EK2 with strange makers mark.

[Adrian]

I have been sent these pics of an EK2 which looks ok but the makers mark....?
Anybody got any opinions?

[Adrian]

and the reverse with makers mark...

[grueni1208]

It's a typical Deumer EK II.
I think the maker's mark is postwar.

Regards

Grueni

[Adrian]

I agree about it being a Deumer, it looks like an early example as I can't see any sign of the die flaw on the top edge. I just thought I would post to gather thoughts on the makers mark.
Thank you for the reply though.

[Adrian]

Here's another....

[Adrian]

and the reverse...

[grueni1208]

I think it should be a L/12 maker's mark.
All EK II with this distinctive maker's mark (ring!) I have been seen were definitive no Juncker construction.

Regards

Grueni

[Adrian]

I think it should be a L/12 maker's mark.
All EK II with this distinctive maker's mark (ring!) I have been seen were definitive no Juncker construction.

Regards

Grueni

Agreed!

[DavidM]

Hello

I like both EKs and think they are good originals.

Regards
David

[Adrian]

Thanks for the reply David.
I like them too, just put off by the dodgy makers marks.

[Peter Wiking]

Adrian
I do not like the last cross you posted. The outer corners are rough. The frame is cut uneven and soldering/fitting appears sloppy. At the best it has been tampered with.

Peter

[Adrian]

Thanks Peter,
I think the cross is good based upon the pictures I was sent but I can see what you mean, there is a place where the two halves of the frame don't line up correctly, coupled with the all round roughness and the suspension ring not attached on the front I believe the ring has been replaced at some point with the L/12 and, like you say, the cross has been mucked about with. Either way I won't be parting with money for either of them!