Oldenburg non-combatant Cross 2nd Class opinions please

[Loggie]

Recently purchased this cross and not convinced it is original. Compared to my combatant award, details are not the same. A thick coat of paint was applied when manufactured. Ribbon construction is not the same. Award is made of brass. Seller has a reference book indicating buntmetall is an accepted material.

[Valter Gorenc]

I'm not sure about the cross, but such a thick layer of paint, which partly filled the round of 9, is never seen on originals. Sloppy made, shining-new brass ring is not original, and ribbon is very suspicious too IMHO. I would return this piece to the seller.

[Don D.]

I agree. Looks more like a post 45 manufacture.

[Dansson]

The details seem way too sloppy with along the weird paint.

These were usually made of Iron (I think I've seen a few legitimate brass examples).

[Brian L.]

I agree. Looks more like a post 45 manufacture.

Not just post-45, but brand new. There are quite a few of the Imperial state merit crosses, similar in quality to this that have started turning up on the market.

[Dansson]

Not just post-45, but brand new. There are quite a few of the Imperial state merit crosses, similar in quality to this that have started turning up on the market.

I don't know if an database of all the originals exist, but if not, one should be made.

[Loggie]

A data base would be helpful. I noticed my example in question has a pillow effect inside the arms of the cross. The surface slightly rises from the outer edge of the medal to the center of the arm. All other examples I have seen are flat all the way across.

[Jesse]

There are lots of variations to this cross, this type is not a known original one.

[tompress]

Awarded originals were of blackened iron, late war also of blackened white metal (zinc alloy). Brass made crosses are rather private purchased second pieces or replacements.

2nd class on non-combatant ribbon was awarded only 1654 times (while combatnat version about 55.000)

regards
Tom

[Claudius]