Originally posted by Leroy
View Post
-
Good for Ratisbon's and the seller - bad for the buyer. Somebody didn't do his homework, way too high priced for something in the "light grey" area. I personally think that the "4"-marked pieces might be real, but hard to prove directly. -
Dietrich - I have great faith that you will someday establish that proof (just as you did with the 800-4) to the satisfaction of those who need it.
Comment
-
Leroy wouldn‘t you expect more than 1 fake to exist? I mean assuming...Last edited by Brian S; 11-13-2017, 10:16 PM.Comment
-
Brian - It is certainly generally the case that, especially in the medal/decoration field, it is simply not cost efficient to produce just a very few of anything. That said, seeing two does not mean real or fake. All it means is that the one that started this thread is not the only one. What may or may not actually mean something is that this "type" seems to be very "few and far between". Until this thread started, I had only seen one in my life - many, many years ago - and it was not marked to Sedlatzek as best I can recall. As I mentioned before, Steve Wolfe told me he had also seen this type and that he considered it real. I don't know if it is or is not. There are very many things about it which make me think it stands a very good chance (although actually having it in hand would tell more). I will not start out assuming that something like this is automatically fake, as I believe that such a view too often clouds the ability to approach something in a neutral fashion.Originally posted by Brian S View PostComment
-
There is another aspect: fakers tend to fake very close to an original. This is in order to fool the collector who is not very well versed with the fingerprints of the originals, but just knows enough to judge shape and size (facebook is a perfect example and a perfect platform) To come up with something like this Spain Cross would be very, very untypical. The half-educated collector would reject it immediately and the knowledgeable one is sceptical but open to further investigation. That is NOT how one sells fakes!Originally posted by Brian S View Post
Putting Sedlatzek into the picture (and not the usual L/12 on fakes ...) makes it even more dubiuos to 90% of all collectors. Not what a faker wants!
Based on that, and on that alone right now, I personally think that this is a good one.Comment
-
Well at least 2 bidders thought it was a real one. I liked it but was just uncomfortable bidding on something I (or anyone else for that matter) had never seen before.
Hopefully more will come to light on this.
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
-
Fakers get smart too! The Internet has made at least for us "known" pieces ubiquitous in the minds of serious collectors. So get smart do not put an LDO number or spurious MM on a piece that doesn't fit the manufacturer.
But that's speculation, to the piece...
Sedlatzek. Says they are BERLIN. We are "told" they produced nothing but sold other firm's goods. OK...
Berlin. Juncker. Why not a known maker then? Why this weak bird that resembles a dove? All the other firm birds are rugged eagles. This one is a weak necked, short necked, short winged bird. Nothing "eagleistic" about it.
Fit and finish look very good. Could be real, of course, some firm's weak attempt that Sedlatzek at least gave a bid to... But if so few and Sedlatzek used other firm's goods, why don't Sedlatzek Juncker pieces or Deumer pieces show up? Why this one?
Maybe this is a "super rare" bad attempt at a SK. OK, for me, so what...
I cannot say this is a "fake". I don't know. But I look forward to the proof it is a period cross other than the Sedlatzek name. What we do know for sure is it is not in the group of "awarded SK'". At best it is a post award "for private purchase" SK.Comment
-
As to 'why this bird?', who knows? I have suspected that, in the very early days, there was no real consensus as to the exact design of the eagle, as witnessed by these photos, shown before, one from Doehle showing 2 different eagles alternating around a Gold SK with Brilliants and the other from the case of a Next-of-Kin SK. Artistic license.Comment
-
Drawings are one thing, a dozen manufactured examples, entirely another 'thing', meaning, reality. I do not think you could call this cross "early" as it certainly was not an "early" awarded cross. Not trying to argue with you Leroy but I just don't agree with your logic.Comment
-
Not looking to argue at all, Brian. Just pointing out that there was no single specific mandated "eagle design" promulgated for the SK when it was authorized. Also, I don't believe that a piece has to be "awarded" to be "early" (look at copies of the Grand Cross being sold before the original was even awarded). I don't recall that Sedlatzek had either a PKZ number or an LDO number assigned to it and so I must ask: to what period should a piece be allocated if all it has is a marked name, irregardless if the piece was manufactured or simply distributed by that name?Comment
-
Ultimately it comes down to if you like it, great, and someone liked it enough to pay a lot. Wish I actually knew something concrete about it...Comment
Comment