I would have to agree with this style of cross being 'contentious' at best and most likely a recent style of reproduction. What follows is my opinion gleaned from my collecting experience. Take it for what you will.
Having been a student and collector of Iron Crosses for 40 years I am particularly drawn to unusual EKs. This style is unusual to say the least. Having said that, I am very cautious of a 'new' style cross that hasn't been known before abruptly appearing on the market in quantity. In my experience these examples suddenly became known and fairly available within the last few years. Certainly makes one ask some pertinant questions.
Thomas Huss had an example for sale in the last year or so. It was quietly removed from the sales catalog when it was deemed not period by some recognized authorities. If my memory is correct, Gordon Williamson and Frank Heukemes.
I initially was very interested in acquirring this style of EK for my collection. But, there were some nagging questions that needed to be answered but couldn't be squared to my satisfaction. The example that I saw was not that well assembled. The frame did not fit the core very neatly. There were serious gaps between the beading and the core. Let's just say indifferent or uninspired manufacture.
The frame looked to have been manufactured using the Gablonzer extrusion method versus the earlier stamped planchett and hand cut or die sheared method. This is a definately later manufacturing process that wouldn't have appeared on these supposedly earlier, non regulqtion style, EKs. The style purported to be early, yet the manufacture and finishing suggested a later piece. There are other details that are difficult to properly place as being of the era.
The Iron Cross was the pre-eminent German decoration and national symbol. The officially prescribed style regarding shape and general construction, after the initial early time of manufacture, was fairly tightly regulated by the government. We know that there was a size , material and shape notice put out by the LDO(?) regarding the manufacture of Iron Crosses early on.
An example of a known reproduction EKI was posted on one of the WAF forums with the same design and construction attributes as this EKII. Logic would demand that if the smae style of EKI is known to be not original then the EKII of the same style would follow suit.
I know that these days the originality of a piece is often deemed correct by current 'consensus' or blessed by our personaly chosen expert. This certainly is not a slight at those who feel the need for this type of reassurance. I know that I seek out others opinions on many items I have doubts about. This is collecting with one's brain and using the resources available to us. This is used to either reaffirm or negate what research I have done on the subject for myself. As it should be to any serious collector.
In this case it's ...Sorry, not for my collection.
Just some thoughts.
Tony
Having been a student and collector of Iron Crosses for 40 years I am particularly drawn to unusual EKs. This style is unusual to say the least. Having said that, I am very cautious of a 'new' style cross that hasn't been known before abruptly appearing on the market in quantity. In my experience these examples suddenly became known and fairly available within the last few years. Certainly makes one ask some pertinant questions.
Thomas Huss had an example for sale in the last year or so. It was quietly removed from the sales catalog when it was deemed not period by some recognized authorities. If my memory is correct, Gordon Williamson and Frank Heukemes.
I initially was very interested in acquirring this style of EK for my collection. But, there were some nagging questions that needed to be answered but couldn't be squared to my satisfaction. The example that I saw was not that well assembled. The frame did not fit the core very neatly. There were serious gaps between the beading and the core. Let's just say indifferent or uninspired manufacture.
The frame looked to have been manufactured using the Gablonzer extrusion method versus the earlier stamped planchett and hand cut or die sheared method. This is a definately later manufacturing process that wouldn't have appeared on these supposedly earlier, non regulqtion style, EKs. The style purported to be early, yet the manufacture and finishing suggested a later piece. There are other details that are difficult to properly place as being of the era.
The Iron Cross was the pre-eminent German decoration and national symbol. The officially prescribed style regarding shape and general construction, after the initial early time of manufacture, was fairly tightly regulated by the government. We know that there was a size , material and shape notice put out by the LDO(?) regarding the manufacture of Iron Crosses early on.
An example of a known reproduction EKI was posted on one of the WAF forums with the same design and construction attributes as this EKII. Logic would demand that if the smae style of EKI is known to be not original then the EKII of the same style would follow suit.
I know that these days the originality of a piece is often deemed correct by current 'consensus' or blessed by our personaly chosen expert. This certainly is not a slight at those who feel the need for this type of reassurance. I know that I seek out others opinions on many items I have doubts about. This is collecting with one's brain and using the resources available to us. This is used to either reaffirm or negate what research I have done on the subject for myself. As it should be to any serious collector.
In this case it's ...Sorry, not for my collection.
Just some thoughts.
Tony
... and it's 'no cigar' on all fronts..
Comment