Possible 109 - Marked Frame ?

[Douglas 5]

The packet only marked 109 Ek 2's have been showing up and discused a few times .
This one has , ... on the top front left frame side , well seams to be a letter , or a side ways stamped number on it ???? Frame does not look like a Junker , and so probably not issued in that envelope .
Most likely not a 109 , ... more interesting is the frame marking , as there is only one other that did that I know of , and it is on the bottom .

Douglas

[meriksson]

Show us the full ek and a close pic off that marking please.
Mikael

[Douglas 5]

I made the original already larger to get this far .
This picture is what I have . Thought first discoloration on the frame , maybe , ...
I would say something is there on this one ., what is the question .
Misplaced the picture, looking for it .
Douglas

[Douglas 5]

pic :

[Robert P.]

Douglas,

You may well buy this and join the crowd of proud owners of the '109' EKII club. There are dozens of '109' EKII owners with packets like yours that all have a different cross. I think, honestly, there have been many unmarked crosses sold with this packet in the past, making the mystery even more unsolveable. Without a doubt this is the true '109' EKII with packet... ...

Robert

[Robert P.]

,

[Douglas 5]

Mistery is correct ;
There is 2 slightly different packet 'printing' types too . ?????
Or is one post war ? The sudden amount of these envelopes containing unmarked crosses , makes me wonder .
Please look at the 'Archive' envelope here and this one , differences front and back . And yes , ... they could have had some one else print the envelopes for them and was not done in house .
'Proof is in the pudding , upps ...... we are out of pudding at the moment .'

Douglas

[Robert P.]

I've got two Paulman & Crone EKII's with original packets that came directly from the vets in Germany. The crosses and packets are exactly the same in every detail. They aren't marked crosses, none of P&C's were. So, that being said, does this make them valuable to anyone but me? No. Just because they are not marked, period. I keep them, and I know they are absolutely correct. And to me as a collector, that's enough.

BTW, P&C's are the ugliest crosses you ever saw, but they're still an original manufactured vintage antique in their own right, one of the many.

Robert

Here's the ugliest cross made...

[Robert P.]

and the second P&C..

[Robert P.]

their packet....

[Robert P.]

,

[Douglas 5]

Hi Robert :
I did see those as I was searching your old posts .
And yes they are average made crosses conforming to the rules and regulations of the time . And TIME is what has not been gentle on them , besides as a small company , their own quality standards were not the same as 4, 65 and others .
The original recipient did not see much value in the envelope , the only link these unmarked crosses had to the manufacturer is the envelope !
Stats prove it ; Only 20% of EK2's are maker marked !
This is what makes the difference . In the case of your P&C you did not collect them but rescued the History on them .

[Robert P.]

Thanks for that, Douglas.

I suppose the Walter & Hentein packets fall into the same category as the packets made by Forster & Graf, only the F&G's have been found in mass hordes. And F&G never made any EKII's, although their name was on the list (early quarter of 1940) of early EKII manufacturers. There's a lot to learn. Maybe W&H sold packets to others who were producing EKII's also.??

Robert

[Douglas 5]

Maker Mark stamp :
Thicker Stamp
Thin Stamp - dot after R not under 'i' !

[Robert P.]

Yes, and look at the borders around the makers name on both packets - very different.

Robert