Mutterkreuz 1

[kenv]

Is this an original Mutterkreuz from
Das Kind adelt die Mutter?

http://imageshack.us/g/843/4370626.jpg/

[jabnus]

Definately NOT original!

[colt45s]

mine has 16 December 1938

[Woolgar]

mine has 16 December 1938

The thread starter is an extremely rare first pattern design, thats why its different to yours Colt

Nick

[Carsten135]

hello guys

Woolgar is correct its the 1 pattern made in few numbers so its extremely rare and the price is quite rare too ( over 2000 eur ) so ill def. grab the bastard if the chance comes it looks ok and is one of the early cross from the nazi period. congrat
here is some pics of the mothercross from my collection and sadly i still miss the 1 pattern.



278.JPG

280.JPG

[Carsten135]

[ATTACH]2234654[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]2234655[/ATTACH]

[reichenberg]

A UK dealer has a 1st pattern cased silver grade @ £995. It's only the second one I have ever seen.

[jabnus]

Dear Carsten135 and Woolgar can you please tell and convince the readers of this topic why this would be an original cross? You seem very convinced and i think you are totally wrong in stating it is a good one.

I know for sure and have proof which i will post after your replies why this is a 100% fake cross, made to trick unawaring people in an attempt to get their hard earned money. Or perhaps you are involved and try to defend the fakers?

For future references i add the orginal imageshackpicture under here before it disappears. This picture will be handy in the future for other unawaring members to learn from.

kind regards,
Gaston

[reichenberg]

I don't like the look of that one at all and agree that it's a fake.

[fredswiss]

I agree with Gaston. While the one shown at the beginning of this thread is the extremely rare 1st pattern, it is a reproduction of the 1st pattern (IMHO).

[eraser]

Is this a joke Carsten135 and Woolgar. This is a fake cross and a bad made one i wonder why you say it's good

The back letter style is way way WAY off not even close

Here the front there are more bad spots but when i need to point them out i better put one big red circkel around it.

[jabnus]

Eraser is correct, the biggest giveaway is the very bad inscription on the reverse, someone tried to copy the original engraving, but did it so crude that even a blind man can see it is off. It is also done by a fairly unexperienced person, because the spacing is very much off compared to originals.

Because of all the work on the reverse side (first getting approx half a millimeter of the surface of a good cross to get a flat space that could then be worked on) and after that the engraving itself, these idiots damaged unintentionaly the obverse, the enamel has taken quite a few hits and they tried to mask then the most obvious damage by re-filling the white enamel, this was however also done very sloppy....

A very bad cross, and more and more of them are around since a year or two, unforatunately some are much better fakes than this one.

There is so much more to motherscrosses as just the plain three (bronze, silver, gold) of the third type, but some people keep responding way too quick and then we have another misleading topic that starts to fool other unawaring buyers. The fakers watch all topics here on the WAF and if something is starting to sound plausible because of reactions such as the above, we see more fake crosses surface.

regards,
Gaston

[klaus]

IMO not original..