Opinion on Ritterkreuz

[Dietrich Maerz]

For a friend in Germany I would like to post his cross for the judgement of the honest panel. I already gave him my strong opinion about this cross.

[Dietrich Maerz]

reverse

[Dietrich Maerz]

Marking

[Dietrich Maerz]

Center detail

[Dave Kane]

DM...how come you have so many German friends!! Almost like you can speak the lingo!


I'd say the bit of ribbon is good....

Dave

[WalterB]

I hope your friend can get his money back

[tom hansen]

[QUOTE=Dietrich]Center detail[/QUOT

I am new to this. However, I have a real cross and photos to which to compare. There are subtle differences in the inner corners of the beading, particularly on the reverse. Also, the ring appears larger than it should. The "800" does not appear to be hand stamped and is too perfect. The dates of the "1939" are pretty good. But the "1813" is off in that the base of the "1" is too low and the shapes of the tops of the "1"s is different. Based upon these issues I would say this does not conform to a S&L cross. Also, is it just the photo, or is that swaz pyramidal shaped? What is the weight and dimensions of this cross. Any other specific details beyond the ones I have mentioned that one can find? Thanks

[Brian S]

I'm looking for a piece of ribbon like that if he's parting out the good from the bad. Please...

[jujuy]

Dietrich,

did you used the two halves you posted few time ago to finish this one?

I'm looking for a piece of ribbon like that if he's parting out the good from the bad. Please...

[Dave Kane]

This has been nagging at me for a couple of days now and I think we were a bit unfair to Dietrich in offering rather cavalier responses to his posting!

He's been very helpful to everyone in the past regarding DETAIL and we didn't offer that here. So, to get things moving again I'd like to point out why I do not like the cross!

The frame 'reaches up' to meet the ring.

The '1939' is odd....look at the base of the 1 and the loop of the 3.

The 1813 is different...

DM is attempting to get the weight and in the meantime let's critique this closely!

Dave

[Brian S]

Normally the cross eye doesn't turn me off as the first thing. But why does it appear as if a hole was drilled to create the eye from an angle? Swas was pretty neatly formed. But that eye really looked like a messy finish job.

[tom hansen]

I provided details as to why this is not authenitic noted above. Dietrich (must be an engineer -it takes one to know one). i looked fairly closely at this, comparing it to mine with a magnifying glass and the images in Gordon's book. As noted above.

1. I actually like the "1939" but not the "1813" for the postion of the "1" and the shape of the "1" s themselves.

2. The ring is too wide and the inner diameter of the ring is too big

3. The beading on the inner corners of the reverse do not match originals. The front is not bad.

4. The "800" is too sharp and clear and does not appear hand stamped

5. Addtionally, from the images the swaz appears pyramidal, but this may be the photo

It was in the text above. However, I agree in that if someone "does not like something" they should articulate precisely why not. This is what we do in medicine, such that one can easily debate those points on an individual basis rather than saying analytic equivilent of "he does not look good".

[Dietrich Maerz]

Okay! I got some better pictures and have compiled a comparison with a genuine cross (pictures courtesy JohnJ, no longer with us ...)

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here's the reverse center.

[Dietrich Maerz]

And here is the comparison of the famous top of the 3 o'clock arm.