Steve campbell

The next one is an unmarked example. I picked it up because it's on a single parade mount set up, which I love. It's a nice cross also.

The rear of the W&S.

The next one is marked W&S. I have a couple of examples by this maker, but they have used different cores and different maker marks on the ring. It may be crazy but I'm trying to collect all the various variations of thier maker mark.

The rear of the KM. Nice cross.

Another 3 have arrived today. The first is marked KM on the ring.

From what I understand there are not any EK1 or 2's stamped 800 in the 39 series other than Knight's crosses.

Here it is without the plate.

The rear. The mark is faint but there.

A pillowback screwback. Very nice. Here's my AWS screwback. It has the maker mark on the backplate and is also marked 925 on the cross.

I would remove them as they don't belong on the medal.

I did a double take when the picture came up. Sweet piece!

Yes, it was a pleasant surprise when it tumbled out of the package with two others. Here's the link to the other ones I recieved with it. http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1387...80&start=80

Here it is next to the 1939 EK2 marked 65. The 39 is still a little bigger and shaped differently. Thought people might be interested.

Here it is on the right next to the KO. You can see the difference in size.

Here it is next to a KO Imperial on the left and a 39 EK marked 65.

Here's the rear. The shape is almost like a Knight's cross or a Schinkelform B.

Thought I would show this new EK2 I picked up marked M. It has a different look in that the arms don't curve in as much in the center making it seem a bit bigger than normal, which it is. It has a different look than most EK2's.

Here's the rear of the H. It looks a little dusty or dirty in the photos but it's not so bad in person.

The final one is marker H on the ring. Appears to have a small solder repair done to the ring but it's pretty clean so who cares? Not a bad looking cross. How often is this m,aker seen I wonder?

Here's the rear of the M. A little rust but no big deal. The pictures don't really show the unique look of this one.

The next one is interesting. It is marked M on the ring. The arms on this one do not have as much of a narrow flair as most, giving it a larger look. It really does look different.

Here's the rear of the N or Z. The mark is weakly struck and faint also. It came with a ribbon that has a different type of fabric than most also.

Well 3 more have arrived, all obtained right here on this forum. The first one is one of those hard to determine maker marks. It is a small N or Z, but how do you know? The Z marks I've seen have been fairly large, so maybe this is an N. Does anyone have any idea? The core detail on this one is one of the weakest I have seen. The crown has very little detail and the striking does not seem sharp at all. It is in nice shape all the same. What does everyone think?

I've seen a couple of these MG08's in person and they strike me as just brutal killing machines. When you think of the damage they probably wrought it leaves you in awe. When you think of the nature of alot of the warfare and tactics used in WW1, it's these weapons that stand out like no other.

Thanks. I couldn't believe how nice it was when I got it. In hand it's even better, because these new digital cameras can really make a cross look worse than it is. It even looks clean in the photos. Not that I go for all mint pieces, I don't. I just added about 5 new crosses to my collection thread and some of them are far from mint.