MasterBo Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Certainly has the tell-tale signs you would expect on a Deschler piece. Early examples would only have the 900 silver mark, not the Deschler "1" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 Certainly has the tell-tale signs you would expect on a Deschler piece. Early examples would only have the 900 silver mark, not the Deschler "1"Thank you very much for your reply, but the thing is, this cross has no maker mark 1 and no silver grade mark 900, no marks at all.What would be the case?Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Have to say, I've never seen a totally unmarked one (except for these horrible silvered zinc specimens). The lack of markings is very unusual, but I wouldn't necessarily condemn it for that. I've never seen a fake that has picked up the tiny nicks on the swastika found on originals by Deschler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulsterman Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 whats' the weight? Dimensions? Are they in-line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 Hello every one. Would you, please express your opinion on this cross. The opinion of Gordon Williamson, would be greatly apreciated. Thanks to all in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) ... Edited January 28, 2010 by MasterBo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 The view of the lower ray of the cross, righte side, on the date side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterBo Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 I have never seen mark 1 located horizontally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Williamson Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I can't see any major issues with this one. Looks OK. The flaw on the number "3" extending so far is something I haven't seen before. Likewise the horizontal maker mark, but neither give me any great cause for concern. I haven't seen any copies that accurately pick up the flaw in the 6 o'clock arm, so my guess is that this is a good one. 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