Hi All,
Here's another 1870 EK2 I've seen. Immediately the overall condition of it started ringing bells but I suppose it could have been "cleaned" recently (reminds of when I went to pick up a grouping only to find the family sitting there polishing the lot - EKs etc - with metal polish - in the hope I'd be more interested in "shiny ones") but also the small "0" and rather small oaks also makes me wonder.
There seems to be a "nub" where the ring attaches to.
To me this one seems to be very much like the 1914 EK2 shape.
I don't suppose anyone has ever looked into the differences in the arm width ratios on EKs? To me, each era of EK has a different ratio between the arm width (on the core) when measured at the arm's base, centre and end.
Does that make any sense?
Any opinions on this EK2?
Here's another 1870 EK2 I've seen. Immediately the overall condition of it started ringing bells but I suppose it could have been "cleaned" recently (reminds of when I went to pick up a grouping only to find the family sitting there polishing the lot - EKs etc - with metal polish - in the hope I'd be more interested in "shiny ones") but also the small "0" and rather small oaks also makes me wonder.
There seems to be a "nub" where the ring attaches to.
To me this one seems to be very much like the 1914 EK2 shape.
I don't suppose anyone has ever looked into the differences in the arm width ratios on EKs? To me, each era of EK has a different ratio between the arm width (on the core) when measured at the arm's base, centre and end.
Does that make any sense?
Any opinions on this EK2?
Comment