Unmarked EK2 opinions please?

[Lynton Battrick]

Hi,
Could I have any opinions on this EK2 please?It's 3 piece construction, with a Magnetic core and avery Slivered frame.
many thanks,Lynton.

[Lynton Battrick]

Next..

[Lynton Battrick]

Reverse.

[Peter Wiking]

Lynton
Photograph it straight on and not from angles.

All the best.
Peter

[Lynton Battrick]

Cheers Peter, here you go...

Lynton.

[Lynton Battrick]

Reverse.

[kray]

hi there
there are some things I dont like about this ek2
first: the rimbeading is not straight, at some place the rim is thicker and some places smaller
second: the date is very "high" (distance from the bottom beading) comparing it to other ek2's
thats just my opinion, maybe someone else have his opinon about this one?
KR

[Lynton Battrick]

Hi,
I have noticed the rim beading-It actually looks like it has been damaged in places-slightly squashed-which makes it looks like it's thicker in some places...not saying that it's original or not-just how it looks?
Any one else please?
Regards.Lynton.

[Peter Wiking]

Lynton
It looks like it could be the "333" fake. What do the rest of you think?

Peter

[Robert P.]

The bottom row of beading on the reverse is terrible, also the '1939' on the obverse is not near level. To me there are just too many issues with this cross. I wouldn't want it with so many good examples to choose from today. May I ask what it is selling for ($$'s)?

Robert

[Adrian]

Hello Lynton,
I also don't like the cross for the reasons stated. The rounded inner corners would suggest its trying to be a Souval but it definately is not. I really don't like the damaged beading on the bottom arm, if the beading is damaged to that extent I think there would be some visible damage to the outer frame but it is flawless. I would go along with Peter's suggestion that it may be a '333' copy, especially due to the stainless steel appearance of the frame.
The core also doesn't look good, not very good details and poor positioning within the frame. I would pass on this one.

[Okrach]

Well, even if it can not be certainly said it is a fake I would say only this - I would not accept it in my collection. I don't like it. The inner frame corners are too round for me and the general appearance, it does not look for a 60 years old piece

[DavidM]

Hello

Sorry, but I agree with the comments already posted, in that I don't like this one either. I wouldn't like to say it's a '333' fake, as they tend to be pretty decent looking items, (for fakes that is), whereas this looks like a rather poor attempt. Either way, sorry, but it doesn't look right.

Regards
David

[Lynton Battrick]

Hi,
Thanks everyone for all your help!
No problems it being a fake, I was being offered it with a lot of other stuff and had it for an inspection period, so i will give it back..no money has changed hands.
I must admit, when I first saw it a while ago, I wasn't too keen, it's always helpfull to get more opinions.
Many thanks,Lynton.

[Stephen Stout]

Fake!