IC 1st. Maker?

[Dave Kane]

Will someone venture an educated guess at the maker or does someone know for sure!

Thanks,
Dave

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[Dave Kane]

4

[Dietrich Maerz]

K&Q 65, pretty sure.


Dietrich

[George Stimson]

65?

Yeah, that's a pretty good guess.

[Dave Kane]

Thanks guys! It's unmarked so what are the clues that led you to K&Q?

Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

The usual..

[Dave Kane]

Great! So because this isn't marked '65' and yet K&Q would it be safe to say it's an 'early' cross...sometime prior to '41?

Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

I don't know. Logic would dictate so, but there's one thing that makes it difficult. K&Q are normaly marked "65" on the outside of the pin. My pin is different to yours, i.e the hinge. So, the rim and the numerals are identical to my marked K&Q but not so the pin/hinge. And it surely doesn't look like the pin was replaced. Maybe an unknown maker buying from K&Q?


On a second thought, I think it's a fake Just kidding!

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

This is exciting actually! The manner in which I was given this and the fact that I've never had a clue to its maker...Heck I even suggested to George some weeks ago that he might want a look at this if he ever visited!

Will someone show the back to (their) K&Q marked or otherwise?

Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here you go. See the different hinge?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here you might see it better, i.e. the missing cut out for the pin.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here's the 3 o'clock arm. No flaws.