Deutsche kreuz in gold

[kevin1947]

another for expert opinion boxed stamped 20

[John Brandon]

Hi Kev
A bit of a long shot with those pictures, I would like to see more detailed shots of the catch and the "1941". I expect for the money that's being asked for it, that shouldn't be a problem, however, first impressions for me are not good. I don't like the rivets, as originals tended to be more "flatter" and the catch is slightly worrying, Zimmerman catches are usually, not always slightly leaning to the right, and the examples i have handled it is a "C" catch without the plate, kinda reminds me of the Czech fake that I had my fingers burnt on a few years ago
BTW small island

[big ned]

I agree with John's synopsis on the whole. From the once again poor photo's, it appears that this is the 'light' 20 cross from Zimmermann. The catch plate indicates this, and the fact that the 'C' shaped catch is not really leaning to the right as is normally seen as JB points out, this more upright one is acceptable for earlier produced 'light' 20's, as the late ones nearly all appear to be canted to the right. It's interesting to note that the controversial but now accepted 'Dotted Date' 20's all have this more upright catch on them.

The rivets appear O.K., it's normal for Zimmermann rivets to be slightly domed, whereas those on the otherwise identical Klein (134) are recessed and flush with the backplate. The photo of the reverse shows that the backplate is a very good match to known originals imo, being as near as damn identical, a good sign.

But as said, better shots of the date and also the 11 o'clock position of the rays are needed to really help confirm the validity of any Zimmermann DK, and you really need to bear this in mind Kev in future, get better shots before posting. I'm sure you don't need reminding of the mahoosive sh!tstorm that occured with 'Petesav' that was all down to initially crappy photo's, and none of us want that happening again do we?

Chances are it's good, but better pic's are required of it and the case (that's another $1000 remember), to be sure before parting with any money.

Regards, Ned.

[kevin1947]

hi ned i ask auction house for more but this is all they send thats why i need more opinions

[big ned]

You can only work with what you've got I suppose mate, but it's a bit unfair of them as you're asking someone to put their reputation on the line without them having all the available information, and that can cause mistakes to be made which ain't good for either me or thee when looking at reasonably high end pieces like this. I hope you understand.

Regards, Ned.

[Adrian]

John's summary is pretty much spot on and the best you will get for the limited images.
Ned is bang on too when he says members will be unwilling to put themselves on the line over an expensive, high end item from two images - look what happened before......

As you know, these items are multi construction, highly faked with numerous identifying features to look for and plenty of photos should be provided. If the auction house is unwilling, perhaps it's best to let it go?

[kevin1947]

this is offered for sale at lawrences auction house crewkern

[John Brandon]

I would tread cautiously with this one. I had a look at the photos they supplied (can't post them as they have an automatic zoom function) BUT, I can see no flaw at 11 o'clock nor can I see a flaw on the 1941. It may well be original and only a "hands on" would confirm or deny, but for the reasons I have stated before, I would pass as it's too much of a gamble. However they do have some "interesting" items

[big ned]

I would tread cautiously with this one. I had a look at the photos they supplied (can't post them as they have an automatic zoom function) BUT, I can see no flaw at 11 o'clock nor can I see a flaw on the 1941. It may well be original and only a "hands on" would confirm or deny, but for the reasons I have stated before, I would pass as it's too much of a gamble. However they do have some "interesting" items

The only DK produced by Zimmermann that did not have at least a sign of the two usual flaws that should be present on a genuine piece was the now accepted 'Dotted Date' version which was made with new parts, and i'm assuming it's not one of them. Therefore neither the wreath or starburst plate can be correct for this cross. and it must be assumed as a possible/probable fake unless it's a new, never seen before variant, which is not really likely.

Is there any chance of posting a link to the site JB, so as to take a looksy?

Regards, Ned.

[John Brandon]

Here you go mate
Full Lot Details 0403 - Catmaker Version