New arrival : assistance in identifying :
Very unique starved date , could not find one like it .
Douglas
Very unique starved date , could not find one like it .
Douglas
-
-
pic 2 -
pic 3Comment
-
Hello Douglas,
This type of cross has recently been determined as a fake. Check out this thread.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=249017
Regards,
StephenComment
-
One member is of the opininion that this type is a fake, not more and not less.Comment
-
Hi!Originally posted by robert pierce View Post
What Stefan said is a very important fact. That this piece is a 100% copy is only Roberts opinion.
For me this cross looks ok and there are much unmarked early pieces with smaller dates and smaller swazis.
For example i've an unmarked early EK 2nd Class by Juncker with smaller date und other formed swazi. I post the pics under this Text.
If there are no more arguments like the smaller date and the other formed Swastika i have no problems with this piece.
What is the "Third Reich quality" ?????
The quality of the different pieces have a very different level. Example for bad quality are the EK 1st Class by Carl Wild or the Schinkel EK2nd class from Deumer.
A good example for good quality are the crosses from Deschler. Therefore one cannot speak about a "Third Reich quality norm".
That's my personal opinion.
The quality of the example in this posting is one of the highest i ever had. The framework is from solit Nickelsilver without silverplating. It's only the polished material on the surface. I know this because i cleaned it (I know i'm a fool but this was the first and last cross i ever cleaned).
The core is convex like one knows from drosses made by Juncker. The black color of the core is very strongly burned and the core fits exactly in the framework (no rattle core)
All in all very high quality.
The data:- 3 part construction with iron core and framework from high quality alloy
solid Nickelsilver - High: 43,81 mm
- Widh: 43,83 mm
- Thick: 4.25 mm
- Weight: 20,8Gramm
Regards
Andreas
Last edited by Paratrooper; 10-30-2007, 12:46 PM.Comment
- 3 part construction with iron core and framework from high quality alloy
-
I'm sorry about that. I though everybody seen it as a fake.Originally posted by StefanK. View Post
Regards,
StephenComment
-
Thanks for the reply ;
It came together with an Early Juncker . Is has the same basic frame as the one Paratoper's earlier made one , mine is certainly late war . Same height core as 100, SL& .... the higher beading makes it appear that the Swastika shallow ,which it is not .
Never thought it to be fake . Swastika is not smaller a bit - larger - in size than Juncker , 100 , 66. S&L , 109 , L/59 and 26 and very fine Quality , the beading has been re-worked and core is loose . Overall size is the same as the 100 .
No other measurments yet .
DouglasComment
-
You're right, Stefan, I'm the black sheep in the crowd. I have Carl Wild's cross, and still find the metal of the cross in question substandard.Originally posted by StefanK. View Post
Andreas, I do like your cross. I have (5) early crosses with the same frame. One of them has the shallow date.
I'd be very interested to hear Douglas' opinion on his cross he received with the Juncker.
RobertComment
-
Well, I really appreciate that you speak your opinion Robert! And I hope you do not feel you stand alone, because I question this cross as well, and follow this thread with interest!
However, I do not feel I can contribute any more information at this moment! And let's remember that we all just tries to actually discover the fakes from the authentic pieces!
If we can agree it is a fake or an autentic cross, nothing is better.. But we need a discussion with different opinions!Comment
-
Originally posted by Jørgen E View Post
Absolutely. I'm very interested in hearing Douglas' opinion now that he has one of these crosses in his possession. I'll gracefully bow to the forum's collective decision on this piece. In the long run I'm still subject to the group's opinions, but I feel it very necessary that we should judge the piece inhand, not just in photo.
Respectfully,
RobertComment
-
Hi!Originally posted by Jørgen E View Post
I agree 100%. No one should feel stay alone in case of another opinion. Discussions like this are very important. We all could learn more about the crosses and that's the important point.
Therefore i love this forum. Sometimes anybody use a bit hard words but i couldn't remember a Dissens with low niveau.
I'm as interested like Robert to hear Douglas opinion and i believe that we will have a very good informative discussion with a result.
Regards
AndreasComment
-
Very good, Andreas. I love the forum too, my friend!
I think Douglas will have to skip dinner tonight...
RobertComment
-
Gentlemen :
Sorry for being slow , bad timing to be for me , absolut no time , to do this properly as I will be away in to days for almost 3 weeks ;
A subject not considered much at all amongst EK's ;2nd such case in 2 months ;
Now for the shocker !!!!!!!!!!
Reused as to re-engraved die :
^ die with re-engraved frame and new core >
The shown cross I consider good :
The German Nickel type is the low grade because of mid to late war !
The die was salved without a doubt and matches the 6 mm old beading which can seen underneith .Comment
-
With the marked line ; Wider beading ... some of the old bead line to be seen and some of the old beads high lighted , compare .........Comment
Comment