1957 Knights cross of the Iron cross REAL OR FAKE ?

[Jacopo michelini]

Hello folks, I have found this beautiful Knights Cross for sale on the web for 1500€ and to be honest I don't know much about Iron crosses except that all originals are 3 piece made (i've seen orginals fell apart and so saw the 3 pieces that prior to that looked like 1) and think that all originals are magnetic (but not 100% sure).

**I already read thread on this forum about this topic but I prefer to have your opinions on this one.

The seller claims his is original and magnetic and silver frosted on the oakleaves and the 2 pieces holding the magnetic core.

Please tell me what you think about it people.

Regards - Jacopo.

[Historycollector61]

Looks fake to me

[Gwar]

Looks fake to me

[Watchdog]

Looks fake to me

It would be helpful to know why you use the term "fake"?

All the '57 awards are quite simply not original ie of the period. However, they have been produced legitimately ever since.

If by fake you mean that it is not one of the earliest pieces that were produced specifically for war veterans to wear in lieu of the now forbidden NS versions then you are correct. However, many veterans did not chose to obtain such awards until decades after the introduction of the '57 awards when prevailing attitudes made such things a little more acceptable to the public at large in the World and by which time production methods and to a degree standards had changed greatly.

Close relatives of the fallen and subsequently their descendants have also been an interested group as well as collectors. Also consider that many veterans when they came to want such an item were pensioners and not that financially "well off" by any stretch so a "low end" option might have an outlet.

Today there are undoubtedly pieces specifically manufactured for collectors etc but no serious collector of orders and medals will be interested in these though this is a matter of subjection. Does that make these fakes? No I don't think so.
I would have no interest in such a late piece but the real issue is one of timeframe. On the one hand there is the desirable early piece of high quality which may have been owned by an entitled veteran but which without provenance probably was more likely sold to an allied serviceman in Germany. On the other hand, there is the much later and lower quality piece. like the one we see here.

It is still a '57 pattern RK even if not produced by an officially licensed maker if that is even relevant any longer, just not one I would want in my collection.

For me to call it "fake" rather than undesirable it would have to be a lot worse in terms of accuracy (dimensions, material etc) and be offered with intent to deceive.

I would simply call this a very late production '57 pattern RK of low quality and not worth the asking price.

That is just my opinion of course.

Regards

Mark

[Brett]

Looks fake to me

Would you care to enlighten us as to why? Answers like this are of no help whatsoever to anyone who wants to learn. It probably won't matter too much as far as the original poster is concerned. The question you answered was asked 3 years ago and the original poster hasn't been online for the last 2.

Regards
Brett

[Watchdog]

Would you care to enlighten us as to why? Answers like this are of no help whatsoever to anyone who wants to learn. It probably won't matter too much as far as the original poster is concerned. The question you answered was asked 3 years ago and the original poster hasn't been online for the last 2.

Regards
Brett

Good point Brett. I must admit I only noticed the date on the post I responded to. Still a point worthy of limited comment I feel though.

Regards

Mark

[HARRY THE MOLE]

Back to the cross. I cannot comment on the oakleaves, but the cross looks like it could be an early one. The later ST&L RK's had convex oakleaves on the core, whereas the earlier pieces had concave oakleaves - which this appears to have. The acorns were also lower on the early pieces, while the later ones had the acorns touching the oakleaves.

Cheers,
Steve