1870 with moveable Ring

[Miro O]

2) the jumpring on the first 1870 you posted also looks like a repair to me. The original one sided attachment was prone to breakage. Hence it is often repeated,
in my opinion crudely with this kind of drilled hole.

3) the third cross attachment is original like this, I agree. You can also see that the hump on the frame is very big wrt to the ones on the drilled hole repairs, in order to accompany the hole and not damage the beading.

When the repair is old then patina is no evidence neither.

So I am not convinced by your evidence,

Kind regards,
Michel

2. I posted first 1870 cross as an example of repair, so you in fact agree with me.

3. You again agree with me.

From 3 arguments you have randomly chosen, you agree with me in two. So you didn´t convince me that you came to be convinced. You just came to defend your dutch brother, as you always do.

I study these crosses for 3 years. And I still don´t think there is time to present some definite theory. Neither positive nor negative.

Surely these crosses were not produced in waste numbers, but we know that 1870 A type cores were bought by many jewelers, big ones but also the smaller ones who had possibilities to modify the cross at customer´s request. Before the sale.

The fact that this suspension appears on untouched crosses, not on heavily worn pieces, is at least suspicious, if not story telling. Jumpring doesn´t brake off out of the blue and without any consequences made or any evidences left.

Like this one. Repair from any point of view:

[Miro O]

But don´t worry, Michel, I still enjoy this public opinion - while buying these crosses for the price of repair.

I just don´t like this game, where I post crosses and others post - their "opinions".

Best regards, Miro

[Montgomery Burns]

2. I posted first 1870 cross as an example of repair, so you in fact agree with me.

3. You again agree with me.

From 3 arguments you have randomly chosen, you agree with me in two. So you didn´t convince me that you came to be convinced. You just came to defend your dutch brother, as you always do.

I study these crosses for 3 years. And I still don´t think there is time to present some definite theory. Neither positive nor negative.

Surely these crosses were not produced in waste numbers, but we know that 1870 A type cores were bought by many jewelers, big ones but also the smaller ones who had possibilities to modify the cross at customer´s request. Before the sale.

The fact that this suspension appears on untouched crosses, not on heavily worn pieces, is at least suspicious, if not story telling. Jumpring doesn´t brake off out of the blue and without any consequences made or any evidences left.

Like this one. Repair from any point of view:

You just came to defend your dutch brother, as you always do.

I disagree on this comment ,,,,its provable nonsense

Morel was here first with the opinion this is a ordinary repair...

I came in way later then him ,,, so ,,,

you're overlooking important details Miro

K

[morel5000]

No problem Miro, but why do you post a one sided soldered cross? An accepted form of attachment? On a very nice 1813 Prinzen. Not like the one you posted before, the one with the repair.
I will ignore your brother remark as I think it is a little childish to try to make this personal. As an addition, I never post crosses on this forum. Another interesting remark...

Please keep on picking up your "originals" for repaired prices as long as you don't try to convince me or anyone else that they are not messed with. That would increase the value, wouldn't it

[Miro O]

No problem Miro, but why do you post a one sided soldered cross? An accepted form of attachment?

I posted it as a comparison how crudely the hole can be drilled on accepted 1813 cross with different suspension type, which I clearly stated.

I never post crosses on this forum. Another interesting remark...

I remember from top of my head some heavily worn EK1 1870 B Type, and one full size 1813er with small ring, but maybe my memory serves me wrong in this. Sorry then.

Please keep on picking up your "originals" for repaired prices

Interesting level. At first my crosses were modern repair made by dealers, now they are not even originals... Probably now it´s time on me to return you the ignorance of childish remarks.

That would increase the value, wouldn't it

I am not interested in selling these. For me they have different value. So I must dissappoint anyone who thinks that I sold the thread starter to Mario. I didn´t.

[Don D.]

Perhaps we should just stick to discussing the crosses.

