57 Oaks ?

[speedytop]

Hi Leroy,

Could they be from an unknown maker of early 1957 Oaks? Sure they could.

Sure they could not.

These could be early copies or fakes from an unknown maker.

But never 1957 Oaks.

Uwe

[Leroy]

Hi, Uwe,
I would agree that these do not match the "1957" (for want of a better term) Oaks we see from S&L. The problem, of course, is that we don't know who else was making these things, or when. A definitive statement that they "could not" be 1957 Oaks has no basis (and I am not suggesting that they are 57 Oaks, else I think we would have seen more).
I have also received a nice comment about the loop from a friend, suggesting that the style postdates 1957. Again, I agree that the loop here does not match the typical loop we see on "57" sets (nor does it match, in my view, wartime loops from Godet). However, I don't think we should be comparing "apples to oranges". This is just a set, from a maker which is currently unknown, which has a "different" loop system. If you look closely at the loop, you will see that it is, in fact, a pretty good and secure system (actually better than many others) and that a cross, once attached, would not run the risk of easily becoming detached.
Nothing to get upset about, I don't think.
Regards,
Leroy