1914 EK made before or after 1918?

[Montgomery Burns]

The assumption comes from the rules of the GOK Kay. Can admit i never saw them in print but this has been known for long. Problem is that even on official award ceremonies, in field or wherever, a vaulted cross could possibly be mixed into the others in some way. Hence my question.

well I can count in a few more possibility's

dont know if you would be familiar with Schneiders book 1872 .

that Book shows a lot about the role off the GOK in war time ..1813

well ,what i read out off it is,,at that time
that the GOK is by no means a Guardian off what was attempted to be the standard criteria fore medals at the start off the war

no ,,
it was a imperial tool that had to deal with the secondary work that was coming out off the medal awarding at war,, and past war .

an not,,, very thankful job that was at the Merci off a lot off involving forces

an institute that had to trouble shoot,,, and often bend and bow fore :

problems off the intellectual type as well as the field regulation reality.
not to mention the individual wishes and demands off individual cases occurring
and so much Moore after the war .

but always at the will off the off dictating forces above or below the organization

I do strongly believe that that would be not so much different at 1914

and the GOk off 1914 would also not be
just a Guardian off what was attempted to be the standard criteria fore medals at the start off the war .


that is WY i have my doubts so much

regards kay

[gregM]

This is a very interesting thread and hope to learn something here.
I would like to add this comment and in no means do I mean to
offend anyone.

Just because something is printed in a book, no matter how old
it is or how knowledgeable or well respected the author is, dos
not make it absolutely true.

We as a group have on many occasions refered back to old books
such as Bowen's for example . Look at how much we have learned
about iron crosses just in the last 10-12 years or so. The Iron time
is another example. It's a great book but when the 1st edition
came out, we found inaccuracies in it.

Just my 2 cents worth

[Montgomery Burns]

This is a very interesting thread and hope to learn something here.
I would like to add this comment and in no means do I mean to
offend anyone.

Just because something is printed in a book, no matter how old
it is or how knowledgeable or well respected the author is, dos
not make it absolutely true.

We as a group have on many occasions refered back to old books
such as Bowen's for example . Look at how much we have learned
about iron crosses just in the last 10-12 years or so. The Iron time
is another example. It's a great book but when the 1st edition
came out, we found inaccuracies in it.

Just my 2 cents worth

let me give you some more about the book I mean

Schneider book ...............................

1 December 1865 king Wilhelm the first off Prussia ordered
Geheimraht Luis Schneider to wright a book about the Prussian medals

already Schneider was a known author off extensive series off books about the Roter adler orden ( 1857) and the Russian medals ....

wrote his first military book 1829..
became holder off the golden science medal at 1832
and became official Prussian Hofrat 1850
wrote a sort off autobiographic work about the life off kaiser Wilhelm the first 1849/1857
who he was close with fore years as hofrat and vorleser

writing 1865 about the Prussian medals he had the full official power off the king himself to order all documents off all sorts at all sources he wanted to complete the work
including the GOK .
at 13 Archives AND REGISTERS he collected his overview over the Prussian medals

his work about the prussian medals would hold the ..
Lluisen orden
RETTUNG MEDAILLE
Düppeler Sturmkreuz
erinnerungs kreuz 1866
haus orden von Hohen zollern
schwarzer adler orden
kronen orden
and ,,,,,,,das Eiserne kreuz in two parts ( 1872)

and all approved and and overseen by the king .

that book gives a good accurate picture off the royal wishes / demands and the GOK practice on the field dealings surrounding the iron cross 1813 /1870
as it is so close to the source and based on official and (unofficial Official) documents and dealings off the time itself
not to speak off,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the witnesses off the time wrote it itself


regards kay

one day I hope there will be a English version off that book

[Montgomery Burns]

This is a very interesting thread and hope to learn something here.
I would like to add this comment and in no means do I mean to
offend anyone.

Just because something is printed in a book, no matter how old
it is or how knowledgeable or well respected the author is, dos
not make it absolutely true.

We as a group have on many occasions refered back to old books
such as Bowen's for example . Look at how much we have learned
about iron crosses just in the last 10-12 years or so. The Iron time
is another example. It's a great book but when the 1st edition
came out, we found inaccuracies in it.

Just my 2 cents worth

in basic youre opinion is right

even with the schneider book parts off the documents leading to his work has being lost throe time

and only god knows how many little details he's left out in his book ..
details that these day's mean the world to us ...

so staying skeptical as base ,,,,,,is absolutely the right way


regards kay

[saschaw]

Thanks Sascha, have you read the documents yourself or base it on "old knowledge"

Just the latter, unfortunately. Combined with the newer founds published in German magazines, but none that I made. Though, there are facts known and other things we can assume and be rather sure they're right.

well ,what i read out off it is,,at that time that the GOK is by no means a Guardian off what was attempted to be the standard criteria fore medals

Well, times are changing... back then, 1813, there wasn't much of a need for it, later there was. Awards were something official, thus had to look about the same, and not like a maker felt to make them. Regarding the general appearance, not tiny details we see as differences.

