New arrival, an EK2 marked 65 together with packet also marked Klein & Quenzer.
-
-
Ek2 65
Now the back -
Ek2 65
The packetComment
-
Ek2 65
A few moreComment
-
-
Ek2 65
Yes, I forgot to include it in the photo.....
Comment
-
Ek2 65
No other comments George??
Comment
-
It looks pretty good, but the "8" looks fat.GeorgeComment
-
Ek2 65
What does that mean then? Problem? Can you elaborate a little?Originally posted by George Stimson
Comment
-
I don't know if it's a problem. It could be the light. It's just that the "8" looks fatter than the one on mine. The other numbers look okay, the swaz looks okay, the beading looks okay, the maker mark looks okay....
Can you show us a good close-up of the "8"?
(Maybe my "8" is just skinny!)GeorgeComment
-
You have the EK in hand. How does your "1813" compare to this one? To me (and it could just be me) the "8" on yours looks fatter.GeorgeComment
-
Ek2 65
Yes, I think I see what you mean, bottom right especially and also top left....??? Can others check / post theirs also?Originally posted by George StimsonComment
-
That's right. The spaces formed by the loops of the "8" look smaller on yours than they do on mine -- especially the bottom one.GeorgeComment
-
Ek2 65
So, is there a right and a wrong? Could it be that a core from another manufacturer was used on one of them? Anymore EK2 65 out there?Comment
-
I'm not saying right or wrong, or good or bad. I'm just saying "different."
Any other opinions? Input? Anybody? All of you K&Q fans?
GeorgeComment
Comment