Fake RK?

[David C]

Hi Folks,

I've only just discovered this wonderful forum. I usually lurk awhile before I post so if I'm breaking any of the conventions here with my first post I apologise.

I've just bought this very very cheap and have a few days to return it if I wish. It has to be a fake.

Can anyone confirm?

Hopefully there are some piccies attached. Can't figure out how to attach multiple images so will post more in follow-up posts.

Cheers
David.

[David C]

And this

[David C]

And the last pic.

Thank you.

[Dave Kane]

Hello David! If you have been lurking for a period of time you may have seen the discussion had abouth this 'type' of cross. Ofcourse there are 2 camps real and fake...owners and non-owners. It seems those who own them believe they are right. Troubling part however is that they can't seem to give them away even in the $1,500.00 range. Those that have appeared have been mint and attached to a set of obviously fake oaks. No real provenance has been shown but, pictures suggesting a similar style.
Yours however, has a loop but man what a solder line!!! The frame at that point must be wafer thin. I also suspect that along with the cross you got some sort of dig / found story...IMHO it is a fake!
John

[Dez H]

Over the couple of years or so I have seen many of these “ground dug up” pieces on offer on ebay and epier. They have all had wild stories attached to them like “dug up in Russia or the Ukraine.” Every time these were brought up here on the forum it was unanimous that they were fakes. Sadly this piece looks no better.


Dez

[Mohawkwarrior]

What a waste of a nice repro cross.you would think the fakers wouldve tried to sell it in better shape to try and get more money.

[Gordon Williamson]

The bottom line is that no one yet has come up with any sort of convincing evidence that this "type" is not original to the period. JohnJ's last "Compelling pictures" of the type being sold for $1500 or so were clearly of a totally different cross of inferior quality which bore only a passing resemblance.

I have yet to see one of these offered with Oakleaves attached, virtually every one I have seen has been with a standard loop and in every case, with genuine ribbon and often in genuine case.

Two factors though are that this type is definitely one which a lot of folk don't like, and the very poor condition would mean a low value whatever type it was.

Gordon

By the way, I don't have one of these.

[Dave Kane]

Gordon (respectfully), I would have to consider you one of the biased in the 'yes' catagory by virtue of your book showing this 'type' and in a sense sanctioning it!
However, the question looms as to why these have not been featured in wonderful works on the Knight's Crosses...Previteria's and Giesler's books. And, those which we have seen have been mint with no hint of ageing or toning or even the slightest 'yellowing' of the frosting!

These are a 'relatively recent' type to hit the market so, I wonder where have they been...
John

[Gordon Williamson]

I am not saying I think they are OK because I put them in my book, but the converse-I put them in my book because I think they are OK.
Stephen Previtera's book, which I agree is wonderful, does not show a Zimmermann or a Deschler either, neither does it show a Schickle L/15 or even mention its existence-does this mean all Schickle L/15s must then be fake. Geissler's book is also excellent, but it fails to show a Schickle, Godet or Deschler Cross. So what? Because a particular type has not been featured in a reference book so far is hardly "evidence" against it.

We know for certain that the Godet dies, the Steinhauer dies, the Schickle dies and the Klein & Quenzer dies survived the war and any of these may have been used post war to restrike Knight's Crosses. It is entirely possible that whomsoever manufactured this "round cornered" type may also have survived the war to be used in making restrikes. Who knows.

These are far from being a "new" type on the market. They have been around for years and I have seen several which have been heavily toned and tarnished. Just because you haven't noticed them doesn't mean they haven't been around.

This is irrelevent however, as fakes have been around since the late 40s. So having appeared earlier or later hardly counts. How many people mentioned the round 3 EKs a few years back. Dealers were selling them for the same price as standard EKs until it became clear there was a collector demand for them. Then the prices shot up but they are still out there and Detlev seems to be able to come up with them fairly frequently. There are often things that are under everyones nose, but they just don't notice them until they are pointed out.

I would be happy to reassess my opinions on the "round corner" RKs if anyone could come up with even the flimsiest shred of hard evidence to show they are a postwar. So far no-one has.

Gordon

[David C]

Thanks for the input folks.

It is going back to the vendor for refund. He is someone I have dealt with many times before and is not a cross expert. He did not claim it as genuine just the right size, carrying 800 marks etc.

He is a good guy and will honour his returns policy.

Cheers,
David.

[Mohawkwarrior]

Mr.Williamson,your reply is one that rings with good common sense.I find it very true that every little newly noticed anomalie are instantly attributed to an item being a reproduction.I dont know if these crosses are real but they sure are well made.

