1813 1st and 2nd Class

[Tiger 1]

Kay....

Am I really that wrong? Wrong is a strong word.
Think about it carefully before you dismiss every 'old' technique as being nonreproducable.
All current techniques are built on old and proven ones. Nothing really new other than perhaps newer materials but the process is basically the same. The end result can and unfortunately is often undetectable by many and even in duspute by 'experts'.

If Faberge (sp?) Eggs, which are much more intricate by a factor of a gazillion can and have been reproduced to a level of quality that has fooled the experts; do you really think an Iron Cross as shown here would be much of a challenge to an accomplished jeweler.

Much more intricate objects in other areas of collecting have been reproduced. For example...Ming Dynasty vases in the east as well as Meissen porcelins from Europe. In the art field many paintings by greater and lesser masters, old and newer, have been reproduced using hand mixed pugments and exacting brush strokes. In the numistmatic arena many coins have been very well reproduced, especially gold coins like the US Double Eagles. In the philatelic field many stamps have been reproduced. Rare firearms, etc.....

And On and on....as I mentioned before, anything where the demand is high and the cost to make substancially less than market value to make, someone will reproduce it well enough to fool most folks and even most 'experts'.

An Iron Cross reproduction would be akin to making a Christmas ornament to some skilled nefarious craftsman.

All the best.

Tony

[Tiger 1]

Forgot to mention...

Specs such as dimensions and weight are important in the overall duscussion. How else can we deduce scale from just pictures without a reference point?

Kind of like comparing and discussing fast cars or motorcycles without a mention of engine displacement or horsepower ratings.

Tony

[Tiger 1]

The reason is that dimensions and weight are of no use whatsoever in evaluating the piece under discussion. It's not like a 1939 Iron Cross by a specific maker that would fall within known parameters if it was a good one (and maybe even if it was a bad one). The EK1 here is clearly a one-off.

So I'll ask another question: what could anyone possibly conclude about this piece if dimensions and weight were supplied?

Simple answer Trevor...

'If one shares a cookie recipe, one doesn't leave out key ingredients.' - old Chinese proverb I just made up.

Tony

[Montgomery Burns]

Kay....

Am I really that wrong? Wrong is a strong word.
Think about it carefully before you dismiss every 'old' technique as being nonreproducable.
All current techniques are built on old and proven ones. Nothing really new other than perhaps newer materials but the process is basically the same. The end result can and unfortunately is often undetectable by many and even in duspute by 'experts'.

If Faberge (sp?) Eggs, which are much more intricate by a factor of a gazillion can and have been reproduced to a level of quality that has fooled the experts; do you really think an Iron Cross as shown here would be much of a challenge to an accomplished jeweler.

Much more intricate objects in other areas of collecting have been reproduced. For example...Ming Dynasty vases in the east as well as Meissen porcelins from Europe. In the art field many paintings by greater and lesser masters, old and newer, have been reproduced using hand mixed pugments and exacting brush strokes. In the numistmatic arena many coins have been very well reproduced, especially gold coins like the US Double Eagles. In the philatelic field many stamps have been reproduced. Rare firearms, etc.....

And On and on....as I mentioned before, anything where the demand is high and the cost to make substancially less than market value to make, someone will reproduce it well enough to fool most folks and even most 'experts'.

An Iron Cross reproduction would be akin to making a Christmas ornament to some skilled nefarious craftsman.

All the best.

Tony

Tony your right ,,i nuance it a bit

I have informed how difficult it would be to make such a 1813 cross with jewelers who are capable of reproducing them..
I showed them the crosses ,we discussed the techniques used ,,compared them to old jeweler books and old fashion craftsman education and knowledge they have had ..it is a challenge to say at least ,,and will never be perfect.

expert will always seek out the fake
by identifying the non perfect copying of material , craftsmanship or techniques and designs .



fore you theory that it would be easy ,we are missing those easy to copy 1813 ek1 reproductions examples who would flood the marked .

like the ming vase https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJWOR4O2xM

but hey ,,maybe the ek1 one shown here is the first one
and examples of this one will flood the marked next year.

regards kay

[Montgomery Burns]

Forgot to mention...

Specs such as dimensions and weight are important in the overall duscussion. How else can we deduce scale from just pictures without a reference point?

Kind of like comparing and discussing fast cars or motorcycles without a mention of engine displacement or horsepower ratings.

Tony

your not answering the question ,,,,

what conclusions can you make from weight of a 1813 ek1 ?

what should be the weight ? what do the +- 5 known ones weigh in general ?

besides prinzen dimensions perhaps ,,the dimensions asked fore and named have no value in determining original or not as far as I know .

[Tiger 1]

your not answering the question ,,,,

what conclusions can you make from weight of a 1813 ek1 ?

what should be the weight ? what do the +- 5 known ones weigh in general ?

besides prinzen dimensions perhaps ,,the dimensions asked fore and named have no value in determining original or not as far as I know .

OK.....

Simple answer.

Just keeping in the tradition set forth by early EK collectors and chroniclers such as Aurich and Heyde who listed all pertinant info for the reader to choose to apply or discard as they see fit.

All the best.

Tony

[Tiger 1]

In the words of two other old Chinese proverbs I just made up....

"You can't make chicken soup without the chicken."

or

"A puzzle can only be complete with all the pieces."



All the best.

Tony

[Montgomery Burns]

ok.....

Simple answer.

Just keeping in the tradition set forth by early ek collectors and chroniclers such as aurich and heyde who listed all pertinant info for the reader to choose to apply or discard as they see fit.

All the best.

Tony

ah ,,,,,the aurich and heyde evengelium ,,,,what is not in there ,,its fake ..what is not described dos not exist .


and you did not answer the question ,,I wonder wy







.

[Tiger 1]

ah ,,,,,the aurich and heyde evengelium ,,,,what is not in there ,,its fake ..what is not described dos not exist .


and you did not answer the question ,,I wonder wy







.

Kay...

Not quite. I mentioned Aurich and Heyde as a means of quantifying info on EKs.
I said nothing of the sort about what is real or not in Aurich or Heyde, though they certainly do have credability over us 'johnny come latelies' in the EK collecting field.

Now, What exactly was your question?

Tony

[streptile]

This completely unique piece weighs 10.78g and measures (w) 44.57 mm x (h) 44.16 mm.

What can we say about it now?

That it weighs 10.78g and measures (w) 44.57 mm x (h) 44.16 mm.

Exactly

[Montgomery Burns]

Kay...

Not quite. I mentioned Aurich and Heyde as a means of quantifying info on EKs.
I said nothing of the sort about what is real or not in Aurich or Heyde, though they certainly do have credability over us 'johnny come latelies' in the EK collecting field.

Now, What exactly was your question?

Tony

No it ok ,,, I just misunderstood ...


regards kay
.