DK in Gold - Real? - Maker?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I will not show you the back(side).... ... yet. Maybe after Monday!


Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Here are some comparable areas, starting at the top. Both this one and the one that Dietrich has posted show the vertical flaw at the top, but the flaw in the body of the leaf to the left is different. The one Dietrich has posted shows a more pronounced and lateral defect.

[tom hansen]

Here is the part of the wreath at about 9:30 to 10:00. Dietrich's cross has two "bubbles" not seen on this one.

[tom hansen]

Now the date is interesting. The juncker cross date has a bunch of flaws. You can see the "filled in" area at the top of the "9" and a slight vertical defect at the top right of the "9". The right lateral part of the "9" slopes into the metal, rather than a sharp cut. Also, there is a defect where the inferior loop of the "9" meets the right lateral vertical stroke. There is a small defect in the "beak" of the first "1" of the "1941". These are sharper images, so you can really see the defects in the date. There is a wealth of information just in a clear image of the date.

[tom hansen]

Now here is a part of the cross not often noted, but the arrangement of the "coining" is irregular, with differences in thickness and height.

[tom hansen]

Lastly, here is the "machining" defect at about 10 oclock on the interior of the wreath.

[tom hansen]

So..........

If had to buy this based on the images available and there was no opportunity to examine this with 30X loop or closer digital images and there was no return, I would pass.

I am intrigued by the similiarites enough that I would want to take a closer look. The "1" is definately odd. I cannot accurately make out the flaws on the "9" in the cross that Dietrich posted. However, if we assume that the wreath is stamped, then the differences in the dates would be reflected by somehow an "off" stamp, yet the rest of the wreath is crisp.

Secondly, this has some differences in flaws from the other cross I posted. Lastly, there are many MINOR flaws to compare with higher magnification. But again, based on these images alone, with no return or further analysis, I would pass. I would sure like to see this on higher mag!



Come on Dietrich!! Show me a reverse that has four or six rivets! Let us get this one out on the table and take a look at it further.

[IVAN]

the "1941"

well, 1941 is like a Juncker style and we cannot see if is totally right this number or not because is not enough clear, but is not so bad as we can say at ones " is not right"( I can see closed shadows of numbers that seams to be right) . I don't like the rest- dimentions of wreath , disk , its color...and my feeling in generally.

....only my opinion

[tom hansen]

well, 1941 is like a Juncker style and we cannot see if is totally right this number or not because is not enough clear, but is not so bad as we can say at ones " is not right"( I can see closed shadows of numbers that seams to be right) what I don't like is the rest- dimentions of wreath , disk , its color...and my feeling in generally.

....only my opinion

But that is an experienced opinion! Thanks Ivan. So unless you had the opportunity to examine this further, you would pass on this based on the available images? I agree with that as well. Hopefully Dietrich will spill the beans and show the reverse.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Ivan,

please have a closer look at the wreath. Don't be fooled by the color of the disc, I asked the same question (the cross is not mine) and was asured that the actual apprereance of the disc is like a regular one.
I find the 12 o'clock die flaw Tom pointed out very interesting. What ere the chances? And I think I can see the start of the "9" die flaw. Please give this one a more in depth look - it is interesting...

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Dietrich- It does have what appears to be the flaw in the "9", but there are three componants to that flaw which cannot be accurately seen- the top, the right lateral, and the point where the loop joins the body. The vertrical componant of the "9" has that gentle sloping appearance into the metal, which is not seen on other "9"s from different makers. I think that would be hard to fake. But how do you explain the "1"?


The flaw at the 12 oclock position is interesting. Yet the flaw on the first leaf to the left is too big and appears further lateral! Simply the presence that there is something there is interesting. There are also those two areas which appear to have "bubbles" at 9:30- 10:00. Oddly, the rest of the wreath looks pretty good and I think it would definately warrant a closer look.

Lastly, that inferior view of the wreath is helpful , as there are some keys in the appearance of the "coining".



So I take it from your response that there ARE five rivets and a thin barreled hinge on the reverse?????

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe this helps..

[Dietrich Maerz]

and this...

[tom hansen]

Maybe this helps..

Yes it does. I like it better upside down ! Seriously, you CAN see the flaw better. Now I know you have a juncker DKiG. Are you able to examine the cross that you posted in hand and compare to yours? If not, can the owner provide some better detailed images? How can you explain the "1"?


I really like it better from those views. Now look at the coining. Starting from left to right

1. #7 is the tallest, then they become shorter to #13, giving it a "golden gate bridge" appearance

2. #14 is muted

3. #8,#9,#10 have bifid "feet" at the base

4. After #7, the base of the coins deviate slightly to the right.


From the photos you show here, the "1" on the "1941" looks better and there appears to be a bifid foot at the base of #9 coin, but the images are a little blurred.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I don't have the cross but I did compare to my Juncker.

How do I explain the "1"? Damaged? Squezzed? If more is plus, would be the one the thing to dismiss the cross?

Dietrich