross
in heyde, or in louis schneider`s book - and schneider (a very high prussian academic!) was a men who lived in this time - we both do not. and he wrote some books about prussian orders and decorations.


if you want to see a period piece watch this link in our forum. have a look at the frame and the core - especially the little nails in the frame.

best regards joe.

http://h1797427.stratoserver.net/pub...nd/#post355262

[Montgomery Burns]

the plundering 1848

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Zeughaussturm










.

[römischIX]

kay please let us end here.

the storm of the zeughaus 1848 is correct but 1848 the collection of prussian kings was not plundered.

After the war some high priced pieces of the ex-zeughaus collection were sold for DM (westmark) a hard currency of this time. the coordination did -if i am right-
some DDR agents.

[Montgomery Burns]

schinkel polished the rough diamond

some period info from 1914 (walter von Bremen shef im Stabe des Heeresdienst )

[Montgomery Burns]

the cross you show is neet +

very impressive love it

but the core is not the original first version off the original first design off the modeleur FL Bayerhaus

can be found here
http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/doccont...=PIONIER%20DLF











.

[Montgomery Burns]

kay please let us end here.

the storm of the zeughaus 1848 is correct but 1848 the collection of prussian kings was not plundered.

After the war some high priced pieces of the ex-zeughaus collection were sold for DM (westmark) a hard currency of this time. the coordination did -if i am right-
some DDR agents.

well ok

then it a valuable teamwork thanks fore the info .

[Montgomery Burns]

kay please let us end here.

the storm of the zeughaus 1848 is correct but 1848 the collection of prussian kings was not plundered.

After the war some high priced pieces of the ex-zeughaus collection were sold for DM (westmark) a hard currency of this time. the coordination did -if i am right-
some DDR agents.

well lets stop here,,,the thread we made must be interesting enough fore a lot off people

in the end I have positive feeling about it

,,respect römischIX,,, regards kay







.