Iron Crosses (x3) 2nd Class. Standard Crosses?

[terry.h]

Hi,
Can anyone please advise me about these three Iron Crosses?
I can find no makers mark on any of them, and as I am in no way an Iron Cross man I just wondered if it is possible to work out who the makers might be from the photos?
I just will sell them, I won't be keeping them, but I just need to be 100% sure when I describe them for sale that they are what I say they are....... so any details that you could possible work out from the photos would help me in my description when I sell them.
Any idea as to value would also be a great help. Thanks.
Thanks in advance,
Terry

[terry.h]

b)

[terry.h]

c)

[boch_62]

IMO (the pictures are terrible):
a) one-piece fake
b) ...hanauer's "24"
c) S&L design

Regards
Jarek

[terry.h]

Iron Crosses x3

I am sorry that you think my photographs of the Iron Crosses are terrible, I don't think they are terrible at all. I am not trying to win any Sony World Photography Awards, I was just trying to show the Iron Crosses from different angles.
What is strange to me is that you say Iron Cross (a) is a fake, and you must be correct I will not argue with that but that Iron Cross came with several other medals including Sudetenland Occupation, Wound Badge, Eastern Front Medal, War Merit Cross with Swords and the West Wall Medal.....and all of them (like the Iron Cross) came with paperwork. Several of the medals were also awarded to the same man as the Iron Cross. Each of the other medals is 100% OK so I believe that the paperwork must also be OK for them. But, because you tell me that Iron Cross (a) is a fake does that also mean that the paperwork for that Iron Cross is also fake? The paperwork certainly looks OK. What do you think? Why only ONE medal from SIX is a fake is rather strange, especially IF the paperwork is OK. Any ideas?
I look forward to hearing from you,
Terry

[streptile]

Hi Terry,

As for the paperwork, have you posted it yet in the document forum for a check? Paperwork can also be faked. Also it's very common for a document to be dressed up with a medal. If the medal is fake (as is your first EK2) then you can have a mismatch with an authentic doc and fake medal, or vice-versa.

I think you can account for a language barrier with the criticism of the photos a bit.

[Yubari]

A) is fake for sure. No doubts

[ccfc]

It's not that the photos are bad, it's that they could be better for identification purposes.

Each cross manufacturer has its own version of beading so pictures need to be taken straight on with preferably no flash. It's like a fingerprint so some of your pictures show a only partial fingerprint!

You have many guys on the forum who can tell most crosses from this and others like myself who can tell a few of the makers.

So to reiterate your pictures are nice and show details but not what's required


Lee

[Tony T-S]

Yes, photos taken looking straight on of front and back are needed.

[Tom B]

i agree better photos.

[sanya13]

Hí Terry
I agree with Jarek
The first cross with paper not original ( cast one piece copy)
The second a 24
and the law a S&L design

The pictures nice & spectacular,but the of identification total front footage should be taken.