800 marked KC

[Gordon Williamson]

Not speaking up for this partucular cross, for which I'd agree with the majority view here, but I would certainly caution the use of the "it doesn't match known original types" test as any way of defining originality.

Bear in mind that of the eight positively identified makers of the RK, there is still one that no one has ever been able to produce a maker marked and thus definite identified example for.

I'd hate to think that when an example of this gem is finally found, it is declared a "fake" because it doens'y match up with one of the identified makers.

[ChrisJ]

Rounders

Not speaking up for this partucular cross, for which I'd agree with the majority view here, but I would certainly caution the use of the "it doesn't match known original types" test as any way of defining originality.

Bear in mind that of the eight positively identified makers of the RK, there is still one that no one has ever been able to produce a maker marked and thus definite identified example for.

I'd hate to think that when an example of this gem is finally found, it is declared a "fake" because it doens'y match up with one of the identified makers.

Ah...you mean the "rounders" Gordon ?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Chris,

I think Gordon is referring to the 3/4 ring RK. The Rounder is Meybauer ('7'). Is that what you meant, Gordon?

Dietrich

[Gordon Williamson]

Neither. I am referring to Wächtler & Lange, who listed the RK as one of their products in a wartime publication.

[Brian S]

Good point Gordon, the door is never closed on a cross with high quality when some maker types are still unknown...

Sergey, could you do a closeup of the 1813 please?

[CSP]

Sergey:
I do npt think this cross is original/authentic WWII either, for what that is worth to you. To me the swastika is not as well executed as I think it is on many originals...specifically, the sides of the swastika look like they are at an angle to the top surface of the swastika and the surface of the cross, rather than perpendicular (straight up-and-down). The numbers, as well look like they are not as well struck as many originals, so look flat to me and not as sharply defined as I think they should be. I do not lkee the black finish at all - it looks painted on and artificially aged...and I think the extent the eye at the top arm of the cross that connects to the ribbon suspension loop dips too much in to the cross frame. The "800' stamp is close, but something looks a little off there too to me..maybe artificially aged by filling it in with some brown substance.
This is as specific as I can get. I just do not think it is an original...I do not know if it is "Latvian" or not...just not real.

[Peter Wiking]

Sergey.

Your friend had it for 30 years, is that correct ? I know Souval made fakes/repros in the 70 `s.
Can you show some photos from an angle. Would be nice to see the soldering.

When i said that the date/yearnumber is wrong, i compared it with all crosses made by the Germans before 1945. Even the 1 class and 2 class crosses. To me the quality is not there.
I dont think this award was made before 1945. A nice repro to me.

Cheers.
Peter Wiking

[Steve B]

Knights Cross

An interesting example. I'm surprised the caggle did not attack this cross for the ubiquitous inane clatter "dipping donut", "dipping donut"? There are various explainations as to why this RK may be good. Just because it does not fit this groups perceptions of the known makers, does not automatically rule it a fake. If Mr. Jenkins were to post one of his famous RKs, I might argue that it is a well made fake not worthy of a farthing.

If the cross does not meet the specs of crosses currently known by "the so-called EXPERTS", say so? There is no shame in not knowing. Don't start with the fake business unless you are dead sure of your facts. I would say that Mr. Gordon Williamson is probably the only expert in this crowd. He has probably seen more crosses and pictures of RKs that the group of you could ever dream up. I don't hear him making these specious allegations about what might be a good cross, or not a good cross. If you don't like it, no one is asking you to buy it? I probably would not buy anything you were selling.

Cheers ,
Steve

[Sergey]

some close up photos

[Dave Kane]

Yet another FAKE!!

Steve, thanks for the insight! Here's yet another of the 'type' that got a resounding 'thumbs down / fake' grading on a completely different Forum by a completly different "caggle"!

Where have all of these RARE and UNKNOWN crosses been these last 60 years?
However, only in the last 3 are popping up all over the place...

Dave

[Sergey]

2

[Sergey]

3

[Sergey]

4

[Sergey]

Sergey.

Your friend had it for 30 years, is that correct ? I know Souval made fakes/repros in the 70 `s.
Can you show some photos from an angle. Would be nice to see the soldering.

When i said that the date/yearnumber is wrong, i compared it with all crosses made by the Germans before 1945. Even the 1 class and 2 class crosses. To me the quality is not there.
I dont think this award was made before 1945. A nice repro to me.

Cheers.
Peter Wiking

Peter Persanally I think it is incorrect method to compare EK2 and KC.

[Steve B]

, Sergey <!-- / sig -->

4

Sergey:
One minor correction to my initial response, the word is "cackle" not "caggle" (foolish chatter?).