Spanish Cross in Bronze CEJ

[Legion Condor]

Hi,

now I think they understand. but is not always as easy with the German / English.

You have the piece and it looked for them funny, but there were indeed features the typical Juncker because they have not made further thoughts. And have it placed in the collection.

When they bought it?

Greeting Hans Günter

[Brian S]

Hi,

now I think they understand. but is not always as easy with the German / English.

You have the piece and it looked for them funny, but there were indeed features the typical Juncker because they have not made further thoughts. And have it placed in the collection.

When they bought it?

Greeting Hans Günter

I got no details. I would guess a show in Germany.

[Legion Condor]

I now have not understood what they are saying. Or make them fun again.

Greeting Hans Günter

[Scott C.]

Good thread -- I appreciate the detailed photos and analysis. For what it's worth, below is the mark on my gold cross (Brian, you know the one). At this magnification (12x), the metal looks quite rough. To the naked eye, the metal appears perfectly smooth. Perhaps the roughness is the result of the gold wash?

Short of having a microscope, I think the next best forensics come from weight and dimensions; few (if any) fakers can get both right in one cross.

[Legion Condor]

Good thread -- I appreciate the detailed photos and analysis. For what it's worth, below is the mark on my gold cross (Brian, you know the one). At this magnification (12x), the metal looks quite rough. To the naked eye, the metal appears perfectly smooth. Perhaps the roughness is the result of the gold wash?

Short of having a microscope, I think the next best forensics come from weight and dimensions; few (if any) fakers can get both right in one cross.

Hi Scott,

nei that's not true, the weight and mass can always be very easy to build by. But the real look in detail is very difficult. Because if you can copy the details of the optics, then fits the weight and mass. I like to show it later to other images. As you can see it very well. The stamp is not as important as some think.

Greeting Hans Günter

[Stan]

Hi Brian,

Great to hear that you could return your fake cross to the dealer and get a refund.

I told WAF member "Liquide" (Martin) that I wanted to return the fake he sold to me on estand (posted at the start of this thread) and he has declined saying "I am sorry that you are unhappy with this cross, but only to make it clear, I will not return back the cross".

What he really means is that he will not accept back the cross. His excuse for not doing so is that he still believes the cross to be 100% genuine which clearly it is not.

I have contacted Dave Suter but the fact remains that I have a fake cross, supplied to me by a fellow WAF member who has suggested I post the cross on the forum for discussion and now refuses to refund me which I am totally unhappy about.

Stan

[Matthew]

look well to the east

I have been fortunate to remember this place as what it was meant to be- a circle of friends. When one was to sell a dubious item unknowingly, one would own up to it, even if years, sometimes decades would pass. It has been my privilege to count those individuals as Dear Friends. It does however take honor and guts- something that is sadly lacking here these days.
One of our friends has been wronged. A man of utmost honesty and sincerity. I can hope that others take notice.

cheers

Matt

[Brian S]

I think this deserves its own thread as the subject has come up recently. Bottom line, does an eStand sale mean a "Lifetime Guaranty"? Are we as collectors now essentially giving COA's?

[Scott C.]

Hi Scott,

...the weight and mass can always be very easy to build by. But the real look in detail is very difficult.

Brian, Stan -- I would be curious to know how weight and measurements of your newly determined reproduction crosses compare to that of accepted originals?

[Brian S]

Brian, Stan -- how do the weight and measurements of your reproduction crosses compare to that of accepted originals?

Sorry I didn't measure. That has never been my method of determining originality. Except for the white lightweight metal often encountered in some fakes. I imagine this fake is very very close to original. In size it compared to original side by side in size.

[Legion Condor]

Brian, Stan -- I would be curious to know how weight and measurements of your newly determined reproduction crosses compare to that of accepted originals?

Hi,

I have the mass of the copy, and many originals. It differs only minimally. This is not uncommon in Spain crosses. If you have to compare unworn pieces with the copy and that I have made. The copy is about 3% smaller. This is also a normal mass in a cast copy. Will today or tomorrow even a table set as the photo where the exact mass can be seen. In a few very special masses which no normal collectors measure was there enlarge the deviations.

This I have found over 10 copies of other pieces again and again. There is also no different.

In a pressed copy is again different because it comes easy to the can of the stamp to schneiders.

Later more!

I have realized that copy the scroll to another forum on pictures and not on earth. The copy was me only now made available by the harmed for my work.

Greeting Hans Günter

[Stan]

Brian, Stan -- I would be curious to know how weight and measurements of your newly determined reproduction crosses compare to that of accepted originals?

Hi Scott,

Here are some dimensions and weights. All crosses are Junckers with Swords:

Original Gold: 55,98mm H x 55,84mm W. 35,3g

Original Silver: 56,6mm H x 55,67mm W. 34,4g

Fake Bronze: 56,6mm H x 55,96mm W. 29,8g

Remember that 800 Silver weighs approx 20% more than Tombak!

I don't have an original Bronze Juncker to post so perhaps someone else can supply this info.

Stan

[jacques]

hi
some dimensions:

CEJ bronze 1: H 56;2cm W 56,01 weight 30.1g
CEJ bronze 2: H 55.7cm W 56.1 weight 30.6g

jacques

[Legion Condor]

Hi,

the mass of jaques I can confirm as of my pieces. But there are, unfortunately, always small differences. Des because I mean it's not possible to recognize not so much to the data at a very good copy. And look into the depth must to distinguish the copy. One has already seen here how many people have kept this copy on the first Blich for good, and have these data also not changed my opinion.

Greeting Hans Günter

[Brian S]

What do you see here?