S&L 935/4

[Brian S]

Then, we might move on to the #'s and font associated with them..

OK. Let's do that.

[Dave Kane]

It stands by itself Brian! Come on and help out...post some pics of your Cross for comparrison and help narrow this 'post war' S&L question down even more!

[Brian S]

You want me to put myself into trouble again by showing a picture that's of a double stamp open to interpretation? Ha... I love this place, spank my butt and call me Judy.

If you're looking for abuse and too shy for self-abuse, come on board.

[Brian S]

Nothing nice to say about a beautiful loop and finely worn eyelet...my surprise.

Compare to this nasty example of a loop and eyelet.

[Brian S]

Here's a nice one, barf, but you go ahead and dump on the good stuff.

[Brian S]

Nice 'mint' eyelet for you...you do see the ridges, complete lack of wear... Was a file taken to that eyelet/frame joint?

[Dave Kane]

You must have misunderstood Brian! I suggested that we compare the '800' fonts....

[Brian S]

Don't be shy, look at the 935's too.

[Dave Kane]

Ever the 'smoke screen'! I asked for an 800 comparison and you bring is all sort of diversion

Here is a nice very early 800 mark...super sharp frame with high ridges and low valley areas. Chemical frosting....

[Dave Kane]

Another 'early' Cross w/ chemical frosting however with a bit of wear...

[Dave Kane]

This one is later...with the 'painted' frosting BUT before the dent row and with a pristine frame but for a 'pimple' on the 3oc arm...

[Dave Kane]

A couple of mid war loops...slightly rougher and conical tips but (still) utilizing the smaller (micro) 800!

[Dave Kane]

Last one

[Dave Kane]

So, for discussion sake.....did the LARGE 800 predate the micro 800 and the 935/4?

[Brian S]

Here are all three. The first two look exactly the same the third more of rounder zero to me.