[Gordon Williamson]

Posting these on behalf of Tony (Tiger1). I'll leave it to him to post the info that goes with them

[Mohawkwarrior]

Manions has one of these crosses right now with a copy of the capture papers and an letter of authenticity from Detlev Niemann.

[Dave Kane]

Not slik enough!!

It's not the same cross! Look at Manion's stratigic photo layout. Detlev's letter is just a blur! However, the photos attached to Detlev's letter are easy to 'blow-up' and they clearly do not show all 8 inner corners to be rounded. Unlike the cross that is attributed to the "Guarantee of Authenticity"!
I wonder what Detlev would think of this

[Tiger 1]

Hi Guys,
First I would like to thank Gordon for posting the pictures of this Knight's Cross in my collection.
I've been following the the on going debate as to the pre-1945 originality of these Duemer(?) style KCs. I guess it's my turn to jump into the deep end of the pool so to speak.
I have had the Knight's Cross pictured above in my collection since the mid 1980's. This KC was a veteran walk in to a friend's antique collectable/pawn shop along with some other items brought back from WW2. I aquired this KC shortly afterwards from my friend.
Other than a gentle washing with Ivory soap and water to remove the grim and neutralize any finger residue, this KC has not been messed with in any way. The original blume of tarnished silver remains unimpaired.
This cross has the original ribbon ring which is stamped 800 as is the reverse upper arm just below the eye. This cross shows wear marks to the black finish on the reverse center consistant with rubbing on a uniform button. Upon closer examination of the eye and ribbon ring one can see that the ring has worn the inside top of the eye due to the cross swinging about during wear by the recipient. Even though the ring and the cross are both hallmarked 800 the ribbon ring was the harder of the two. This interesting phenomenon is probably due to the ring being work hardened during winding to final shape. While the eye of the KC was ever so slightly annealed during the soldering process when assembled.
The two silver frame pieces of the cross are well struck and finely finnished and soldered together. The edges of the cross are slightly crowned and polished as they should be and the solder line is barely visible. The eye is part of each frame half and not added on. The frame is very tightly fitted to the core and shows signs of hand work consistant with the jewelry trade of the time. The frame is properly assembled in line and not slid off to one side as is sometimes noticed on reproductions of KCs and EK2s. The beading on this KC shows no evidence of ever being "frosted" for contrast as is common on later pieces.
The core of this piece shows consistant wear front and back. The finish is fairly smooth and I have reason to believe that it's of a two piece construction of stamped "eisenblech" constuction instead of a cast iron core. The high swastika and date details are crisp and show an ever so slight break or rounding to the sharp edges. This type of construction is consistant with that found in some EK1s and EK2s that have been split. Obviously I am not going to split this KC to prove or disprove this assertion.
Now to some weights and measures related to this KC. This cross weighs 26.7624 grams with the ring. This is at the lighter end of the weight spread which is acceptable for KCs. This weight bolsters my contention that the core is of the lighter stamped "eisenblech" constuction instead of the solid cast iron normally found on later pieces. This cross measures 49- mm. in width X 49- mm. in height X 55mm. in total height with the eye. The thickness is 4.5mm.
I believe this Knight's Cross to be an early award piece and of early constuction. First I would like to define early as from September 1939 to mid to late 1941. The awards of KCs took a sharp upswing following the German invasion of Russia with operation "Barbarossa". These later types would be manufactured under the auspices of the LDO and were no longer available for sale through jewelers as private purchase items.
After countless hours of studying pictures of KC winners over the years I've been collecting the Iron Cross series several things became apparent to me. First as mentioned above the cross is of 800 silver that has never had the beading "frosted" for contrast or rodium plated for tarnish resistance. This seems to be consistant with early award pieces not only with KCs but also with early EK1s and EK2s. Secondly an interesting, but unscientific dating of KC awards can be made by observing how the ribbon ring is wound. This obviously doesn't work with the higher addendums of the Oakleaves, Oakleaves and Swords, etc. in place ; just with the original ribbon ring of the basic KC. On earlier award photos the tag end of the ribbon ring is to the veiwer's right, not the wearer's but the veiwer's right. While in later award photos the tag end is on the veiwers left. Granted there is some crossover of examples on both sides of this mid to late 1941 time frame. Something to ponder as collectors.
I will close this expanded opinion of mine with something I learned a long time ago in collecting. It concerns the words "always" and "never". These two words should be used sparingly and with care by collectors as they can be detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge.
I have now figured out that the setting on my scanner was set wrong. If anyone would like better photos of this or other KCs I can e-mail them to Gordon Williamson, who was so kind as to post the previous pictures.
Best regards to all and good hunting!
Tony

P.S. This Post is my Intellectual Property and is thus Copyrighted and cannot be published without my permission or credit. Thanks