EK by 55

[TerryG]

Ek2 55

Any comments

[TerryG]

Ek2 55

What, no comments?

[George Stimson]

Your example is much more worn (deteriorated?) than mine, but based on the similarities I see between the dates, the beading, and the maker's mark (a dead-on match), I'd say yours was okay. (I certainly don't see any disqualifying dissimilarities.)

[TerryG]

Ek2 55

Thanks George. Although it is clear that there are a few chips in the back paint, the core does not seem to have been repainted. This would seem to indicate that the numbers had this poor level of detailing when the cross was made, no? I do not see that on the other 55-marked EK2 I have seen here. What do you think?

[George Stimson]

Well, your numbers are definitely poorly detailed. What the reason is for this, I can't say. The "1939" on mine is not the best detailed date I've ever seen on an EK, but it's not as far gone as yours. (The "1813" on mine is fairly clear.)

[George Stimson]

"1813"

[George Stimson]

Looking at yours again....

Here's a thought: Maybe yours has a deteriorating zinc core. Is the core magnetic? (Mine is.)

[Heer Flak]

Here's a picture of my 55 that is forsale on estand right now. Mine has a magnetic core by the way.

[JensF.]

I have a 1914 EKII made during WWII with the maker "55". The quality of this cross is also like sh*t so I think this was one of the makers but original.

[TerryG]

55 Ek2

Here's a thought: Maybe yours has a deteriorating zinc core. Is the core magnetic? (Mine is.)

Yes, magnetic also. Thanks for all the comments.