My Eisernes Kreuz & Camel prop pics

[Southside Bucky]

Testing, testing...

Hi guys. As a first attempt at posting photo's to the forum, I thought you may be interested in seeing these.










I bought the cross from a friend about 12 years ago and he bought it from a reputable dealer in Mayfair, London. It has no provenance though, and I've never taken it out of it's frame. S'pose I'm just happy to believe it's genuine.
The Cross arms measure 18"x18".

The Prop came into my possesion totally free of charge from a casual acquaintance who knew of my WW1 interest and wanted to see it go to a good home...An absolute diamond geezer!

I'd be interested in your comments or questions.

All the best.

Bucky.

[gipsymoth236k]

Bucky,

I hope you DO know what your 130 HP Clerget prop is worth today!

Regards, Gary Sewall

[Southside Bucky]

Hi Gary.

Yeah, I know it's worth a few shekels but I'd have to be totally destitute before I'd consider letting it go!

Actually, it's got to come down soon so I can repaint the hallway (notice the hideous turquoise?). I was thinking a nice PC10 shade...What do you think?

Regards.

Bucky.

[Southside Bucky]

Getting the hang of this image posting lark now, so here's a couple more at full size:





Forgot to mention...My personal thoughts about the cross are; that without a white border or background, and with that Autumnal looking camouflage behind it, it may be Austro Hungarian?

Key to the Camel propeller markings are:

AD 644 RH. (Drawing No.AD (Air Department, Admiralty) 644. Right hand.
130 HP Clerget. (Therefore, made for the Sopwith Camel)
D2590. (Diameter 2590mm)
P2650. (Pitch 2650mm)
G1155. (Production group number)
No.27. (Prop number of the above production group)


Regards.

Bucky.

[Jim]

That's a great looking propeller, but I would recommend that you have an expert in WW I German aircraft fabric take your cross out of its frame and give it a good examination. It just doesn't look right in the photo, but it is hard to tell much from an internet photo. Also, there are a great many forgeries of this sort of thing floating around, and many were made 50 or 60 years ago so they have some actual age to them by now.

Since you are in the UK, you might ask the people at the Imperial War Museum in London if they might have a WW I expert take a look at it. I would avoid ordinary militaria dealers since they would not likely have the expertise.

[Southside Bucky]

Hi Jim.

Thanks for your comments.

You may well be right about the cross, but could you tell me what it is about it that doesn't look right to you? I'd be interested in your views.

Thing is, the way I see it, if I got it checked and found out it was snide, it would niggle me every time I look at it as I walk downstairs, and seeing as I'm probably never going to sell it, all the while it's in my possession I'm content believing it's the real deal.

I did take it to a London Cross & Cockade meeting once. There were a few reknowned authors there, plus various other guys who knew their stuff. They asked me to take it out of the frame...I politely declined. Someone was willing to get Alex Imrie have a look at it...I politely declined. None of them pointed to any obvious signs of it being a fake though.

However, I don't mind at all if people cast doubt on it's provenance, and I'm very interested to hear why you (or anyone else) think it might not be genuine.

Thanks again.

Bucky.

[Jim]

It is so hard to be definitive from just an internet photo and contrary to my initial impression it may be as right as rain, but here are the things that make my antennae quiver to the point of saying that you really ought to take up one or more of those exceptionally generous offers by one or more of those very knowledgable folks you mentioned:

1. It seems to be in remarkably good condition overall and the paint seems to be quite dark, unfaded and without the usual chipping off of flakes of paint.
2. The cross would have been painted on a white square in most cases, yours is not. I am sure there are exceptions, but by not having the white square it makes me wonder.
3. It seems to be unusually well centered on the fabric, as if it were made to be displayed in that frame.
4. I don't see any lines of stitching holes or other indications that this section of fabric was attached to a wing or fuselage or rudder at some point in its past.
5. It has no provenance. That is was sold by a major dealer is not very comforting as most major dealers do not really have the kind of highly specialized expertise to avoid making mistakes.
6. There are many well made fakes out there to the point that statistically the chances of such a piece being authentic is notably less than it not being real.

[Southside Bucky]

Thanks for that Jim, you've obviously spent quite a while considering your views. I appreciate it.

I'm not going to argue with any of your observations, but I've taken it off the wall and I'm having a real close look at it as I type this, and there are a few points I'd like to make in reply:

1. True, it is in good nick, although there are a few paint chips here and there, most notably on the top and right arm.

2. Apart from the many exceptions to the rule which you state, and the possibility it could be Austro-Hungarian (whose use of white borders was much less frequent). To my mind, the lack of a white background or border could be seen to go in it's favour for being a genuine artifact, because if it was made by a counterfeiter, given that he'd made the effort to get the cross ratio's correct (which I think they are) then wouldn't it look better (and be more valuable probably) with the white edging?

3. The cross was originally purchased without the frame, I didn't even realise this until now...The back of the frame has a sticky label advertising the framing shop (which is quite near my home). There is the chance they may have trimmed the rough edges (sacrilege I know!) to make it look better in the frame.

4. No holes or signs of stitching, you're right, but there is an indentation, ridge or crease running across the lower middle. (see the lighter photo) which could be a fold crease I suppose, but equally it could be the mark left by a fuselage upright. In which case I'm hanging it the wrong way up!

5. No provenance! Buyer beware! Good advice that.

6. No argument there either, except to say that that friend of mine would have originally bought it in the mid eighties. I think maybe the proliferation of counterfeit merchandise (in this country anyway) coincided with the internet in general and Ebay in particular.

Whatever Jim, It's been a pleasure discussing it with you. Thanks again for your time and trouble.

All the best.

Bucky.