Unmarked EK2?

[kale010]

PS: I linked to your website. Very, very interesting. I hope it grows -- I love those then-and-now photo comparisons!

Thanks, I am still busy with some technical errors before expanding. I already have aserious amount of then and now pictures to put on there.

Do you think that it could be the solution to the S&l RK "A and B" controversy?

Now I am lost. I need to do some serious researching to be able to keep track on you guys

[Douglas 5]

Hi Bob : here is a match for you . A well worn S&L 1st frame die . .. next to a mint one I have .

Douglas

[kale010]

Hi Bob : here is a match for you . A well worn S&L 1st frame die . .. next to a mint one I have .

Douglas

I must say that I see a lot of similarities indeed. Although I think it is a different core (Am I right? the space between the swas and the inner corners) But still you're saying that the only thing that is known now is the frame. I read somewhere that S&L was the biggest provider of EK hardware.

So if we are saying here that this cross has a S&L first frame we cannot say that the whole cross is S&L made....??

Bob

[Robert T.]

Hi Bob : here is a match for you . A well worn S&L 1st frame die . .. next to a mint one I have .

Douglas

Douglas,

Can you please post a large picture of your "mint" early frame S&L cross?

Cheers,
__________
Robert

[Douglas 5]

It is a dead match for the frame . A very worn die on your frame where the bead tops had flatten out and get wider as the die wears . This is for the frame only .... the core yes is different . Have to see if I can match that or not .
At the start of the war quality standards were were high and I suspect the die was retired at a certain wear stage and a new working die put in its place . Once later on in the war the demand for crosses was so great some makers put old dies back into service - probably S&L as well - and quality sacrificed to keep up with demand . As Trevor had mentioned ... it may be an original die - to which the question is : cross made befor 45 or after 45 ??? either by S&L or some one who bought the die ??!!

Douglas

[kale010]

cross made befor 45 or after 45 ??? either by S&L or some one who bought the die ??!!

How on earth can it be figured out which period the cross is made???

Bob

[Douglas 5]

Welcome to the club --- that's the million Dollar question .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Robert :

[kale010]

Douglas, Is that the same cross as the close up? Because looking from here, the core looks the same?

[Robert T.]

Robert :

Douglas,

In your opinion, did they use the same dies for both the EK1 AND EK2?

The EK1 belongs to andrewb and was supposedly awarded in June 1940. It has an early frame like yours and it we know that the die later failed on all four arms (beading flaws) without showing too much wear.
How can the EK2 die beading be worn and flat without showing cracks?

Robert

[Douglas 5]

Robert T : Yes they used the same dies for at least some EK1s - maybe all - not sure yet .
The die cracking : very important feature .! Cannot work with just one working die ! S&L used more than one working die .... probably at least 5 - still work in progress . New working dies were made from their master hub and the corners finished off afterwards on the new unhardend working die as they were not part of the hub .
This is why the first working die never had the die cracking .... but one of the other working dies that did !!

Douglas

[Robert T.]

Cannot work with just one working die ! S&L used more than one working die .... probably at least 5 - still work in progress .
Douglas

Good luck....
______
Robert

[kale010]

Welcome to the club --- that's the million Dollar question .

Douglas

So, I guess it ends there? The frame is S&L. The core we don't know yet for sure? But in the end, because this cross is made out of parts which are used post war as well and this one is unmarked we cannot give it a definite "good one" or "bad one"

Bob

[streptile]

So, I guess it ends there? The frame is S&L. The core we don't know yet for sure? But in the end, because this cross is made out of parts which are used post war as well and this one is unmarked we cannot give it a definite "good one" or "bad one"

Bob

Hi Bob,

I think that, for now, Douglas has found a good match to this cross against a wartime original. It matches his S&L better (closer) than the fake. Because of that, I would be happy with the cross. Something further may come to light about these excellent fakes, who knows? But for now, I think you can be comfortable that you own a cross that conforms in all meaningful respects with a wartime original Standard Design EK2 .

[kale010]

Hi Bob,

I think that, for now, Douglas has found a good match to this cross against a wartime original. It matches his S&L better (closer) than the fake. Because of that, I would be happy with the cross. Something further may come to light about these excellent fakes, who knows? But for now, I think you can be comfortable that you own a cross that conforms in all meaningful respects with a wartime original Standard Design EK2 .

But: from an unknown maker, Am I right?

Bob