[Roglebk]

This is a very interesting thread and hope to learn something here.
I would like to add this comment and in no means do I mean to
offend anyone.

Just because something is printed in a book, no matter how old
it is or how knowledgeable or well respected the author is, dos
not make it absolutely true.

We as a group have on many occasions refered back to old books
such as Bowen's for example . Look at how much we have learned
about iron crosses just in the last 10-12 years or so. The Iron time
is another example. It's a great book but when the 1st edition
came out, we found inaccuracies in it.

Just my 2 cents worth

Amen to that.

[Montgomery Burns]

Just the latter, unfortunately. Combined with the newer founds published in German magazines, but none that I made. Though, there are facts known and other things we can assume and be rather sure they're right.

well cant you tell us the names off the magazines ,? I read German !
and many others here do to

Well, times are changing... back then, 1813, there wasn't much of a need for it, later there was. Awards were something official, thus had to look about the same, and not like a maker felt to make them. Regarding the general appearance, not tiny details we see as differences.

not much off a need for it later there was ?
later the awards became something official ?

Sascha
on this point your so ill informed ,,,,especially on the 1813/1870 field .

there is no point discussing


.

[saschaw]

well cant you tell us the names off the magazines ,? I read German ! and many others here do to

DGO's (former BDOS') "Orden und Ehrenzeichen", and some of the older "Orden-Militaria-Magazin". Those magazines we are usually referring to, so I thought that were clear.

not much off a need for it (.) later there was ?

Well, how many medal makers were in 1820, and how many in 1880, 1900 or 1916? Guess what?! They became more and more, changing things.

later the awards became something official ?

They always were and I do not think I wronte anything different...

[saschaw]

and personal attacks are the next step

The next step? Actually not, as you did yet start with it...



I don't think it's me being uninformed, but rather language barriers.

Sascha
on this point your so ill informed ,,,,especially on the 1813/1870 field .

there is no point discussing

[Montgomery Burns]

The next step? Actually not, as you did yet start with it...



I don't think it's me being uninformed, but rather language barriers.

Sascha that was not my intention

I deeply regret putting it down that way

my apology's fore it

sometimes its just very very hard as one stands not face to face in a discussion ,,and in a different language on top off that

[saschaw]

Fine... so could we get back to the topic?



The GOK was indeed a "Guardian". Medal makers did offer their service to produce for the state, sent examples in, and got them back with a "doesn't match the master". See Scharfenbergs OMM article on the 1914 EK for that... the great one we (and especially I) are often referring to.

I honestly don't know if there's an actual proof for it, but I have no doubts the "Probe" (example, master) of the 1914 EK1 was flat. And if it was, it's not possible vaulted crosses and flat crosses were officially handed out by the GOK, as they did accept only one pattern - flat ones in my believe.

Not all that has been written for decades is right, yes. But neither is everything of it wrong.

[Don D.]

Yes, let's please stay on topic.....

[Montgomery Burns]

Fine... so could we get back to the topic?



The GOK was indeed a "Guardian". Medal makers did offer their service to produce for the state, sent examples in, and got them back with a "doesn't match the master". See Scharfenbergs OMM article on the 1914 EK for that... the great one we (and especially I) are often referring to.

I honestly don't know if there's an actual proof for it, but I have no doubts the "Probe" (example, master) of the 1914 EK1 was flat. And if it was, it's not possible vaulted crosses and flat crosses were officially handed out by the GOK, as they did accept only one pattern - flat ones in my believe.

Not all that has been written for decades is right, yes. But neither is everything of it wrong.

I only have my doubts ,,,,,,
that do not mean,,,, I can not be wrong .

as far as today
i cant find enough throe "evidence" fore both types to be awarded ,,,,,,,,sure ,,,

but I am missing also the flat version "evidence"
that is WY i was pushing so much

thanks fore the book titles by the way ,,I will get them some how.
that is fore sure .

lets see from there ,,,so far its a nice separation off private and awarded

regards kay

[Jeroen P]

I believe Ken Niewiarowicz once said on his website that if the back of an S-W 1914 Ek1 looks like this, it is made pre-1918.

So, if I find an S-W EK that looks exactly like this, can I be 100% sure that it was made pre 1918, or would that be too easy?

[saschaw]

I guess it's Ken Niewiarowicz you should ask this. And, please ask him for his sources...

Not to get me wrong, I agree this cross is likely from mid-WW1 era, and most probably WW1 made.

But how can we be sure, without primary sources?! The WW1 Iron Cross was awarded - and probably also officially produced - up to 1924!