crosses for review

[Dante Gambino]

Hey guys, Id love to hear you oppinions of these three peices. They are up for purchase but i want to make sure they are squeeky clean. What do you think?

[Dante Gambino]

2

[Dante Gambino]

3

[Dante Gambino]

4

[Dante Gambino]

5

[Patrick W]

1 and 3 good, 2 is bad to the bone

[Dante Gambino]

so the knights cross to the iron cross is no good? i really appreciate the info...what dont you like about it?

[ben bijker]

The dipping ring, the date is wrong, the markings are not good.
About everything is wrong.

Since there are only a few known makers, it's easier to study the authentic KC's then try to figure out why a fake is a fake...

Buy Dietrich's book, and you have a very good start with identifying KC's

best regards,
Ben

[Dante Gambino]

Awesome, thanks for the info!

[Dante Gambino]

so the fact that the eyelet dips into the top edge of the cross is usually a dead give away? That seems to be what ive read. Also, would all junckers have the "cross hatch" production flaw at the inside corners? Ive seen pics of several Lazy 2 variations...but not this one where the 800 mark and 2 are so close together. i'll get Dietrich's book asap.

[Biro]

...would all junckers have the "cross hatch" production flaw at the inside corners? .

Yes - but it's not a 'flaw' - its a design feature.

[hkusp40]

1 and 3 good, 2 is bad to the bone

I agree. -Ger

[Dante Gambino]

what about the ribbon loop? no silver mark and the ends of the loop are bent. Is it correct that the ribbon loop wouldnt have this bend at the ends?