This is a new one to me I've never seen a 16 marked KVK1 before opinions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jordan
Thanks,
Jordan
-
-
Interesting - Yes - the 16 mark/style is quit different .
The list only shows a 16 marked KvK2 w S 2nd class as the only one they made .
Can we get a side shot of it ?
Douglas -
The cross is a Deschler, the marking is bogus!Comment
-
No need for a side shot now Jordan .
The KvK itself I thought was looking good - Dietrich has ID the maker .
Makes one mad when bogus maker marks are added to good items .
DouglasComment
-
Hi!
I'm not so sure this is a Deschler cross, very inconsistent with a Deschler cross, this cross need to be search further on IMO.
/MartinComment
-
It is your opinion which I respect. However, it is easy to say something is not this or that or bad. It is far tougher to say with confidence that something is this or that and good.
I don't know how you determine the maker of a KVK, but I go for the scientific method of solid comparison with known and marked originals. The KVKs are a beauty for this methods due to the "fingerprints"!
Below is a comparison with the the data of our book. Once this is out (Spetember) the guessing will be greatly reduced!Comment
-
Has the pin been reworked do you think ?Comment
-
Hi Dietrich!Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz
Do you think I'm guessing? I do exactly the same as you, looking, looking, comparing, and I imagine that I have a good eye.
Best Regards
MartinComment
-
I did not say that you guess! But if you do the same as I do and you come to a different conclusion then it would be in the spirit of this discussion forum to say what is wrong with my comparison and what is right with your assertion which is: " very inconsistent with a Deschler cross ..."
I certainly see the same die and the same features on the obverse. Where am I wrong?
DietrichComment
-
I have not said that you are wrong, this may be an early Deschler cross, but the question mark I have are:
The pin and catch is differ.
The pebblings don't look exact the same (sparsity)
The cross looks like it is silverplated brass
Best Regards
MartinComment
-
I always have a problem with pin and catch in relation to a maker. As we said in the EK1 book and said again in the KVK book: one should not determine a maker by the pin system. To say that a pin system is not correct implies that one knows all (and I mean ALL) variations over the complete manufacturing cycle of one maker.
Also, as has been shown by some distinguished members of this forum, pins and catches are interchangeable and not always 100% related to one maker. Nobody does and it would only be an assumption based on a very, very limited sample of crosses!
That leaves us in the case of the EK1 with the frame and the core and with the KVK 1 (and obviously 2. Class) with the obverse. In my opinion it would be very, very risky to assume a different maker when the pebble pattern matches 100% but has not the same definition (sparsity). That can have several reasons - material, press pressure, and wear - to name only a few.
I am glad that the cross looks like "silver-plated brass" since that is exactly what it is: silvered Tombak (which is high-quality brass). What else should it be? Only late crosses are made of silvered zinc, this one is an early one.
This is a cross made on the Deschler die (which was - by the way - also used for the obverse of the KVK 2. Class) with a "non-orthodox" pin and catch and a funky post-war stamp.
DietrichComment
-
What I understand is that Deschlers Cross and many others makters cross is made of nickel silver, I have never seen a cross made by Deschler which has been made of silverplated brass.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
Best Regards
MartinComment
-
No, they are made of Tombak. None are made of Neusilber. Some (from C.F. Zimmermann) are made of silver. Later ones are zinc. That's it.Comment
-
In that case, I've learned more, thank you.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
Best Regards
MartinComment
Comment