Opinions Please - EK1 #43 Marked

[John F.]

I was hoping I could get some opinions on this 1939 EK1. I am considering offering it in a trade and I want to be 100% about it. Although there are no specific reasons or details to question its originality, other then the fact I got it off of eBay about three years ago. I think it is good based on the research I have done but I would like some confirmation.

Here are some of its characteristics:
- Measurements:Approx 4.5 mm from arm to arm
- Weight: 16 gm
- Slightly vaulted
- Maker: #43 Under pin (Julius Bauer Sohne Zella Mehlisi/Thur)

Thanks,
John

[Peter Wiking]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with it.
Original cross to me.

Cheers.
Peter Wiking

[Dietrich Maerz]

John,

in my opinion and from what I can see from the pictures, it is a good piece. The only "reservation" I have is that "43" is or would be a new manufacturer on our list. This asks for some caution. There is always the possibility that someone was applying the number later.
Other than that (which is not a big deal) I would not have a problem owning this cross.

Dietrich

[Dez H]

I agree with Dietrich, the cross itself looks original however I feel the maker's mark has been added post war, the pin and hinge setup is completely different from my 43 marked War Merit cross frst class with swords, also the makers mark is different.

[George Stimson]

Apples and oranges sure, but....

Here's the "43" mark on a KVK 1 -- in incuse relief on the outside of the pin.

[Frank Heukemes]

Isn´t that EK1 a Meybauer? Not one of the "7" marked variety but one of the ones with "traditional" Meybauer pin? The obverses do not differ in my opinion.

I have one of these and it came in a Meybauer marked case.

[Frank Heukemes]

reverse

[Paul Massucci]

I agree with what some of the others have said, the EKI looks OK but I have doubts about Julius Bauer being the maker. While what I'll post are pics of a KvKI w/swords my opinion is that the reverse setup should be relatively the same. What we have here are differences in the maker's mark and it's location, a completely different pin and catch and the hinge attached on it's side as opposed to being straight up. None of which are reasons to call the cross bad but enough to raise suspicions as to who the maker actually was.

[Paul Massucci]

pin/hinge/catch

[Dietrich Maerz]

Isn´t that EK1 a Meybauer? Not one of the "7" marked variety but one of the ones with "traditional" Meybauer pin? The obverses do not differ in my opinion.

I have one of these and it came in a Meybauer marked case.

Hallo Frank,

as far as I can see and compare, the beading seems to be different.

Dietrich

[Frank Heukemes]

Dear Dietrich,

From my cross to Market Garden´s or from my cross to a "7" marked Meybauer?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dear Dietrich,

From my cross to Market Garden´s or from my cross to a "7" marked Meybauer?

Hi Frank,

from your cross to John's.

Dietrich

[John F.]

Let me get this straight?

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the replies. So allow me to paraphrase; this is a good piece with a questionable makers mark, which was added later on (post WWII) with the assumption that it was done to increase the value with a potential buyer. Does this mark de-value the piece in anyway? I am hopefully going to use it as a partial trade for a Soviet Order of Nevsky and am hoping to get a trade value of $175 to $200. Do you think these numbers are on the high end because of the added mark?

Thanks,
John<O

[John F.]

Isn´t that EK1 a Meybauer? Not one of the "7" marked variety but one of the ones with "traditional" Meybauer pin? The obverses do not differ in my opinion..

Frank:<O
I see what you are saying and yes, the pin and hinge do have a striking similarity to yours.

John <O

[Dez H]

John; call me fussy but I wouldn’t touch this piece at all. Maybe other collectors are more forgiving and would still value this piece around normal unmarked EK price range.