my new favorite

[plaut]

Hi Guys,
Just want to share with you ... Trevor thanks for your help

[Gew44]

Very impressive EKII, with many "history" this EK..... speack itself !!

Regards

Gew44

[Borzadow]

And bought for 1/4 of its value.... congrats

Wish I had some funds to bid on it....

[petopoint]

awesome

I like it a lot, it's got character is almost hypnotic at first glance.
Congrats on a real nice score.

[The Thingy]

Very impressive, thanks for sharing....

[gregM]

Interesting cross.
I just went through ALL of the "Holy Grail" club meetings and found
only one other cross with the same core details as this one.

2010 Grail meeting post #75
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...y+grail&page=5

[pzrwest]

I agree a super cross. I have a question though.... how would the iron core get broken without any damage to the frame? Just curious is all

[streptile]

Now there's something you don't see every day. Congratulations

Pzrwest, the iron cores of 1813 EKs are often cracked because with the technology at the time it wasn't possible to remove the phosphorus from the iron, which caused it to be brittle. This was remedied with some of the later 19th C. cores, and also of course with the 1870 cores. By 1915 or so most cores were made from stamped steel, and in WWII they all were, eliminating the problem all together and simplifying the process.

Greg, in my opinion this cross has one of the two original award-type cores (the so-called serif type). It is generally believed that one core design came from the Berlin foundry, and the other from the famous Gleiwitz foundry. If this is true, and I believe it is, there is a fair chance that the serif type came from Gleiwitz, and the sans-serif from Berlin, as an old book on the art of casting iron in Gleiwitz shows a core (shown below) purportedly from the Gleiwitz foundry, and it is the serif type.

Some further speculation supports the idea that Gleiwitz cast the serif-type core. There is a lone core in the Aurich collection which is also the serif type, and is said the be "probably" from Gleiwitz. Previtera shows a cross "known to have been made at Gleiwitz during the war" and it is also the serif type. Yet the Prussian king's EK2 is the sans-serif. He lived in Berlin, wouldn't he have gotten a Berliner cross?

This is speculation, to be sure, but in my opinion we are moving towards an understanding of which foundry cast which type of core.

[gregM]

This cross and the one that Alik posted are the only two that I
have seen that have the straight branch oak leafs AND all those
beads in the crown. It looks like 11 jewels in the band of the crown.
Mine and yours (2010 #6) have only 7 jewels in the band of the
crown, even though yours and mine have different style dates.

[streptile]

Hi Greg,

Yes, I see what you mean -- Michal's core matches Alik's for sure. There is a startling amount of variation among 1813 cores, which is most likely due to the casting process in which cores were cast in "trees" where one mold is not precisely the same as the next -- only the overall design is the same. I can't remember if you have Heyde's book on the Aurich collection, but if so, take a look at the variety in there! No core is just like another (although C6 matches Michal's perfectly and I think C3 matches yours).

It is not an exact science, it's true. I suppose one could make a study of the various minute variations (jewels in the head band, for example) of the two main core types (serif and sans-serif) to determine how many "branches" (individual core molds) there were to each "tree." This would take a huge database of originals to complete and of course, you'd never really know if you got it all correct, but it would be a worthy (and awesome!) project.

But overall, I myself am not troubled by these small, well-known variations in the core details of original 1813 EK2s. Of course, everyone has to comfortable with his own cross, and I remember one thread a few years ago in which Brian S averred that he wouldn't be comfortable with almost any 1813 EK2 because all these small differences mean that there is no one specific core design that a collector can look to as an undisputed original.

By the way here is a shot of a casting tree -- in fact, a recreation of what an 1813 EK2 core casting tree would have looked like, so the precise number of molds is likely not correct (although based on my own anecdotal evidence I bet it's close). But it's easy to see how each mold, made by someone working from the same master design, could nevertheless vary slightly.

By the way, the Victoria Cross is still apparently made with this same old-fashioned technique.

[Montgomery Burns]

nobody has to guess what the Gleiwitzer core would look like .
its commonly known only not in our collection field .

the book Gleiwitzer eisenkunst guss from 1928
author Erwin Hinze
publisher Schlesischer altertums verein .

that book claims and shows
pictures off the original first iron core fore the Iron Cross

commissioned by f. Schinkel to the modeller FLJ Bayerhaus

and delivered to the king as a tin model
approved by the king as well as taken in production by Berlin and Gleiwitzer iron casting facility's at 1813

you can even find the book as E book.

(before some reinvent the wheel).

[Montgomery Burns]

hy plaut wonderful cross

and ,, I got one to .

the same core, different frame .and popularity contest winner
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...hlight=ek+1813

regards kay

[streptile]

nobody has to guess what the Gleiwitzer core would look like .
its commonly known only not in our collection field .
the book Gleiwitzer eisenkunst guss from 1928
author Erwin Hinze
publisher Schlesischer altertums verein.
(before some reinvent the wheel)

Hi Kay,

As you can see, I have already posted the image of the core from Hinze's 1928 book just five posts above this one.

I'm not sure it necessarily settles the issue 100% though, as the book was published over 100 years following the war. There is also the unanswered question of whether indeed one foundry made the serif type and one the sans. Therefore I also added some small pieces of supporting evidence too.

That said, I do believe it is likely that Gleiwitz made the serif cores.

[Montgomery Burns]

Hi Kay,

As you can see, I have already posted the image of the core from Hinze's 1928 book just five posts above this one.

I'm not sure it necessarily settles the issue 100% though, as the book was published over 100 years following the war. There is also the unanswered question of whether indeed one foundry made the serif type and one the sans. Therefore I also added some small pieces of supporting evidence too.

That said, I do believe it is likely that Gleiwitz made the serif cores.

settling the matter is what I am after to ....

But having an opinion at 2012 dos not delete claims off a period book from 1928.
(or makes half throe ) .
your up against justified claims from a well respected Iron Art book 1928.


bright side off it is : (And sort off agreeing with you there )

I to,,,,,,,,,, do not believe that the iron works did always used just this one example throe 80 years off production .

there where More,,, no doubt about that .
there where others ,in the beginning as well as later .



have fun


kay

,

[plaut]

Thanks Guys - like most of EK collectors started from TR and I grow up to true beauty