Will someone venture an educated guess at the maker or does someone know for sure!
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks,
Dave
-
Regards,
Dave -
1Regards,
Dave -
2Regards,
DaveComment
-
3Regards,
DaveComment
-
4Regards,
DaveComment
-
K&Q 65, pretty sure.
DietrichComment
-
65?
Yeah, that's a pretty good guess.GeorgeComment
-
Thanks guys! It's unmarked so what are the clues that led you to K&Q?
DaveRegards,
DaveComment
-
-
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?
DaveRegards,
DaveComment
-
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!
DietrichComment
-
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?
DaveRegards,
DaveComment
-
Here you go. See the different hinge?Comment
-
Here you might see it better, i.e. the missing cut out for the pin.Comment
-
Comment