Danzig cross

[Giel VW]

Aha now I see what you mean

Maybe a special fitting for a left hander

[WARLORD]

I think great care should be taken with this cross. The gold finish is in my opinion not quite right. On my unmarked form the rivit is an open type.

a link to the Bar

http://stirnpanzer.com/forum/viewfor...526cbba81609c5

[gew98]

PS:

A good detailed photo of the back of the cross in the area of the crown would be interesting!

Obviously I know nothing about this rather sharp looking medal. Would you please drop some background history on this decoration...is it military or civil ?.

[luftwaffe303]

Giel,
This cross looks like it was made yesterday, way to "new" IMO. Too much to worry about so if you ask me I would "walk" and look for another example.
Happy New Year!
Thomas

[Danziger]

I think great care should be taken with this cross. The gold finish is in my opinion not quite right. On my unmarked form the rivit is an open type.

a link to the Bar

http://stirnpanzer.com/forum/viewfor...526cbba81609c5

Hi Chris,

very interesting. This cross on your bar is unmarked? It seems to be similar to the one shown in this thread then with open spaces in the crown. All marked pieces I have seen so far, either with raised or etched maker mark, have filled spaces in the crown.

It gets quite difficult in judging the unmarked ones. The unmarked ground-find in my earlier link has also filled spaces.

I will post pics of a 1st and 2nd class reproduction later. They are quite obvious with a white lining inside the metal.

@gew98
Hi, the cross is a political award for meritious service to the Party in Danzig. It was worn by both, civilian and military personnel. It was not necessary to hold a Danzig Cross 2nd class in order to receive a Danzig Cross 1st class.

[Danziger]

Two more reproductions. From the first one I only have the front pic. It is actually being sold as a reproduction and has the gaps in the crown:



The second one is the second type of reproduction with white lines in the metal which none of the maker marked crosses ever had. However, it does have the closed spaces in the crown. A look at the crude workmanship quickly identifies it as a fake. Includes picture of the back:




In WARLORD's medal bar, the Danzig cross crown has a flat bottom part whereas all the probable reproductions of that type have a rounded crown bottom. That is interesting to note. The makers marked Danzig crosses come with flat bottom and round bottom (I know it sounds kinky) parts depending on whether the makers mark is etched or in raised lettering. Both marks are correct for the original time period.

[Giel VW]

Thanks for even more pictures René! I think a good reference thread to anyone who's interested in buying one of these crosses!

Anyhow, I decided to pass on the cross. Unmarked or marked doesn't really matters to me, but I don't want to end up with a controversial
piece in my collection.

Thanks again for all the help guys!

[Danziger]

No problem.

I am sorry it didn't turn out more positive

Best of luck next time!

René

[voodoo]

Here's mine:

Jerry

I think I remember where that one came from

Jeff

[Mr.Jerry D]

Hey Jeff~!
Good to hear you are still around, have't seen you in a while.

yep that's the piece
and who says "Dan-o" is entirely useless?

[Craig Gottlieb]

As an aside, I am not ashamed to let people know that the cross for sale is mine. A few points to consider:

1) A marked cross is ALWAYS more "acceptible" in collector eyes, for the very reasons discussed on this thread. However, marked examples are also quite a lot more than mine was being offered for, so I feel I took the unmarked-nature of the cross into consideration, and was fair in my offering.

2) I find it interesting that a person who starts a comment off with "I've no experience in these decorations, but my gut-feeling says no" has actually mis-interpreted the photos, and clouded the waters with his commentary. The catch is NOT AT ALL "mounted the wrong way" and it is exactly as Giel stated - the ribbon was merely askew when the photograph was taken. If you hold the medal in your hand, it is 100% obvious that the ribbon, and the catch, and the pin, are all absolutely textbook.

3) Contrary to Chris Ailsbey's commentary about the finish being "not quite right," the gold coloring is IDENTICAL to the honey-gold coloring found on numerous other awards, to include other Danzig Crosses I have owned, and other decorations - very typical finish, probably masqued, by the photography. I know and respet Chris, and have seen his museum quality restoration work (and even own three reproduction pieces that he experimented on to demonstrate the quality of his refinishing).

4) Most of what I sell is in near-mint or better condition. If being in like-new condition is now a red-flag, then I guess I need to modify my tastes and buying strategy (as do others).

In summary, this is an example of a piece whose reputation has been tarnished (excuse the poor humor) for no good reason. The cross may be 100% bogus, but I don't believe that to be true, and the commentary to suggest that it is "not quite right" is weak at best. As an experiment, I'm going to carry this piece with me to Stuttgart and have Detlev have a look at it. This way, we can get some better commentary about the piece.

Please also be kind in your reception of my rejoinder here. At the end of the day, Giel has to be happy with what he adds to his collection, and if it's a marked example he prefers, then I'm fine with that. Happy New Year!

[Peter J.]

Hi Craig,

Feel free to use my name. This is a site for collectors, sharing their mutual interest and exchange their thoughts. Most of us haven't handled the high end stuff, the "knowledge" is rather gathered from reference books. I hope you don't suggest this lack of "handling expertize" should limit our possibilities to offer an opinion or that gut feeling isn't a part of this equation. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my comment, but my major concern has been given by Rene' i.e. the holes.

As for the catch, well I can comment only on what I believe I see. The opening of the catch appears to be facing up i.e. opposite direction of the rounded section of the ribbon. If you can provide an image showing the pin opened downwards, I will of course rest my case. Even if the catch is attached incorrectly, it wouldn't rule out the possible legitimacy of this bar, misstakes were made also in those days. The combination of the holes and this anomaly rendered my negative opinion though. Have a great new year

cheers
Peter

[Peter J.]

For illustration

[Giel VW]

Peter,

I think it goes like this. The piece of ribbon comming through the wool (with red circle on my picture), idicates that.

[Peter J.]

Giel, you have younger eyes than I do and might very well be correct .

Craig, if I made the wrong assumption, it's likely to believe others did as well. With that settled, at the end of the day it worked out pretty good for you after all, don't you think

cheers
Peter