Strange EK2...

[mgidhagen]

I don't have any actual problem with this EK2, but it is rather odd as the obverse has a "standard" black painted surface to the iron core, but the reverse has a "rugged" surface (no, it is NOT rust bubbling). Is this common; a trait of a specific maker, or a mistake in the production run...?
The cross itself is nothing special; it's unmarked, and in a decent state, save that the ribbon rather has been used in the button hole than having been attached to the cross. (Which would seem logical to me...)
Thanks for your input!
KR
Mike G

[mgidhagen]

Reverse...

...

[Peter Wiking]

Is the core magnetic ? Zink maybee ? Never seen anything like it.

Cheers.
Peter

[mgidhagen]

Yes, the iron core is magnetic...
Weren't there some RK maker that used the same kind of "finishing technique", i.e., not just plain flat black paint...?
/M

[Hansi]

Why does the rim on this side of the cross looks also different or more worn?

Could this mean, that something happend to the hole side of the cross, not only to the core?

Hansi

[mgidhagen]

The upper part of the frame to the reverse originally had some green verdigris (still visible to the beading), but the iron core was not affected by this - at least not visibly affected...
Cheers,
Mike G

[stdub]

A possibility is, that the rear lain in vinegar. This is the result when you put painted items in an avid lotion.

Maybe somebody tried to take of the verdigris from the frame.

Joerg

[Darrell]

A possibility is, that the rear lain in vinegar. This is the result when you put painted items in an avid lotion.

Maybe somebody tried to take of the verdigris from the frame.

Joerg

Joerg makes an interesting theory. You would believe that both sides would exhibit this rough texture if it was manufactured this way. I tend to agree that something has reacted with the black paint on the reverse.

[Ralph A]

?

Are you sure the front just doesn't have a thicker coat of paint? It seems to me that if you look closely you can see the roughness through the paint job on the front.

[von ropen]

Are you sure the front just doesn't have a thicker coat of paint? It seems to me that if you look closely you can see the roughness through the paint job on the front.

Yes, expecially the front numbers 1 and 3...

[joe campbell]

i think jeorg and darrell are on the right track.

not only is there a world of difference in the paint,
but the difference in the patina on the frame
obverse/reverse is remarkable.

it looks like this thing sat in something for awhile.

still a nice cross.

joe

[mgidhagen]

Just to conclude this: With the help of a loupe I could ascertain that the surface finish is actually a result of some kind of chemical reaction (yes, you were right...), that affected the core metal(!) - but only to the reverse - and this in turn made the paint layer react in the way it did. But still, it's not like the paint will fall of in flakes (far from it), maybe because of the thick paint layer. Considering the circumstances, the cross seems to have been quality made, to live through whatever attacked it! I still kind of like its patina...
Any ideas regarding the maker...?
Cheers,
Mike