Carl Forster & Graf EK2 packet study

[MH184]

I recieved this packet today from a friend, so I thought we'd take a closer look at the packet with the Ldo warranty on the reverse.

While doubt and dubious reckoning surround this packet for founded reasons in fold, I'm of the opinion the packet is genuine. The paper and designation prescribe to what I'd purport as genuine of the period concerned. I have no contention with the actual maker mark as a printed facet of this anomalous packet.

Two versions are encountered as such, those with the Ldo warranty and of course those without, I'm of the knowledge both 'versions' emersed from the hoard. In regards to the Ldo warranty, I don't know and will be discussed later in this thread.

Hoard, this makes one sceptical from the onset, we've all heard and read similar stories. The condition, again this seems deter collectors......but I must have half a dozen or more mint packets, from small or large 'hoards','finds' how ever you wish to call it. It is however true, that these other packets came with awards !

The other contention, this maker Carl Forster & Graf cannot be attributed to an EK, nor is this maker as of yet known to have produced EK's.

I'm not going to waste my finger tips on the key board, discounting these to any extent, I can with all objective plauseable reason, not because I want the packet to be genuine I just don't think it's been researched properly yet, if at all possible.

This is a non definitive thread, just looking and questioning a few things concerning the the packet itself.

Lets take a look then:


The packet with Ldo warranty, exactly the same as the void warranty packets.

[MH184]

rev

[MH184]

The first thing to note, is the designation, this conforms to known and genuine examples. Not only does it conform, I can't distinguish between this desigantion and other genuine ones of this larger* (I'll explain that one later)type of designation. As much to stay, I really don't think this personaly is a fake effort or modern ink. Variations in the print will and do exist to proportions of the designation in the same scale.


Three large type desigantion's one of them being the packets in question.

[MH184]

There is out of interest a smaller designation along the very close lines of this 'larger' one I mentioned above. Observing many packets, I noted this designation which to the eye looks the same, but on closer inspection there exist examples of desigantion of this type that are smaller, and deviate slightly.


Recognition of the smaller v larger designation is as follows:

A dip in the stem of the larger desig. '1' of the date (Where the smaller desig. dosen't) and the last '9' is always less defined in a rounded sense (Where as in the smaller desig. it is defined)

There are others, should you really be that concerned I'll let you look for them, I ask myself half the time is this really bloody worth it ?


Larger design is on the bottom.

[MH184]

The Ldo warranty.


There's been some deliberation and idea's on this, it's been mentioned as an addition to the packet perhaps, the packet is fake as a whole, and that on the addition side of things, this is a modern computor printing process with the spacing of the letters within the Ldo warranty. True, it's not the same as on the Ldo paper small packets. But.......*

[MH184]

......it is the same as the Ldo warranty on genuine cellophane packets. I'm drawing no conclusions on this, but it is the same never the less.

[MH184]

An overlay, I think this dispells at least the notion it's a modern computor generated warranty, at this stage perhaps. This is a heavy inked cellophane packet and not the best example perhaps to use, the others were to feint really to see.

The packet isn't dead flat under the scanner and the packet kept moving, but aleast you can see the proportions of the letters and size. When held on the packet by hand, it's a perfect match.

[MH184]

A better image of another cellophane packet warranty.

[MH184]

Thats as far as I've got with this afternoon, some ideas and thoughts to ponder over though.

[Allan P.]

So if the LDO warranty is period, that is one rare EK11 packet!!!

Allan

[Matt Starr]

Glad to help Marcus
Matt

[kokstok]

Marcus as always very interesting, altough they are probably original (except for the ldo warrant) i still don't like them the fact that they have never had a medal inside makes them for me undesirable. Also the fact that they are pressent in such large numbers is a thing that i do not like.

I think they can be put in the same category as the poulath hausen/hansen packets, some will like them and others not.

[MH184]

God knows Allan, before we can count our chickens though, I would prefer to find out more info on the maker and to get the packet 'date' tested just to be safe and satisfy all concerns.

[MH184]

Well we proved the Hansen-Hausen debate here on the forum as indeed the long term deliberation over the unmarked left fold EK2 packet.......two significant factors in the collecting community and hobby.

We'll see what comes of this one.

As for the Ldo warranty, it would be conjecture to speculate either way at the moment.......but with the comparison made today it confounds some of the thought todate.

And thank you Matt

[MH184]

As pointed out by Matt on another thread, with this actual packet when angled towards the light a difference in 'ink' can be seen visualy, with the maker mark and designation.

You can see a sheen of the ink compared to the other dull black ink on the maker mark.

An application of the Ldo warranty post packet production ?