EK1 Makers Mark 11

[Josko]

Nice cased EK1 I recently aquired. Interesting because it is marked 11 which makes it a Grossman & Co piece.

I know that Grossmann were manufacturering EK2's but not EK1's

Any thoughts guys....as always your views and comments much appreciated

Cheers

Joseph

[Josko]

Pic#2

[Josko]

Pic#3

[jt327gir]

Josko,

Welcome to the WAF!

Your cross looks like an early Deumer-made piece - early because of the shape of the pin.

I was sick in bed this weekend with a bad cold, so I had my laptop with me, and was looking at many, many old threads. I remember seeing a thread which discussed the "11" marked EK1s, and that the general agreement was that they are Deumers. I am unable to locate that thread now.

[PzBtl423]

Yes a deumer!

[streptile]

There is apparently an established relationship between Grossmann and Deumer that makes some experienced collectors believe that these '11' marked EK1s are actually Grossmann pieces.

The discussion I read was on the GCA forum and can be found here.

[fabri-online]

Hello,
Nice cross and hard to find 11 marked.
The one certainty at today is this cross was manufactured with Deumer parts and in my opinion were 11 marked not for a case..
I think Grossmann sold EKI just assemblied and marked but nothing let me surprised anymore.. in the end I think all is possible.

[streptile]

The one certainty at today is this cross was manufactured with Deumer parts.

Agreed

[schönbeck]

or late war error?

[fabri-online]

or late war error?

I think every cross manufactured by Deumer was checked at the end of the production process so in my opinion was not an error. Too many crosses marked 11 or with a post L/ so it 's hard for me to think was a repetitive error.
Crosses with the post L/ were produced for Grossmann IMO but in a second time remained in Deumer hands. Just my supposition.

[streptile]

I think every cross manufactured by Deumer was checked at the end of the production process so in my opinion was not an error. Too many crosses marked 11 or with a post L/ so it 's hard for me to think was a repetitive error.

I agree.

Crosses with the post L/ were produced for Grossmann IMO but in a second time remained in Deumer hands. Just my supposition.

I'm not sure I understand you, Fabri. What do you mean by "in a second time" and "post L/" ?

[fabri-online]

Hi Trevor,
we have seen EKIs marked 11 and others with the same charateristics marked L/11, why ? some of them have L/ stamp that seems applied in a second time, so if it's true what is the reason ? well I 've tryed to answer but are suppositions only.

[schönbeck]

you mean that the cross first was stamped 11 and then the L/ was added?

[Josko]

Thank you very much gentlemen for your interesting and inforamative views on this piece....most certainly an interesting debate has come about.

Best wishes to all

Joseph

[fabri-online]

you mean that the cross first was stamped 11 and then the L/ was added?

yes, some months ago Stefan showed one of them, seems that the L/ stamp was add after the 11 stamp, there were a different pressure of the stamp.