EK2 "Latvian fake" with imperial frame ?

[boch_62]

still

[boch_62]

still next

[boch_62]

and next

[boch_62]

next

[boch_62]

and

[boch_62]

I bought consciously cross EK2-1939 called "Latvian fake". From always this cross “fascinated” me (someone to be surprised), because I never had it in my hands (it’s a rare cross).
This cross is widely recognized for fake and I accept it for information, but I do not know the basis of this opinion. I must admit that at the time of receipt the cross to my hand, my surprise in this topic has increased.
Frame of the cross looks at the original imperial frame, I do not exclude that is made of silver alloy, ribbon ring without amendments, properly mounted and closed, has an original signature "S-W" (pictured comparison signature with the original signature of imperial cross) and the same execution of the cross is the perfect ... without amendment, without repairs ...
Because the frame looks into the imperial frame, I gave the cross to assess to the department of imperial awards (opinions of experts of crosses EK-1939 I already know).
In the pictures of comparative sequence are: Deumer’s Schinkel - Litvian fake – Imperial cross with signature “S-W” ...
Thank you in advance for every opinions ...

Regards
Jarek

[Dansson]

The Schinkel fake you posses is known to use both fake frames and many different original 1914 frames while the core remains fake. That cross is a so called Frankenstein.

[boch_62]

The Schinkel fake you posses is known to use both fake frames and many different original 1914 frames while the core remains fake. That cross is a so called Frankenstein.

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for your answer. Maybe I understand this wrong ?
As I wrote below I do not negate the general opinion that it is "fake". Only with cross in the hands I have my doubts.
Hence my question - how sure that it is "fake", what it speaks, what arguments, because that "it generally is known," I read a few years (since I deals with crosses EK2), but never and anywhere I have not read the So far, what specifically testifies ...
And because this concrete cross I have for the first time in my hands (previous I saw him only in photographs) I have my doubts.

Going to indicate them:
- the overall performance of the cross is impeccable
- finish (blackening) of the core very reliable
- natural features of the cross used
- frame and rings imperial (originally signed S-W) and most likely made of silver
- core -"drawing date" reminds Deumer's core ..

Please help to dissipate doubts, I am open to all the arguments and facts, but please do not say "well known". Maybe I'm naive, but for me (although quite a few years I deal with crosses) is not "well known", sorry

Regards
Jarek

ps. in my "base images" I found photos of the same "copy", but another cross ... IMO has a different frame !

[Miro O]

Regardless of what your cross is, Latvian fake is something completely different. Rounded inner corners, thick beading, brass core, etc, etc.

[Dansson]

IMO has a different frame !

And it is true. What I said was that this fake core, can be found in numerous fake frames and also numerous original frames (1914 frames that have been opened and resoldered.) a.k.a. Frankensteins.

S-W was by the way not a World War 2 maker of EK2 or EK1, and even if it had been a 1939 maker, it would never have marked it according World War 1 regulations.

[boch_62]

And it is true. What I said was that this fake core, can be found in numerous fake frames and also numerous original frames (1914 frames that have been opened and resoldered.) a.k.a. Frankensteins.

S-W was by the way not a World War 2 maker of EK2 or EK1, and even if it had been a 1939 maker, it would never have marked it according World War 1 regulations.

O.K. Daniel - I understand that non-compliance with the frame and the core (in various combinations) with known originals, testifies to their unoriginality, although individual parts of the cross (in addition the core) can be original
Thanks.

Jarek

[boch_62]

Regardless of what your cross is, Latvian fake is something completely different. Rounded inner corners, thick beading, brass core, etc, etc.

Sorry Miro, But IMO your crosses (with pictures) are not "Latvian fakes", I know them as "Schinkel-fake with arched arms"

Regards
Jarek

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=Latvian+fake
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=Latvian+fake

[streptile]

I think there is a difference between what is known as the "Latvian Fake" in the Crosses forum and the Imperial forum. So it would be helpful to settle on a name for these fakes.

Nevertheless, Jarek, your cross is a fake. It's a good thing you bought it as a fake, because it is definitely a fake.

When you ask, "what proves it a fake?," you are asking the most difficult question to answer. It's a fake because it's not original, and I know it's not original because I have watched this fake evolve over the last ten years. The core is a copy of the Deumer style. First it appeared in exclusively fake frames. In other words, the entire cross was 100% fake.

Then the faker decided to try and legitimize the core by opening 1914 EKs of both classes and adding this core to them. So you can find this core with a variety of authentic 1914 frames and even attachment devices (pins, screwbacks, etc). There is almost no consistency. Indeed, I've seen this fake Deumer Schinkel core in a real Deumer Schinkel frame.

I would remind you here that excellent craftsmanship is not a sign of authenticity. Skilled jewelers exist today, same as they did in 1939. And many originals are made poorly.

This is a very dangerous fake, but it's definitely, 100%, fake. I am as sure about this fact as I am about my own name, or the color of my shirt (green).

[Dansson]

Trevor put it up very well!

[boch_62]

I think there is a difference between what is known as the "Latvian Fake" in the Crosses forum and the Imperial forum. So it would be helpful to settle on a name for these fakes.

Nevertheless, Jarek, your cross is a fake. It's a good thing you bought it as a fake, because it is definitely a fake.

When you ask, "what proves it a fake?," you are asking the most difficult question to answer. It's a fake because it's not original, and I know it's not original because I have watched this fake evolve over the last ten years. The core is a copy of the Deumer style. First it appeared in exclusively fake frames. In other words, the entire cross was 100% fake.

Then the faker decided to try and legitimize the core by opening 1914 EKs of both classes and adding this core to them. So you can find this core with a variety of authentic 1914 frames and even attachment devices (pins, screwbacks, etc). There is almost no consistency. Indeed, I've seen this fake Deumer Schinkel core in a real Deumer Schinkel frame.

I would remind you here that excellent craftsmanship is not a sign of authenticity. Skilled jewelers exist today, same as they did in 1939. And many originals are made poorly.

This is a very dangerous fake, but it's definitely, 100%, fake. I am as sure about this fact as I am about my own name, or the color of my shirt (green).

Hi Trevor,

I have never denied the fact that it is a fake, and as such, with full knowledge I bought it.
On the other hand he surprised me perfect quality of his performance, but now I understand what it is, if we can meet this "Latvian core" with original Deumer's frame ... I agree it's very dangerous fake.
Thanks Trevor and Daniel. Again I learned something new

Regards
Jarek