EK 1939 "123" Iron Cross, 2nd Class

[Bill Garvy]

A "123" in 2nd Class for my friend Paddy Keating who claims never to have seen one. . .

obverse:

[Bill Garvy]

reverse:

Edited December 16, 2006 by Bill Garvy

[Bill Garvy]

maker mark:

Edited December 16, 2006 by Bill Garvy

[Bill Garvy]

With envelope of issue, ribbon, period pin, and tissue:

Edited December 16, 2006 by Bill Garvy

[Bill Garvy]

maker stamp on reverse of envelope. . .

[DavidM]

Hello

A very nice, original set Bill.

[PKeating]

My dear Bill,

Thank you very much. I just remembered that I had seen these pictures, on a website whose bookmark I seem to have lost. Very kind of you to post them for me. I must add one of these to my modest collection.

P

[wig4]

I think that this one is EK-2"113" . EK-2"123" looks differently

Best regards!

Igor

[DavidM]

I think that this one is EK-2"113" . EK-2"123" looks differently

Best regards!

Igor

Hello

I disagree. This is a '123'. All other considerations aside, if you take the photo of the ring stamp and turn into a negative, (it helps make it easier to see the stamping), the mark is that of '123'.

[wig4]

Hi!

Here is mine MM 123

Sorry for quality. This is my first probe with photos

[wig4]

Obverse

[wig4]

Reverse

[wig4]

Hello!

I possibly in mistake, but look also : Gordon Williamson. The Iron Cross of 1939, Page 80

Regards!

Igor

[DavidM]

Hello

Nice EK. I still believe that Bill's is a '123'. The makers mark is an incuse stamp, as it is on yours and all the other '123's that I have seen, although they are on the '113's as well. From what I can make out in the photos the date numerals on Bill's and yours look the same. To properly compare closer in shots of yours would be needed to compare the beading etc.

For comparison, here is my EK2 marked '113'.

Edited January 12, 2007 by DavidM

[DavidM]

Rear

[DavidM]

Maker Mark

[DavidM]

Hello!

I possibly in mistake, but look also : Gordon Williamson. The Iron Cross of 1939, Page 80

Regards!

Igor

Hello

As I mentioned in my last post, the one in Gordons book also has the incuse marking and the slight narrowing of the stamp towards the '1'. this feature is exhibited on both yours and Bills.

By the way, I forgot to say, welcome to the forum.

Edited January 12, 2007 by DavidM

[wig4]

Grand merci !!!

Compare , please, the external corners of cross too. In EK -2 123 are always considerably more round.

And at last my "handiwork"

Regards!

Igor

[DavidM]

Hello

I did wonder about the roundness on the outer arms. Either I've been staring at the computer for to long or it's getting late, but my '113', your '123' and Bill's are all begining to look the same now.

I'll come back to these tomorrow and do a close compare. Then I'll either be eating humble pie as I'm wrong or patting myself on the back for being right. Either way I'm enjoying the discussion.

Speak to you later, it being Friday night I'm off to sample some refreshments.

[RICK SCHMID]

Hi All:

Here are some pics of my 123 Note the roundes flange corners. Hope this helps.

[RICK SCHMID]

rear

[RICK SCHMID]

ring mark 123

[Danny70]

Hi All...

Quite an interesting discussion going on here, so I have decided to throw in a 'cat among the pigeons'!...

As previously discussed with Bill elsewhere, I purchased a very salty EKII recently (advertised as a '123'). It has a

stamped maker mark as shown below, while it does look like 123, It is not incused relief, and does not match '125'

or '128' stamps either. Can anyone shed any light on this one... it has been annoying me since I received it!

Regards - Danny

[Danny70]

And a view of the cross itself, It has the rounded corners similar to Ricks example.

Regards - Danny