EK 1939 EK1 Opinions requested please

[Eric Gaumann]

Had this one for a short while and have always wondered.

Be patient as I have a good 6 or 7 images I'll upload one at a time.

Obverse

[Eric Gaumann]

Obverse detail1

[Eric Gaumann]

obverse detail2

[Eric Gaumann]

reverse

[Eric Gaumann]

reverse

[Eric Gaumann]

reverse

[Eric Gaumann]

Last one. Thanks in advance to all.

[hankmeister]

Looks like a 65 on the pin? The cross makes a pretty good impression, hard to duplicate that sort of paint on the core.

best

Hank

[Eric Gaumann]

Thanks Hank. My biggest concern is the "65" or whatever it was in the pin seems to have been scratched out somehow.

[naoki matsumoto]

reverse

Hi. Can't see "hallmarked 65".. look like Nice detail EK 65,I like it. MINT collections,Eric

[joe campbell]

i'm trying to understand the rationale behind someone

scratching out a maker marl, but it sure looks like

a "65" to me.

nice cross!

joe

[Eric Gaumann]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help muchly.

When I got it the fresh scratchings on the pin worried me a lot, as well as the lack of detail on the date (1939).

So 65 is from Klein & Quenzer correct? Nice well-known maker.

[hankmeister]

No problem. You ought to be able to find copious amounts of 65's out on the net, and do a comparison. K&Q used a couple of different cores, so make sure you check the right ones.

best

Hank

[Eric Gaumann]

Didn't find much on the 'net about K&Q but that's OK, I doubt I could tell one core from another.

But I *did* find another image of my EK1.

Just for the heck of it:

[Guest Darrell]

I don't have a problem with it myself. What's wierd is the paint. Almost appears that there was some sort of grundge or particles in the paint when applied (or maybe just excessive bubbling under the paint surface). That's whats taking away the "detail" if you ask me. If this was stripped away, I'm sure you'd find the crisp details of other "65s".

Maybe one that got through the QA process?

Edited July 23, 2007 by Darrell