EK 1939 Mint EK2 Klein und Quenzer

[DavidM]

Hello

I have just got this nice, and in my opinion, mint EK2 by, I believe, Klein und Quenzer, maker '65'. There is a little bit of tarnish showing in places on the rim, but all the paint and frosting is intact. The cross is three piece construction, magnetic core and measures 44.30mm x 44.56mm. The ring stamp is a bit hard to see and is different to those I have seen on K&Q EK2s previously, almost as it if hasn't been struck onto the ring properly.

As usual, any comments and observations welcomed.

Thanks.

[Dave B]

Ooo sexy piece

[DavidM]

Hello

Thanks for the comments. I've been advised this may be a very nice mint S&L rather than a K&Q. It's nice and original, (and frosty !!), which ever it is. I must admit, as I said before, the ring mark does look a mite strange for a K&Q. Then again it doesn't look like a '4' for S&L either. Maybe it's just some weird mark that isn't actually a makers stamp at all.

Any ideas or thoughts ?

Given Friday night is my night out, perhaps I'd be better off comparing and examining these on a Sunday rather than a Saturday

[Dave B]

Oops,I didn't even read your post..sorry David. I just saw a sweet frosty EKII and thought nice

Can't make out what the stamp is,the second character does look like a 5 but the cross isn't a K&Q.

Dave

[DavidM]

Hello Dave

I.ve just been comparing it to some S&L EK2s and I feel that the advice I've been given is correct, in that this is a nice S&L piece. Actually that's even better, because I have a K&Q already, so if this, as it now seems, and S&L it's another off my 'to get' list. I got simply because it is so frosty.

[Dave B]

Yep my first thought was that it's an S&L but I still can't make out the stamp.

You need one of these now to keep it company

[attachmentid=58652]

[DavidM]

Hello

Excellent One more off the list of makers EKs to get. Only another 100 and something to get

Oh, adding that is just cruel. I'd love one of those, but unfortunately an RK is way beyond my pocket at present - especially having just bought a new house. I'll have to make do with my early 57 RK for now. By the way, if that one is yours you are very lucky - and I'm insanely jealous !! Seriously, a nice RK.

Edited October 28, 2006 by DavidM

[stevo4361]

Hey David,

A bit late, but I think your right, its an S&L. Nice cross!

Kind Regards,

Steve

[attachmentid=58675]

[Bill Garvy]

Good eye, Steve, and I concur, a beautiful Steinhauer & L?ck. . .

[Dave B]

Hello

Excellent One more off the list of makers EKs to get. Only another 100 and something to get

Oh, adding that is just cruel. I'd love one of those, but unfortunately an RK is way beyond my pocket at present - especially having just bought a new house. I'll have to make do with my early 57 RK for now. By the way, if that one is yours you are very lucky - and I'm insanely jealous !! Seriously, a nice RK.

I used to own that RK David,I bought it two years ago and it cost me ?95 ...it is cased as well!

Nice 57er RK there mate

[attachmentid=58759]

[DavidM]

Hello

Thanks to all for their input. Now it's Sunday, and I'm seeing straight, it is quite clearly an S&L, and thanks to Steve for the overlay confirming it - look what you can see if you don't drink beer on a Friday night If I may say so, not a bad one either.

Dave, ?95 I haven't looked at it in any detail, so I take it at that price it was a reproduction ? If not, it must be the bargain of the century

[Dave B]

Hello

Thanks to all for their input. Now it's Sunday, and I'm seeing straight, it is quite clearly an S&L, and thanks to Steve for the overlay confirming it - look what you can see if you don't drink beer on a Friday night If I may say so, not a bad one either.

Dave, ?95 I haven't looked at it in any detail, so I take it at that price it was a reproduction ? If not, it must be the bargain of the century

Oh no David it most certainly is NOT a reproduction!! It is an original Type A NON flawed S&L RK,I bought 3 RK's,two with Oaks/Swords and one with Oaks for ?195! All were original ..you obviously haven't heard the story then? It was my 15mins of fame lol.

I sold them all,Gordon owned one and a couple of WAF moderators had the other two.At the moment I only know the exact whereabouts of one cross since they have been sold on a couple of times.

[attachmentid=58761]

[DavidM]

Oh no David it most certainly is NOT a reproduction!! It is an original Type A NON flawed S&L RK,I bought 3 RK's,two with Oaks/Swords and one with Oaks for ?195! All were original ..you obviously haven't heard the story then? It was my 15mins of fame lol.

I sold them all,Gordon owned one and a couple of WAF moderators had the other two.At the moment I only know the exact whereabouts of one cross since they have been sold on a couple of times.

[attachmentid=58761]

No, I don't know the story. Please tell, or point me to thread with it in.

[Dave B]

No, I don't know the story. Please tell, or point me to thread with it in.

The thread is two years old so I'll PM you the details.

Dave

[Mark Holmes ( Stomper )]

Hhehe , Dont you just love a minty cross.

[RICK SCHMID]

Hi Mark

In viewing yours I think Its a Steinhauer #4. Although the date and swaz's look close the marking method doesn't I've posted pics of my 3 # 65 marks for your view. Hope this helps.

[RICK SCHMID]

ring

[RICK SCHMID]

65 b

[RICK SCHMID]

ring 65 b

[RICK SCHMID]

65 c

[RICK SCHMID]

ring 65 c

[RICK SCHMID]

ring & mark c

[RICK SCHMID]

ring c

[DavidM]

Hello

Thanks to all for their comments.

Rick, despite the rather strange ring stamp - or what seems to be a ring stamp - I'm 100% now that this one is an S&L. Many thanks for the comparative pictures. Nice crossess you have there

[Douglas 5]

Hi David :

Did not catch this one sooner as it was labeled K&Q , ....

which in the mean time has been correctly identified as a S&L 4 .

Just adding this as an interesting ad-on .

Have been working on these recently just for my own EK2 and have run across a few manufacturing types or variations during the early production run of S&L EK2's . I am not that good with EK,s , lots to learn and interested mainly S&L 4 and L59 .

That peticular maker mark 4 of S&L on a ring is only the 1st true one I have been able to find , one other not confirmed , amongst all I have looked at so far .

Like probably with other companys , there were 'growing' pains in 1939 , to find out what works and what does not . That maker mark is a shallow flat base die with a large number and as it appears to me a very unsuitable design to use on a thin 'round' ring . Useable on a flat EK1 pin , have yet to find one . Find it personally 'ugly' and not flatering for S&L otherwise high and fine quality workmanship !

As my own expression , I refer to it as the early 'Fat Dimple 4' . Thick lines on the 4 and the line junction has a cone-shaped hole in it , that can be seen inspite of the heavy file marks .I guess it had a short lived use in the production ? Any one here with more info on this ??

Hard to see from the picture but looks like the ring on yours is the large one ?? Like a WW1 EK2 ring , what are the diameter measurments on yours ?

Now the majority of S&L 4's are the " thin 4's " with either a flat or concave background , for EK1 pin and EK2 ring !

Regards, Douglas

Have to resize pictures .