1813 Ek2

[Marc Garlasco]

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...111436751&rd=1

[Tom Y]

I dunno,. There are some things I like about it and some I don't. Allowing for the out of focus scan the frame looks good. The angle of the left leaf is consistent with other examples. The date and cypher too. The "dimple" on the upper obverse I'd consider a plus given the casting methods then in use.
On the down side, the elements look a little less sharp than I care for.
I've asked the seller if he'll send it to Jörg Nimmergut for authentication before pazment is made. That should tell us something.

[Tim Tezer]

I had a similar reaction. Looks like it should be a Godet 1830's issue piece with the wide rim on the frame, but the core details don't match up exactly right. The shape of the frame is a little wide and boxy, too - it doesn't "pinch" in enough toward the center. It looks period, but without holding it in my hand I couldn't say for sure.

Tim

[EKman]

I have second thoughts on this one. The frame looks good but I dont like the core. Something that might be considered is a statement I read here on the forum a while back that as far as iron crosses go, some of the rarer 2nd class versions--1813 and 1870--were being faked by taking orriginal frames from other eras and subsituting appropriately aged cores thus confusing collectors and allowing them the rationalize some of the inconsistencies.

[Tiger 1]

Basics are basics. The first thing that I noticed before looking at the core details was the the core is not stepped. IMO it is not an earlier to mid 19th century cross. I am very curious how one can possibly identify it as a Godet product?

Tony

[Tom Y]

Tony, here's a closeup of the obverse. It's definitely stepped.

[Tiger 1]

Tom,

Respectfully look again. What I see from the close up shows excess material inboard the beading and not a step. You will see this type of flash(?) on later '39 EKs made using the Gablonzer method of wire forming the frame and fusing it together under pressure in a frame die. The close up shows a tight fitting frame with no "step" elsewhere.

1939 Zimmerman "20" marked EKIs will show this same type of "flash" in places. Look and see.

Tony

[Sonderkommando]

Just to add to this discussion, it is really very easy to de-solder EK's and remove the core and re-assemle them again.

When I was younger, me and a mate used to get beat up Imperial EK2's and make them into 1813's. De-solder the frame, grind one side smooth and then sand blast it to get some texture and remove file marks, spray it with oven bake black enamel used for car engine blocks and the re-solder the frames together. It really is that simple and the soldered frames were better than the originals.

(we only did a couple for space fillers for the collection)

Cheers,
Brett

[EKman]

So now we know who "THEY" are when we talk about where all the fakes come from

[Tom Y]

Tom,

Respectfully look again. What I see from the close up shows excess material inboard the beading and not a step. You will see this type of flash(?) on later '39 EKs made using the Gablonzer method of wire forming the frame and fusing it together under pressure in a frame die. The close up shows a tight fitting frame with no "step" elsewhere.

1939 Zimmerman "20" marked EKIs will show this same type of "flash" in places. Look and see.

Tony

You're right, Tony. Musta been wishful thinking on my part.
I got an answer from the seller and, not surprisingly, he won't send it to Nimmergut.

[stogieman]

I looked at this....

... when it was first listed for sale. My only comment is "not in my collection"

[Tim Tezer]

Tony,

I see a lot of things in these photos that tell me it's NOT a Godet product, but it appears closest to the configuration of Godet 1830's pieces. I'm referring to the 1835-1838 production issue pieces, which are believed to have been made by Godet. They did not have stepped cores.

Good point about the flashing on the frame - that's another ding against this cross. It could be a mid-19th century copy, but that's very hard to determine even first-hand, let alone from a photo. It comes down to just a matter of opinion at that point. The buyer would have to decide how old he thinks it is, and how much he's willing to pay.

Tim

[Blitz]

Not a 1813ek2 i would go for. I can't say weither it's genuine or not, but i suppose it's possible that it was made during the last patch of 1834-37. Just the possibility isn't enough to get involved with this one. I have to say that comparing that piece to the one i have seems like comparing night and day. You don't mind if i share a few pictures for purely educational purposes?


It is as if it's alive and crying out: "I was given to those who had honor, courage and a capacity for self-sacrifice and I should be treated with respect." Suddenly, holding something so old and so.. so.. ..magnificient in my own hand almost makes me emotional. Don't you just love our hobby!

[Blitz]

..

[Tiger 1]

Tim,

I know about the presumed Godet made examples that you are refering to. This example has core and frame differences that are not like accepted examples of these later crosses. This one is a tough one to judge from pictures alone. It would be helpful if the weight was mentioned. I really don't think that it is a mid 19th century (1850s ?) copie but a later era piece. It may well be from the 1895 Jubilee period as the look of the frame is a bit more shall we say "refined or more sophisticated " than an earlier made 1813 EKII. I know that my comment is purely subjective and really doesn't contribute to solving this mystery. But my gut feeling combined with what knowledge I have accrued has served me well in the past. I would really love to see and examine this cross in hand.

All the best,

Tony