333 observations

[Stravers]

I am kinda new to the Iron Crosses but can u explain why this is a fake?

Because of the stamp?
Or because the dates are so weard? I thought that if a Iron Cross whas stamped it whas original?
So if a Cross whas stamped 333 it is a fake?

[Darrell]

I am kinda new to the Iron Crosses but can u explain why this is a fake?

Because of the stamp?
Or because the dates are so weard? I thought that if a Iron Cross whas stamped it whas original?
So if a Cross whas stamped 333 it is a fake?

Well ....

For one ... there was never any listed maker of EKs above the mid 100's.
As Charlie stated they also came with 666 or 999 mm ...

As far as quality, some are very close to real ones. But as Charlie showed above ... some have rather crude characteristics associated with them.

[coastie]

I am kinda new to the Iron Crosses but can u explain why this is a fake?

Because of the stamp?
Or because the dates are so weard? I thought that if a Iron Cross whas stamped it whas original?
So if a Cross whas stamped 333 it is a fake?

Welcome to the world of Iron Crosses where the rules are simple.

1.There are more unmarked EK's than marked.

2. A maker mark does not mean it's genuine.

3. Any maker mark with above a certain number may not be real - there is a thread that gives verified maker marks.

4. Each Ek from a marker has it's own characteristics - like a finger print.

5. 333 - 666 - 999 are known fakes.

[Stravers]

ok Thank You very much!

Those pictures will help alot in my research

[coastie]

Here as promised the maker mark

[Jim Baker]

Chief,

I wrote somewhere in another thread that this past summer I finally got to hold one of these. It was very convincing and I would have probably bought it if it had been unmarked. I didn't notice the "applied" looking dates. And I was looking at them. I also didn't notice the die flaw, but I wasn't looking for it.

What I mean by applied, is that the dates look as though they could have been cast and then removed from the original cast and placed onto a flat core. That would explain the dug out areas around the edges of the date. Like you said, maybe a first attempt. How does the swaz look up close? If it's done well, once painted, it would easily fool the newbie.

[coastie]

Chief,

I wrote somewhere in another thread that this past summer I finally got to hold one of these. It was very convincing and I would have probably bought it if it had been unmarked. I didn't notice the "applied" looking dates. And I was looking at them. I also didn't notice the die flaw, but I wasn't looking for it.

What I mean by applied, is that the dates look as though they could have been cast and then removed from the original cast and placed onto a flat core. That would explain the dug out areas around the edges of the date. Like you said, maybe a first attempt. How does the swaz look up close? If it's done well, once painted, it would easily fool the newbie.

The "crotches" of the swas are also ill defined up close but it could be paint.