Kriztofer Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Hi gentsI have an EK2 which bears the mm5. I always believed that either post war or TR crosses were marked with a number as opposed the initials of the maker.This cross seems to share a lot of similarities to the Wilm family, frame and core. Your opinions on this one would be appreciated.Regards,Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriztofer Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 reverse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom63 Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Maker mark - FAKE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriztofer Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 I would be interested to know a little more information on why you think this particular mark is a fake. Are the marks you're showing from a TR period EK ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) That type of "5" appears on "Floch" manufactured reproductions, for example. . .Another hypothesis is the "5" stamp may have well been added some time after the cross was manufactured to artificially inflate its value. Edited April 20, 2009 by Bill Garvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriztofer Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 Hello Mr GarvyI have read many of your posts over on MCF, a pleasure to finally meet you, albeit online. The reason I'm surprised at this # 5 marking being a fake and it being of Floch origin is because I've seen this type of 5 used on crosses as inspection marks. One that I have being marked N had this mark somewhat hidden under the patina of the jump ring.It would be pointless to stamp the jump ring as this doesn't affect the price at all. Price wise I only paid 30 euros for this cross a few months ago which was advertised as an "S"The Flochs shown are TR EK's which is a possibility. The question might be asked, where did Herr Floch aquire the number punches for the TR models, left overs from an Imperial time maybe? These imperials always seem to leave us with more questions than answers.Here's a pic of the N cross. The first pic was before I cleaned the ring.Thanks for your comments gents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriztofer Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 Ze cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 The core on the first cross you posted appears to have been refinished. What do others think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriztofer Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 I'm afraid I'm guilty of the sin called.. cleaning the cross! I always use a Qtip with vinegar to clean the core, then I neutralize with a baking soda solution. Finally I apply a Vaseline metal protector which is silicone/acid free. This is the shine you see on the core which protects it from further deterioration. This is easily removed with alcohol if desired. I always leave the patina on the frame intact.This cross was sort of dried out, which you can see on the edge of the arms, my little process sort of rejuvenates it. Blond's or Brunettes lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Garvy Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Thank you for the clarification on your cleaning process. The vaseline would account for the shiny finish. The first cross you posted looks authentic. I think the concern is for the "5" stamp on the ring. I'd really like to solicit Micha's best thinking on this matter. 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