1870 ek 2

[slayer]

Hi all I have kindly been offered this 1870 ek2 from one of our fellow forum members.

I just want a little advice it all looks good to me but just want some thoughts on the small crack or mark visible on it does this detract alot away from the value on this piece ?

Also any thoughts on the maker and a sort of ballpark value on it ?

Cheers, I have permission from the owner to post pics.

[e-maus]

Hi
Very nice.On the contrary, cracked core adds charm confirmed originality. This is due to the high content of carbon in the iron, and causes its brittleness
Jacek

[Miro O]

I agree. It is a nice awarded A-type and the crack is just a sign of beauty when seen on 19th century crosses.

The 19th century cores crack from different reason - because they are cast.
While stamped iron sheet has linear course of thermal expansion (identical in any point and any direction),
the casting process changes this behaviour of iron to the state of non-linear thermal expansion (random in any point and direction).

This is the reason why stamped steel 20th century crosses are not seen cracked (they are seen rather bent than cracked)
and if yes, there are surely signs of strong mechanical impact or manipulation, which caused the crack.
The crack of stamped steel core can be just partial (ending in particular depth of the core) while crack of sandcast core is always full (cutting the core to two or more pieces).

Sandcast core can crack without any mechanical impact, just by experiencing multiple changes in thermal conditions during wear and storage,
causing a repeated expansion and shrinking of the core. This happens within the distance of pure nanometres,
but as the tension between atoms is not linear, it is enough to cause the core crack at weakest points.
This explains why also the well preserved cross without any signs of incorrect handling can sport the core crack.

The content of the cast iron is only secondary, or supporting element of this process. Low grade iron (as were the early 1813ers) cracks easier than high grade cast iron.

Another argument is the example of 1914 crosses. Cores of this era crosses were made cast as well as stamped within the short period of time. But we still see cast 1914 cores cracked, while stamped cores not. If it was about iron content, they would behave similarly, as they were made in the same period and by the same makers.

[slayer]

Thank you guys for your input, with the A-type was there a maker associated with this one ?

Cheers AG.

[kaiserwilhelm2]

I agree. It is a nice awarded A-type and the crack is just a sign of beauty when seen on 19th century crosses.

The 19th century cores crack from different reason - because they are cast.
While stamped iron sheet has linear course of thermal expansion (identical in any point and any direction),
the casting process changes this behaviour of iron to the state of non-linear thermal expansion (random in any point and direction).

This is the reason why stamped steel 20th century crosses are not seen cracked (they are seen rather bent than cracked)
and if yes, there are surely signs of strong mechanical impact or manipulation, which caused the crack.
The crack of stamped steel core can be just partial (ending in particular depth of the core) while crack of sandcast core is always full (cutting the core to two or more pieces).

Sandcast core can crack without any mechanical impact, just by experiencing multiple changes in thermal conditions during wear and storage,
causing a repeated expansion and shrinking of the core. This happens within the distance of pure nanometres,
but as the tension between atoms is not linear, it is enough to cause the core crack at weakest points.
This explains why also the well preserved cross without any signs of incorrect handling can sport the core crack.

The content of the cast iron is only secondary, or supporting element of this process. Low grade iron (as were the early 1813ers) cracks easier than high grade cast iron.

Another argument is the example of 1914 crosses. Cores of this era crosses were made cast as well as stamped within the short period of time. But we still see cast 1914 cores cracked, while stamped cores not. If it was about iron content, they would behave similarly, as they were made in the same period and by the same makers.

My nomination for this years Nobel prize in physics.

[Thomas Bendixen]

I agree. It is a nice awarded A-type and the crack is just a sign of beauty when seen on 19th century crosses.

The 19th century cores crack from different reason - because they are cast.
While stamped iron sheet has linear course of thermal expansion (identical in any point and any direction),
the casting process changes this behaviour of iron to the state of non-linear thermal expansion (random in any point and direction).

This is the reason why stamped steel 20th century crosses are not seen cracked (they are seen rather bent than cracked)
and if yes, there are surely signs of strong mechanical impact or manipulation, which caused the crack.
The crack of stamped steel core can be just partial (ending in particular depth of the core) while crack of sandcast core is always full (cutting the core to two or more pieces).

Sandcast core can crack without any mechanical impact, just by experiencing multiple changes in thermal conditions during wear and storage,
causing a repeated expansion and shrinking of the core. This happens within the distance of pure nanometres,
but as the tension between atoms is not linear, it is enough to cause the core crack at weakest points.
This explains why also the well preserved cross without any signs of incorrect handling can sport the core crack.

The content of the cast iron is only secondary, or supporting element of this process. Low grade iron (as were the early 1813ers) cracks easier than high grade cast iron.

Another argument is the example of 1914 crosses. Cores of this era crosses were made cast as well as stamped within the short period of time. But we still see cast 1914 cores cracked, while stamped cores not. If it was about iron content, they would behave similarly, as they were made in the same period and by the same makers.

Thanks Miro, for super explanation

Br, Thomas

[gregM]

Thank you guys for your input, with the A-type was there a maker associated with this one ?

Cheers AG.

I think that all of the type A cores were cast at the same foundry and
then distributed to the cross makers. That makes telling the difference
between a Godet, Wagner or Lauer impossible.

I can't speak to the Lauer crosses but we have seen that Wagner and Godet
shared frames, further complicating any attempt to assign a maker to a specifiic
cross.

[Willi Z.]

Some great information!

Miro, do you by chance go to the Kassel Show?

[dmytro]

I agree. It is a nice awarded A-type and the crack is just a sign of beauty when seen on 19th century crosses.

The 19th century cores crack from different reason - because they are cast.
While stamped iron sheet has linear course of thermal expansion (identical in any point and any direction),
the casting process changes this behaviour of iron to the state of non-linear thermal expansion (random in any point and direction).

This is the reason why stamped steel 20th century crosses are not seen cracked (they are seen rather bent than cracked)
and if yes, there are surely signs of strong mechanical impact or manipulation, which caused the crack.
The crack of stamped steel core can be just partial (ending in particular depth of the core) while crack of sandcast core is always full (cutting the core to two or more pieces).

Sandcast core can crack without any mechanical impact, just by experiencing multiple changes in thermal conditions during wear and storage,
causing a repeated expansion and shrinking of the core. This happens within the distance of pure nanometres,
but as the tension between atoms is not linear, it is enough to cause the core crack at weakest points.
This explains why also the well preserved cross without any signs of incorrect handling can sport the core crack.

The content of the cast iron is only secondary, or supporting element of this process. Low grade iron (as were the early 1813ers) cracks easier than high grade cast iron.

Another argument is the example of 1914 crosses. Cores of this era crosses were made cast as well as stamped within the short period of time. But we still see cast 1914 cores cracked, while stamped cores not. If it was about iron content, they would behave similarly, as they were made in the same period and by the same makers.

yes very interesting explanation, here's my cracked Wagner as another example

[slayer]

thanks again guys, also good to see the pic of your Wagner showing the crack

[Miro O]

Some great information!

Miro, do you by chance go to the Kassel Show?

Hi Willi, I have never been to Kassel. Maybe once...

[Willi Z.]

Hi Miro, I was just curious as a gentleman from Slovakia helped authenticate a medal bar with a 1870 EKII for me last year.

[kid74]

My nomination for this years Nobel prize in physics.