EKs Real or fake?

**Perry** · 06-25-2011, 09:39 PM

There are no marks on the rings. The ring on the one with the ribbon does not look right to me, like it may have been replaced. If you think they are bad please tell what makes you think so. This helps me learn.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 06-25-2011 09:39 PM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Adrian** · 06-25-2011, 10:46 PM

Hi Perry,
The first cross I believe is a fake, the dates are unlike any original I can think of and I don't recognise the frame.
The second looks (from the pics) to be an original '24' but obviously better photos of both crosses will help immensely to confirm one way or the other.

**Perry** · 06-25-2011, 10:50 PM

Adrian,

Thanks for the info. I took the pictures in the store so it was with flash. I can go back Monday and see if I can get better pics using natural light. What do I need to take pictures of to help you identify them better.

Thanks
Mike

**Adrian** · 06-25-2011, 11:02 PM

Mike, if you can get some good, straight on, close up shots in natural light of the front and back so we can see the details of the beading on the frame and the dates it would be a bonus. Take a look at the sticky thread at the top of this sub forum for some photography tips. If the pics look too dark when you take them, adjust the ISO settings on your camera.

**Perry** · 06-25-2011, 11:19 PM

Adrian,

Thanks for the tip. I reviewed them on the camera after I took them. Once I got home and put them on my PC I wondered if they were good enough. I will go for a re-shoot on Monday. I will take a look a the thread you recommended.

Thanks
Mike

**KSH** · 06-25-2011, 11:39 PM

by Adrian

Hi Perry,
The first cross I believe is a fake, the dates are unlike any original I can think of and I don't recognise the frame.
The second looks (from the pics) to be an original '24' but obviously better photos of both crosses will help immensely to confirm one way or the other.

I'm not sure the 2nd cross is a 24. Too high dates and not round enough corners? Here is my 24:

I've never noticed before now the quite "fat" reverse date on my 24. More paint than usual?

- Kenneth

**Perry** · 06-26-2011, 12:05 AM

Kenneth,

Thanks for the pics to compare. I brought your pictures up to compare with the cross with the ribbon that I took. I noticed that it appears all of the inner corners on yours seem to touch the twisted cross. On the pic I took it appears to only touch on the top right and bottom left. The nine on your date seems to touch the beading but not on mine. The 1939 three appears to be higher up than yours as well. Comparing the 1813 to yours and your three appears to touch the beading and mine does not. It could be the quality of pictures that I took but if not could there be that much difference if they were made from the same manufacturer? I am still very new as collecting so I am just wondering.

Mike

**KSH** · 06-26-2011, 12:14 AM

Well, you have to remember that the core is separate from the frames and as such the cores can settle a little different from cross to cross even if they are made by the same maker. Adrian has far more knowledge than me on these crosses, so I'm not saying he is wrong. I'm just not entirely convinced that it is a 24.

- Kenneth

**Perry** · 06-26-2011, 12:23 AM

I had not thought of that and it makes sense.

Thanks
Mike

**Adrian** · 06-26-2011, 12:38 AM

The cores do move about within the frames to varying degrees and can make the dates look too high or too low. I personally don't tend to look for this as it can be deceptive depending on the angle of the photograph, lighting and if the core happens to be particularly loose on a certain cross.
I based my thought on it being a '24' upon the wide looking frame, the frame details and the shape of the numbers in the dates. Hopefully if Mike can get some closer shots it will be easier to tell.