EK2 with ' 835 ' and SILBER Marking

[5ribbonbar]

Hello,

Got this EK2 that has three stampings. One is a maker mark I have not figured out yet, but have not spent a whole lot of time on. Next is the 835 silver content mark, and lastly is the SILBER stamping.

After looking at the cross itself, I am confident the cross is original. However I have never had a SILBER marked cross so I am asking to those who know such things if this marking looks correct? In style and font size.

Many thanks in advance to those who leave a comment.

Cheers,

Glen

[Montgomery Burns]

serious doubts about the stamps on the ring

but everything else is OK


a nice ek2 and original









regards kay

[Mike Kenny]

I have no problems with the cross or the markings.

Imo the markings appear original to the cross - well patinaed and in keeping with the rest of the cross. I have maker marks which are impossible to decipher (they are not letters but characters/animals/etc) and the letters of SILBER appear to be perfectly aligned, suggesting that it is a one-piece, specifically made, curved stamping - very impressive!

There were probably hundreds of small retailers/jewellers selling Imperial EKs for decades. I am sure a few of them would have added their own markings and just because I have not seen a certain marking combination before does not mean it is not genuine!

Regards
Mike

[Don D.]

I agree.

[streptile]

I agree with Mike -- an EK2 I would love to own.

[Montgomery Burns]

I have no problems with the cross or the markings.

Imo the markings appear original to the cross - well patinaed and in keeping with the rest of the cross. I have maker marks which are impossible to decipher (they are not letters but characters/animals/etc) and the letters of SILBER appear to be perfectly aligned, suggesting that it is a one-piece, specifically made, curved stamping - very impressive!

There were probably hundreds of small retailers/jewellers selling Imperial EKs for decades. I am sure a few of them would have added their own markings and just because I have not seen a certain marking combination before does not mean it is not genuine!

Regards
Mike

its strange silver content marks (835) is on the ring .

and on top off that the jeweller put a silver mark ( silver ) on that as well ?.








no ,,, I don't like the markings...just an opinion





regards kay

[saschaw]

I like it, but it is obviously not in any way, neither the cross nor the mark, related to those that are frequently seen with a SILBER mark: those by C. F. Zimmermann from Pforzheim.

[Montgomery Burns]

I am worried and became careful ,and this is the reason .

don't know how good these are ,but they are out there .

http://shop.ebay.de/?_from=R40&_trks...All-Categories

,

[streptile]

Interesting. Saw this today.

Well, let's see if we begin to see more of these....

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Trevor,

Excellent find. I've played with the SILBER markings and they are imo a 100% match.

More pics of the 1st class would have been good however, at this stage I am guessing it may be another Frankenstein, which would make the SILBER marking a fake after all - unless the obverse of Glen's example showed the core was the same!

Regards
Mike

PS: a composite of the two markings resized, rotated and overlaid

[Don D.]

Or some ass is putting bogus marks on good crosses to increase thier value......

[streptile]

Here are a few more.

[morel5000]

Or some ass is putting bogus marks on good crosses to increase thier value......

I agree Don. I never in the last 3 years of collecting saw this SILBER mark. Only the the "blued core Zimmermans" are marked SILBER.

+

There is no sence in marking them 800 and SILBER as the 800 or whatever 8XX stamp qualifies them as silver as Kay already mentioned.

Maybe I didn't looked good, but personally I would leave these alone.

Best regards,
Michel

[Paratrooper]

Or some ass is putting bogus marks on good crosses to increase thier value......

IMO Don is right. I never saw such an marking since i collecting and study crosses. Also the "font" of the letters makes me not happy and IMO it looks aged artificially. I wouldn't have one of this pieces in my collection

Best Regards
Andreas

[gregM]

Anyone else notice that in the last picture, the hole in the screwplate
looks off center. Maybe just an illusion of the photograph but it looks
odd. PLUS--have any of you seen this style of backplate before? I
have not. Some look similar (the ones found on the Victoria crosses
for example) but are not the same.