KVK packet

[Thomas H]

Hi all,

What are your thoughts when you look at the front of the left packet? The right packet is a standard packet, I put it there so you can see the differences between the two packets.

Greetings, Thomas

[Thomas H]

front

[kokstok]

Looks ok to me, can you please show us the mm, could be deumer or c. wild

[MH184]

It has the Carl Wild look as such, but not the size I'd expect for a packet from them for the most part, but you never know.

It could well be okay, it looks it to me, I've one similar.

Best to take a look at the back though out of interest.

[Thomas H]

Hi René and Marcus,

I found some time this morning to place a picture of the back. I hope you guys like it.

I didn't place a picture of the back earlier because I first wanted you thoughts of the front.

Greetings, Thomas

[MH184]

A 'nosey' packet and the third example I've seen now.

[Hank C.]

A 'nosey' packet and the third example I've seen now.

Hi Marcus!
Have you seen these all recently? Good sources, or do these fall in the questionable category? I don't have one, just curious.

thanks!
Hank

[MH184]

I own one Hank, or do I own both of them ? I think I've one, to many of the little buggers now, it came from a member so it's origins as to dealer etc I've no idea.

My paper is different to Thomas' as is the maker mark and mine is devoid of any designation. However this designation is found on other packets as Rene picked up on, Deumer I'm less inclinded to think of though.

I know the maker mark is in the middle on this one and incorrectly spelt, two broadly speaking aspects of a possible fake at the best of times, but I have a hunch these are okay, nothing in the bigger pricture rings alarm bells.

So questionable for safety and nothig as gospel, but in the balance of things in my opinion alone at this moment in time, I'd said 'good'......but I could be wrong of course.

[Thomas H]

I know the maker mark is in the middle on this one and incorrectly spelt, two broadly speaking aspects of a possible fake

Hi Marcus,

Thanks for your comment on the packet. I don't know what is wrong with the spelling of this maker. In the books that I have number 53 = 'Glaser & Sohn Dresden'. I don't know about the (-A. 1).

Greetings, Thomas

[Thomas H]

I found another one

You can see the differences between the Lettering

[Thomas H]

And the back, same maker but different maker marks.

Cheers, Thomas

[MH184]

Compared to mine the cuts are different in the flaps too.......just, mine at straight angular lines yours are rounded, not the 'bulb' looking part that would go into the slit, but either side of that.

I'm not sure yet but I think we have fakes of this type of packet perhaps.

Of yours it's hard to say, but I prefer your new one to the older one you have.

I've not researched into these yet properly so I can only say what I see and think at the moment.

[Thomas H]

Hi Marcus,

Thanks for your comment, that why I placed it on the forum. The first one I found November of last year, the second I found some weeks ago. I haven't seen more of them, if I had I would have bought them.

To me both packets look fine and feel fine. I will look if I can find packet with the same lettering.

The fact that both packet are marked Glaser & Sohn makes it also interesting. Is "this" bulb a typical Glaser & Sohn characteristic, because your bulb packet is different.

If this is a fake and the KVK packet of Ostfront (He hasn't replied to my email yet ) is a fake, then I get really scared

Cheers, Thomas

[MH184]

The Ost is fine and genuine no worries there at all for me, and you should be scared yes, next year I'll show you why at Stuttgart. We never went back down to look did we and I even mentioned to you or Giel about them


I need to look at the lettering more closely on your older one mate.

Is this a trait of the maker's packets........I don't know, I couldn't say at this moment in time really.