Opinions on repalacement 1813 EK1

[Richtofen]

Hi I saw this for sale and I think its great but im not sure about it mostly becase the seller says it was made probally around 1850 as a replacement for an original im also not fully sure if it isnt an aged repro so some help would be great thanks!!






also forgot the sellers description with it is as follows : Prussia. 1813 Iron Cross. High Convex Type. Plum patina on silver frame. Original finish with light rust along edge and under silver 'beaded' frame. Age-toned wide flat pin and back - marked with a crowned shield/double-headed eagle logo ( firm of Paul Meybauer - Berlin) and "900". The construction and markings would suggest the above piece to be an official replacement - circa 1850-1860. Only 568 First Class 1813 Iron Crosses were awarded. Rare.
SKU-OLG4228

[Walkwolf]

It seems to be lacking in quality IMO, and appears to have 'new' rust
on the core, but please wait for more learned comments.........

[tempelhof]

EDIT: ugh... sorry... i wrote all of this before i notice you yourself took care to pass on that this 1813 EK was a REPLACEMENT made perhaps around 1850. this could explain why none of what i say here may apply! supposedly, i read relatively well! perhaps not!
a replacement made in 1850 could have had a pin assembly. i don't know.
the 1870 sure did.

....

i'm not an expert on 1813 EK1.

that being said, these things are extraordinarily rare and i've seen two in my life. which is damn lucky from what i hear because i've heard advanced collector's say they've seen one only every few decades or so. at least that's the comments i have heard.

an authentic example sells for 7-10K and i could be low there.

now, keeping in mind that "handicap", the examples i've seen do not have pins. they have a "U" shape wire loop soldered near the end of the reverse of each arm of the cross and are sewn directly to the uniform using these loops. sometimes there are two loops at each arm.

i've also heard that more modern crosses are made into counterfeit 1813 EKs specifically by REMOVING the pin assembly and trying to obliterate the evidence that one was ever there and attaching loops. this would be an odd thing to hear if authentic 1813 EKs ever had the pin assembly.

the front looks approximately correct but again... damn... i'm going on memory here. i have a reference book with good pictures i haven't looked at in some time but it's out with someone else right now.

i have not seen one with a pin assembly. again... keeping the fact i speak from a limited sample pool and limited experience.

edit: ah i've found an image of one showing the back attachment structure (i make no claim as to the authenticity of this example. i use it merely to illustrate the lack of pin assembly):



or:

[Richtofen]

EDIT: ugh... sorry... i wrote all of this before i notice you yourself took care to pass on that this 1813 EK was a REPLACEMENT made perhaps around 1850. this could explain why none of what i say here may apply! supposedly, i read relatively well! perhaps not!
a replacement made in 1850 could have had a pin assembly. i don't know.
the 1870 sure did.

....

i'm not an expert on 1813 EK1.

that being said, these things are extraordinarily rare and i've seen two in my life. which is damn lucky from what i hear because i've heard advanced collector's say they've seen one only every few decades or so. at least that's the comments i have heard.

an authentic example sells for 7-10K and i could be low there.

now, keeping in mind that "handicap", the examples i've seen do not have pins. they have a "U" shape wire loop soldered near the end of the reverse of each arm of the cross and are sewn directly to the uniform using these loops. sometimes there are two loops at each arm.

i've also heard that more modern crosses are made into counterfeit 1813 EKs specifically by REMOVING the pin assembly and trying to obliterate the evidence that one was ever there and attaching loops. this would be an odd thing to hear if authentic 1813 EKs ever had the pin assembly.

the front looks approximately correct but again... damn... i'm going on memory here. i have a reference book with good pictures i haven't looked at in some time but it's out with someone else right now.

i have not seen one with a pin assembly. again... keeping the fact i speak from a limited sample pool and limited experience.

edit: ah i've found an image of one showing the back attachment structure (i make no claim as to the authenticity of this example. i use it merely to illustrate the lack of pin assembly):



or:

i found this online tha might explain the pin a little more

The 1813 First Class is a breast badge and therefore is ribbonless. It has a closed solid silver backing with attached loops * numbering one to two for each arm * for wear upon the recipients left breast. Measurements fall in line with those of the Second Class. Later in the 1840s and 1850s a hinged pin was added for easy attachment.

[tempelhof]

well i'm waiting for someone with specific experience in these.

to my eye, as a replacement piece with suggested date of manufacture, i don't see anything alarming.

the marks look contemporary to the piece and the patina seems undisturbed and even.

the thing seems to have a schinkelform shape which you'd expect from these early (i think 1914??) dies.

i'd like to hear a little more on Walkwolf's comments re: "new" vs. "old" rust. to me, and i could just be ignorant here, rust can start and stop over the years, so you might see "new" rust on a very old piece? i don't know. or, perhaps "old" rust "seals" the metal against further formation of "new" rust? i'd like to hear comments on this.

i collect totally freaking mint EKs so rust is something i don't see often and don't think much about. kinda makes me wonder if i should get "real" and start collecting a range of conditions.

[tempelhof]

boy if this thing is OK... and i think it's hard to evaluate these at least to me... it would be a nice addition to any EK collection.

[Walkwolf]

Greg - aka 'Chopperman' will likely know.........!

[tempelhof]

well he's perusing the comments now. i'd love to hear his input!

[Chopperman]

I would not rush right out to buy this one. Not that I can tell you with
absolute certainty that it is good or bad but my gut has that uneasy feeling.

The frame looks to be a vintage Meybaurer. However the pin does not match
any Meybaurers that I have seen before. (quite possibly a period repair job).

As mentioned earlier, the rust looks new. Orange rust is new rust and always should
be a red flag to collectors. To go along with that---the soldering and seam where the
two frame halves are joined together looks really poor. Meybauer was one of the better
cross makers and I would expect much better quality on one of their crosses.

The dealers time frame can not be right as there were not any maker marked crosses
in the 1850s. We do not see any maker marks until the 1914 series crosses also
Meybaurer is not a known maker of 1870 crosses.

My guess that this is a 1914 cross has been taken apart and the core replaced
with a new one. Like I said---I can not say for sure one way or another but
this is what I see when I look at it.

Greg

[Chopperman]

amendment to the above.

There is a picture of a 1870 Ek1 marked "LL" but it is a picture of one cross
off a dealers site. No one in the collector community has actually seen or
handled it in person and it is the only one ever pictured.