dante Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Recently did a trade for the attached so in real terms cost me ?200, the core moves and has no makers marks, have compared it to 1914 EKs in my collection and its the same size so I am pretty convinced its of that vintage, that said the details are much finer, as ever welcome your thoughts, Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Recently did a trade for the attached so in real terms cost me ?200, the core moves and has no makers marks, have compared it to 1914 EKs in my collection and its the same size so I am pretty convinced its of that vintage, that said the details are much finer, as ever welcome your thoughts, PaulThe ring fitting is odd though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 The ring fitting is odd though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Y Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Never seen an eye like that before. Does it go through the teat on the frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Never seen an eye like that before. Does it go through the teat on the frame?Yes Tom, and its well done, not field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Y Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe campbell Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 with the pronounced relief of the numerals/letters,my inclination is to think it is earlier than the 1914 period,and perhaps earlier than the 1895 glut of reissue pieces.that eye configuration is a new one for me, but iREALLY LIKE this cross!joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunyadi Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) At a militaria show in the NW region of the USA, I found in a pile of EK's one with this type of eyelet, but it was a 1914 version. Stupidity reigned and I had run out of money by that time, so I missed out on it... Edited June 4, 2007 by hunyadi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dond Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Can you give us a full front and back shot of the cross please. Some of us would like to drool over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 Can you give us a full front and back shot of the cross please. Some of us would like to drool over it.Dond, will do of to Hospital appointment then Bank so when I get back, Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 Dond, will do of to Hospital appointment then Bank so when I get back, PaulHere we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 Here we are22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dond Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregM Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Nice cross. From the very sharp,clean details I would guess that thisis probably a 1870 issue cross. As for the attachment. It looks likea repair job. The soldered on ring may have broke off and the easy fix wasto drill a hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 Nice cross. From the very sharp,clean details I would guess that thisis probably a 1870 issue cross. As for the attachment. It looks likea repair job. The soldered on ring may have broke off and the easy fix wasto drill a hole. Greg, thanks, Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 I've seen a few 1870s like this. In fact one of mine has a similar arrangement, only the small eye for the ribbon ring doesn't go right through the frame. Instead there is a small pin which passed through the eye and thr frame. You can just make out the "head" of the pin. With the number of these I've seen (mostly 1870s, but a couple of 1914s too, my guess is that it was deliberate and not a repair - perhaps to make a stronger joint because of reported incidences of the small eyelet coming adrift ?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted June 8, 2007 Author Share Posted June 8, 2007 I've seen a few 1870s like this. In fact one of mine has a similar arrangement, only the small eye for the ribbon ring doesn't go right through the frame. Instead there is a small pin which passed through the eye and thr frame. You can just make out the "head" of the pin. With the number of these I've seen (mostly 1870s, but a couple of 1914s too, my guess is that it was deliberate and not a repair - perhaps to make a stronger joint because of reported incidences of the small eyelet coming adrift ?)Thanks Gordon et al, appreciate all your comments, Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now