Ek2 mm65 ?? Your Opinion Please..

[baldy1939]

Front . Sorry About Some Of The Photos , Has mm65 On The Ring But Just Wondered If The Cross Is Good Or.......

[baldy1939]

Back

[grueni1208]

It's definitely no Klein & Quenzer (65) EK II.
The complete number design is untypical.
Please make a picture from the maker's mark.

Regards

Grueni

[baldy1939]

Back

Closer Photo Of The 65mm , Can't Get It Any Better With My Camera !

[baldy1939]

If It's NOT a 65mm Is It A Fake ??

[grueni1208]

At the moment (with this pictures) I would say it's an original EK II, but no Klein & Quenzer. The maker's mark is postwar.

Regards

Grueni

[upbeek]

the stamp is not post war , it is a 85 marked cross and original
the ek2 is rare and in good condition for this maker
chay

[TerryG]

the stamp is not post war , it is a 85 marked cross and original
the ek2 is rare and in good condition for this maker
chay

85 is Julius Pietsch of Gablonz. Interesting!

[Anthony N]

The maker mark looks like 85 to me too.
Cross looks fine, would be nice to compare with another 85.
Ant.

[Robert P.]

Take your pick. Which do you consider original out of these (3)...?

Robert

[Robert P.]

,

[Robert P.]

,,

[grueni1208]

Hello Robert,

it's possible that your three EK II's by 85 are from Philipp Militaria?

Regards

Grueni

[Robert P.]

Hello Robert,

it's possible that your three EK II's by 85 are from Philipp Militaria?

Regards

Grueni

Not only possible, but exactly.

Robert

[grueni1208]

I believe that not all maker's mark from the EK II's in his updates are original.

Examples:
EK II with maker's mark 2 < a little bit suspect
EK II with maker's mark 5 < a little bit suspect
...


Regards

Grueni