Yes, this ONE is different. I think one needs a bigger sample to say 'for sure' all have a different stamp.
Here is another one. The font is different to the 935-4.
Here is another one. The font is different to the 935-4.
-
Last edited by Dietrich Maerz; 10-01-2005, 04:58 PM. -
That's the one!Regards,
DaveComment
-
Sorry I have not been able to keep up with this thread as I am currently in Killarney Co. Kerry for the weekend. Dietrich, this is the same cross I had in hand for a few weeks, the font is different. The core is also different to wartime S&Ls. This font also, unfortunately, appears in Gordon Williamson's book, but D. Niemann pronounced it post-war.Comment
-
Dietrich, I reviewed this entire thread and found a great deal of 'editing'.....I'd rather that the pics remained as it now makes the thoughts and assertions a bit harder to follow
That said now, if you are trying to suggest that a Cross simply marked with a '935' COULD be period, I agree but only if the font would match that of the '935' used in conjunction with the (period) 4. Anything can happen during assembly we all know that....
However, I wouldn't accept a Cross as period if the font was that of the 2 examples shown....
To demonstrate anything can happen....Last edited by Dave Kane; 12-17-2006, 12:07 AM.Regards,
DaveComment
-
Dave,Originally posted by Dave KaneDietrich, I reviewed this entire thread and found a great deal of 'editing'.....I'd rather that the pics remained as it now makes the thoughts and assertions a bit harder to follow
That said now, if you are trying to suggest that a Cross simply marked with a '935' COULD be period, I agree but only if the font would match that of the '935' used in conjunction with the (period) 4. Anything can happen during assembly we all know that....
However, I wouldn't accept a Cross as period if the font was that of the 2 examples shown....
To demonstrate anything can happen....
I edited for the simple reason that the pictures and the comparison was flat out wrong and for the benefit of future readers I took the pictures off. One could draw the wrong conclusion, i.e. 935-4 and 935 have the same font. That's why I took the pictures away!
I'm not at all suggesting that a 935 COULD or IS period and as far as I remember I never said anything like that - quite the contrary. For me they are definetely post war. Same font or different font. The catch for me is the missing "4" and the sloppy craftmanship.
DietrichComment
-
Got it! I obviously mis-read where you were going.....I'm not acustomed to your writings when you include a bit of levity and sarcasm!! I understand now the reference to the 'deletion' of the '4' and the PK
Regards,
DaveComment
-
Oh so YOUR'S is not postwar?Originally posted by Dave KaneThomas, mine is 800 marked! And, with the typical conical tip.
Do you have a worn one to show us?
No?Comment
-
-
Brian,
what would you think why a 935-4 is not pre-45? Is there anything to suggest that. I mean, the only thing for the 935-4 being pre-45 is the Klessheim attachment - and I believe that!
DietrichComment
-
The Cross is worn, indeed well worn and I'm sure Dietrich will affirm that.....!
The difference is that it's not WORN DOWN and the strike is sharp...
A 'typical' mid to later war S&L loop WILL be conical and a bit unfinished at the tips....I thought that any collector even with a passing interest in Knight's Crosses would know that....
Regards,
DaveComment
-
\Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz
Is there no such thing as a worn one?
Therefore only sharp?
No wear?Comment
-
-
-
-
.Last edited by George Stimson; 10-02-2005, 10:02 AM. Reason: rendered largely irrelevant by previous editsComment
Comment