when SCiG CEJ 900 meets red case

[Luko]

Hello all, just post some fine item and continue with this old thread SCiG red case

I just found after all those months initial production SCiG ''fat'' 900 CEJ, which is most proper for such fine case.


Regards, Lukas.

[Stan]

Looks great. We're the CEJ marked Gold crosses thicker and heavier than the unmarked pieces? I never knew that.

Stan

[Luko]

This i do not know too. I meant fat, that number 900 are fat in contrary with 900 marked cross only.

First picture - CEJ 900
Second picture - 900 marked only

Lukas.

[Pauli Baker]

Fantastic golden cased early CEJ 900. You have right ˝fat 900˝ early production cross.This SC have also nice visible markings under pin mechanism.
Both case and cross re in very good condition, amazing!
If you will ever want to sell it , let me know !

Best Regards
Pauli

[Luko]

Hello Pauli, thank you. It took me few years to find the case and another one year to find proper cross for it. Now it's not for sale, but never say never. It's not exactly what i am collecting, so maybe some day why not?

Case came to me from Walter Röll estate. Friend took all from family and in case was L/13 Cross (sold before i was able to take all). Here is Mr. Röll.


Lukas.

[Dansson]

Beautiful!

[Jelle M.]

Very nice... the case is just stunning

[Douglas 5]

That is quit a set !!

Douglas

[magnusmilitaria]

Congratulations, very rare SC set in superb condition , dreams of many collectors !

Cheers,
Marko

[Scott C.]

Wonderful cross & case Luko. Just trying to understand the logic here: CEJ crosses with "fat" 900 and the mark under the hinge block are earlier than CEJ crosses with smaller 900 and no mark under the hinge block?

[Brian S]

What evidence is there to support this theory? Sounds odd to me.

[Brian S]

i hear none. just another excuse to sell for higher price to collector? dealer stories?

[Luko]

No Sir, i have planty of more activities and just did not look here. If you can read attentively you'll find i did not write anything about CEJ 900 contra CEJ 900 with mark under the hinge regarding which one is earlier. Just wrote, that CEJ 900 is initial production, that is all.

You are creating your own conclusions. I am not selling anything, sorry. But yes, crosses with CEJ 900 are always a little bit higher, than 900 ''only'', i do not think, it's because of me.

[Brian S]

I just found after all those months initial production SCiG ''fat'' 900 CEJ, which is most proper for such fine case.

Regards, Lukas.

I am challenging this statement.

[Brian S]

Wonderful cross & case Luko. Just trying to understand the logic here: CEJ crosses with "fat" 900 and the mark under the hinge block are earlier than CEJ crosses with smaller 900 and no mark under the hinge block?

And as Scott asks, I do not agree that a mark under the hinge is of any meaning that could possibly be substantiated.

Fat 900's, skinny 900's, mark under hinge is meaningless unless PROVEN otherwise.

Of course, CEJ plus 900 regardless of fat/thin and mark under/not under hinge is the earliest as we know today.