Just got home and saw this. I agree with George, Dietrich and Ivan. I have three zimmerman DKiGs and the wreaths are different than this. The catch, hinge, and rivets from the photo file above, however, look pretty good. This really begs the question as to why someone who had gone to the trouble to fake a medal would make such a glaring difference in the date from an original. It really leads one to question more closely the other perameters of the cross.
-
-
Hello,
I have an example like the one in question here and I've owned it since 1997. It came from Steve Wolfe and I've seen a few more thru the years at Steve's place. The weight, dimensions and maker mark are exactly the same as the text book type. I've always wondered about it and I find it interesting that this is the first time I've seen one on the forum. I'll post some pictures.
John GarciaComment
-
.Comment
-
-
In 60 years! Then suddenly....
Regards,
DaveComment
-
John,
did you buy it directly from Steve or were you told it came from Steve?
And I also would like to see the Expertise from Detlev. Normally this paper travles with the item. Or is it just heresay that it came from Detlev?
DietrichComment
-
Dietrich-
Why does the expertise make any difference? If the wreath is different and the date is odd, does that not define the issue?Comment
-
Dietrich,
I bought mine with a case directly from Steve Wolfe back in 1997 and I've seen at least two others at Steve's home. He had one cased example on the top shelf sitting next to an oakleaves with swords and diamonds award.
Tom,
I can tell you that the weight is exactly the same as the excepted light version of this type of DKiG. The only difference is in the wreath.
John GarciaComment
-
Hi,
As I said, it's only my personal opinion, but I don't believe it's a war time piece .
@ In H0092929 piece , maker mark is not closed enough to any of "20" makers of this firm, "0" looks to the "right" direction and not to the center of left, is strange that is missing the top, as someone has put something don't show it all, why ? "2" has not the little ball . Wreath is very large and disegn is wrong, 1941 style is wrong, are not important the points but numbers look totally another thing, svaz is too big.
@ Neil piece, wreath has an incredible boards partly of leaves, top of black star beams are not correct as Zimmermann pieces, too large. Svaz boards are not fine.
@ Garcia's DK looks not so bad as the others, dimentions of every part are fine but wreath has the same disegn.
reverse is good looking.
Ivan BombardieriComment
-
Well here is one more,I got this from a vets family along with a mint cloth DK. I have ran all of the specs. on it and it is text book. Are we looking at a possable die repair, buying weaths from another maker,Late war factory damage and out sourcing??There are several things it could be.I don't think I'm ready to pitch mine in the trash just yet. If there fake we would have seen the market flooded with them instead of three or four so far. This cross was given a
on this Forum some time ago.This is just MHO.
David R.Comment
-
moreComment
-
more photosComment
-
some moreComment
-
-
What about the enamel in the swas, has that been mentioned ? There is a distinct difference in genuine crosses enamel to that of a fake........I know I had a bloody good fake.
When you compare genuine examples to the likes of the excellent quality fake I had, you'd see what I mean.
Kind regards,
MarcusLast edited by MH184; 09-17-2004, 04:58 PM.Comment
Comment