EK2 determination of the maker part 4

[dcollect]

can you help me with the determination of the maker ? there is no maker mark in the ring and i a no expert

[Hank C.]

Photos aren't great, but I'd venture S&L.

Best
H

[Douglas 5]

Rotated pictures :

Douglas

[sanya13]

the pictures not the best ,because very vague,but IMO this is a W&H with two flaws

[boch_62]

IMO it could be early Wiedmann.

Regards
Jarek

[dcollect]

as promised i have some extra pictures

[dcollect]

Any opinions with these extra pictures ? i have 3 differend comments with te bad pictures so hope we can find out the correct one ;-)

[dcollect]

hi there ,

can anyone tell me what the maker is
some people say s&l
some saye w&h
and some wiedmann

thanks , bjorn .

[stein odegard]

Walter and henlein

[Douglas 5]

Going by the flaw in this corner I would go with W&H .
I have not seen this on Wiedmann crosses .

Douglas

[boch_62]

Frames of Wiedmann's (= 19) crosses EK2-1939 and crosses W&H (= 109) are very similar and hence in my opinion many mistakes in recognizing unsigned Wiedmann's crosses EK2.
Attached is a comparison of Wiedmann's frames of crosses signed and non-signed.
The W&H frame also has similar flaws, but the Wiedmann's frame has no flaw at the top of the right frame arm.


Regards
Jarek

[sanya13]

IMO a w&h type yet always ,exist more different flaw types with 1 ,with 2 with 3 and without flaws ect...

[boch_62]

IMO a w&h type yet always ,exist more different flaw types with 1 ,with 2 with 3 and without flaws ect...

I am not going to convince anyone
I devoted a lot of time to this problem, with dozens of crosses marked "19" in my hands. I compared them with the W&H crosses and the conclusion was clear. But of course it's just IMO

Regards
Jarek