Saw this skull over the weekend and was wondering if anyone could verify if it is a good one or not. Sorry for the poor pics.
Doug
Doug
-
-
Backside... -
Hi Doug, you sure it's unmarked? compare it to the RZM 52 Deschler you posted recently. I have some doubts based on the front pic but maybe it's the just the angle of the camera...Comment
-
It's certainly a Deschler-style stamped piece ... whether marked so or not.
Ian.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by BenVK View Post
Indeed. It certainly seems that the jury's still out, even if Chris is inclined towards a 
Ian.Comment
-
I have no problem with these unmarked skulls. I have had one in my collection for may decades and have had a few others, over the years. I believe they are of early Deschler manufacture. There are several variations, within the Deschler family of skulls, and I think this is a very early variation, made of silver plated tombak.
Bob HritzIn the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.Comment
-
VersoIn the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.Comment
-
skull
Can anybody tell me anything about this skull, it is unmarked on the back, sorry I cannot get my scanner to show the back detail , prongs have the same finish as the skull
jimComment
-
Sorry Jim but that one definately looks cast ... look at the pits on the forehead.
Ian.Comment
-
The only skull in this thread which could be original IMO is the one Bob showed. It sure has a good look, but it is unlike any style of Deschler I recognize as a "known" original. I would sure like to see it firsthand to eliminate or confirm my natural doubts as a cautious skeptic.Comment
-
Some early Deschler skulls were marked only with a stamped RZM mark (obviously applied after completion). I think this would explain why there are some unmarked ones out there...Comment
Comment