[pavel79]

i got that cross from a private person...for a sweet price.....
i was happy about and im still happy about...
what makes me wonder is,why its not possible to hear others opinions without that a public discuss must go into that bad way?

simple fact is...a cross got posted whats definitly a nice original.....2 sides exist,the side that says repair and the side that says its made that way.....
some eat white bread,some prefer dark bread...boths sides eat bread...
Collectors often disagree to others,why not,thats life,thats collecting,thats the also simple and clear fact for 1813 and 1870.many things arent clear adn have to get discussed.
but the problem is when personal problems show up,than the whole theme gets ripped apart .

for my part.i didnt bought that cross from miro,also he doesnt try to push a price or or or.he comes with pics and some proves.....nothing is hammered into stone what he says,but he trys to prove a theory with existing facts.
same as Kay proves his point of view with proven facts from other drilled holes.

Many many crosses exist with a real low quality...1914,1939.where the crosses made in masses
lets go back to the theme and think at the fact that not every jeweller had the same scills....also not in 1870.and its a fact that cant get washed away from the table,that deburring a drilled hole at that place from an cross.isnt so easy without a maybe damage of the frame and the rips.
We discuss a cross from 1870 in the year 2016.....we studiyed em,we handled em...were interested in em....as collectors
as they were made,noone thought at "mint" "repair" "perfection" "textbook",they made some crosses for the owner,without anytime thinking about such things.

[Montgomery Burns]

i got that cross from a private person...for a sweet price.....
i was happy about and im still happy about...
what makes me wonder is,why its not possible to hear others opinions without that a public discuss must go into that bad way?

simple fact is...a cross got posted whats definitly a nice original.....2 sides exist,the side that says repair and the side that says its made that way.....
some eat white bread,some prefer dark bread...boths sides eat bread...
Collectors often disagree to others,why not,thats life,thats collecting,thats the also simple and clear fact for 1813 and 1870.many things arent clear adn have to get discussed.
but the problem is when personal problems show up,than the whole theme gets ripped apart .

for my part.i didnt bought that cross from miro,also he doesnt try to push a price or or or.he comes with pics and some proves.....nothing is hammered into stone what he says,but he trys to prove a theory with existing facts.
same as Kay proves his point of view with proven facts from other drilled holes.

Many many crosses exist with a real low quality...1914,1939.where the crosses made in masses
lets go back to the theme and think at the fact that not every jeweller had the same scills....also not in 1870.and its a fact that cant get washed away from the table,that deburring a drilled hole at that place from an cross.isnt so easy without a maybe damage of the frame and the rips.
We discuss a cross from 1870 in the year 2016.....we studiyed em,we handled em...were interested in em....as collectors
as they were made,noone thought at "mint" "repair" "perfection" "textbook",they made some crosses for the owner,without anytime thinking about such things.

well spoken ,,I 100% agree .

problem sometime is people do not discuss face to face ..
meaning we are missing face expressions and voice intonations wile looking at each other .

that way interpretations of the words depends on only the words ..
making it hard to know exact how words are meant or the intentions behind the words .

sometimes big problems rise because of that ..

and you're right its a a type nice cross no matter this discussion


K

[morel5000]

For the record, I never implied that you sold the cross to Pavel. Is the repaired Prinzen 1813 yours? I like the one sided one you posted in post #30.

Some pics with standard jeweler work of 1813 and 1870 which are/where in my collection.
Don't miss the crude attachment methods.

1870:



1870:



1813:



1870:

[Miro O]

Perhaps we should just stick to discussing the crosses.

Ok, let´s make a small photo replay with a little zoom-zoom.
The thing, which was named (also by me) "crudely made hole" is not in fact hole. It is a hollow - depression. Precisely, two of them.

One is made from obverse side, second one from reverse side - each within the thickness of one frame half.

If you look again and better on pictures from both sides, you can clearly see grey metal inside the depression. Not the black background.

It is because there is no hole. There is a hollow. One for each side.

[Miro O]

Both hollows have its metal bottom in the form of hemisphere. Jumpring is (logically) open within a few millimetres distance and both its ends have the shape of mushroom hat (deteriorated by wear, but still visible). This allows the jumpring to hold the frame while being movable from side to side, but protects it from rotating - and drilling - vertically in the hole, as there isn´t any hole.

I hope you are able to imagine how few micrometres of depth has each hollow and how thin is the bottom of them. Something like this can be made only by skilled jeweler and only while working on each frame half separately. Any attempt to drill two hollows against each other on assembled cross would end with drilling through, or with first hollow deformed while making the second one.

[Miro O]

This suspension is very smart, surely smarter than any opinion that was posted against it. And displays really great.