Deschler EKII for discussion...

[Robert P.]

I just recived this '1' marked EKII for review/inspection. I've passed on a similar piece in the past because it didn't have the all familiar 'hump' in the frame for the jump ring' to be soldered to, as Deschlers do. Unquestionably this piece has a '1' stamped in the ring. I'm open to comments on this piece. Were there other known 'types' or 'variations' to the Deschler EKII?

Robert

[Robert P.]

rev

[Robert P.]

ring stamp '1'....and as you can see, no hump.

[Robert P.]

What? No one?

Robert

[DavidM]

Hello

In my opinion this isn't a Deschler EK. The beading doesn't match up to the known original Deschlers that I have seen, and, although this may be the angle of the photo, the swastika doesn't look high enough for a Deschler. Obviously the 'hump' where the ring attaches to the frame is absent and the '1' numeral doesn't match up to the ones I have seen.

What it is, I don't know. But, and this is just my opinion, it isn't a Deschler.

Regards
David

[Thomas H]

Hi Robert,

I only have one EKII #1 and that one has a 'hump'. I do see some similarities, but more points that are different.

I don't have the best picture of my cross right now, but I have one of the makers mark. See the differences with the MM on your cross. I will place better pictures of the front and back this weekend.

Best regards, Thomas

[Robert P.]

Thank you, gentlemen, for your opinions and comments.

First off, I too have a Deschler. It has a different '1' than this cross has, and the beading and core are different also. To my knowledge, up to this point, Deschler made two differnet cores. Rick S has posted these two different cored examples in a thread that can be found with a search 'pics list'. One core had a very high swasi and dates, while the other a lower swasi and dates. I have, thanks to Rick, the latter. And the swasi is a lot lower than the beading of the cross. Yet both have the 'hump'. I'll post the photos of the '1' and the lower swasi Deschler on this page in a moment. But, can we say this is all Deschler made? I've seen two examples the last two months that have had this same '1'. And if you'll look closely, the '1' has the same patina as does the frame and the ring. Under a 10X loop it very obvious that these are very old pieces, and I believe the mark is an older stamp as well. I don't want to brush this example off just because it doesn't line up to our textbook examples. But I'm more inclined to stay with what we already know too. But I want to be open to this at the same time, leaving room to study it thoroughly.

David, you mentioned that this cross posted had too low of a swasi to be a Deschler. Well, my known textbook Deschler has a lower swasi. Remember, Deschler made two cores..to my knowledge. Both are posted in that thread Rick started. And there are many examples of other makers that have used different frames and cores in their production. I just don't want to dismiss this piece when IT MAY be a genuine Deschler, perhaps a very early or very late varient.?? I don't know. But I have seen two that have me scratching my head.

Here is a known Deschler with the 'typical' or 'textbook' '1' marking, but the much lower swasi.

Robert

[Robert P.]

,

[Robert P.]

,,

[DavidM]

Hello

Robert, I assume that the last photo posted of the front of an EK2 is the low swastika'd Deschler, whose maker mark you also show below ? If so, (and it may the different angles of the pictures), the swastika on the very first photo that started this thread still looks different, and lower. The beading of the first shown doesn't match with the last shown, and neither does the makers '1' numeral.

Like you, I don't like just dismissing items because they don't match to 'textbook' samples, or other known originals, but with the number of very, very good fakes that have appeared in recent years, (complete with 'matching' patina), I tend to be somewhat suspicous of anything that I can't match up - especially an item that is maker marked. I'm not saying that this EK is a fake by way, and it would indeed be nice for this to be an original Deschler variant. My personal opinion, at this juncture, is that it isn't a Deschler, but an EK that has been marked as a Deschler to 'enhance' it's attractiveness and value to a collector. I really hope I'm wrong on this, but....

Regards
David

[Robert P.]

David,

I honestly lean that way too. I just wanted to throw it out to see what others thought of it. It's interesting what some call original. I think, like you say, if there is gain to be made on reproducing something that will catch a collector's eye, then there will be attempts to do such. I honestly was hoping to hear something optimistic, but it's better hearing something truthful. The stamp is just not the same as what Deschler used. Until someone else brings something to the screen soon, I'm going to stay in the proverbial saddle.

Robert

[meriksson]

Got both the 1 and 2 and that is not a real one, sorry but some one have played whit a stamp tool and got a few extra usd.
Mikael

[Anthony N]

I definitely agree with the cosensus on this one, the 1st thing i noticed that put me off if being a Deschler was the beading on the top arm.
It does look like a nice cross though, so i have to agree that it's probably an unmarked cross that someone's marked 1 to get some more $ for.
Ant.

[George Stimson]

For a second I thought that it might be a badly marked "7", but it ain't.

[Robert P.]

I definitely agree with the cosensus on this one, the 1st thing i noticed that put me off if being a Deschler was the beading on the top arm.
It does look like a nice cross though, so i have to agree that it's probably an unmarked cross that someone's marked 1 to get some more $ for.
Ant.

I agree fully. The 'little buggers.'

Robert