Any Opinions or Thoughts on this KC?

[Tom B]

That is why I suggested you post the Oaks !! I think they are good also. Your welcome ! Tom

[ChrisS5917]

Any thoughts...

Well, in all honesty I have to say I am pleasantly surprised and much chagrined. I simply would not have guessed the Oakleaves attached to this cross were authentic. Thank you all for your interest and willingness to share your knowledge.

I was impressed with keen observations and the breadth of knowledge that was apparent in the replies I received. However, the topic caused to ponder the question of, for lack of a better title, "57er originality."

If we were talking about a TR piece, it would be simple. If it were produced after May of 1945 it would not be considered original. However, that seems less clear cut with 1957 items. What differentiation and delineations are involved in this collecting genre? What would separate a "real" item from a "fake"? Is it quality? Is it manufacturer? Intended use? Original owner?

I've had this cross a bit over 20 years now. I bought it during a particular collecting phase I went through, along with some other 1957 re-issue pieces. However, that phase was short lived. The cross has languished among my TR collection until now.

Now, as a result of this stimulating thread, I'm caused to ponder this point of originality. It's obvious to me now that there is a thriving and well informed interest group for "57er" pieces. I'd very much enjoy learning more about this field. Anybody care to share?

As always, thanks in advance for anyone who cares to respond.

[Tom B]

Hi Chris, A good place to start would be in the thread just above your post here: Comparison & reference info. As in TR items there a ton of fakes out there. Always some crook trying to take your money. However the guy's in the 57 group are super and ALWAYS ready to help & answer questions. My advise is check here before spending any $$$ & stay away from ebay until you get the info you need to purchase. Most of the stuff there is fake, but a good piece "May" show up from time to time. The guy's are your BEST source of the 57 field. Keep the questions coming ! Tom

[speedytop]

Hi Chris,

"Well, in all honesty I have to say I am pleasantly surprised and much chagrined. I simply would not have guessed the Oakleaves attached to this cross were authentic."

Please, what do you mean or think with the word "authentic"?

The oakleaves are not original (made latest in May 1945 by an authorized maker).
And the oakleaves are not a 57 version.

And by the way, "1957 re-issue pieces" do not exist.

Uwe

[Tom B]

Hi Chris,

"Well, in all honesty I have to say I am pleasantly surprised and much chagrined. I simply would not have guessed the Oakleaves attached to this cross were authentic."

Please, what do you mean or think with the word "authentic"?

The oakleaves are not original (made latest in May 1945 by an authorized maker).
And the oakleaves are not a 57 version.

And by the way, "1957 re-issue pieces" do not exist.

Uwe

Uwe, He is new to the 57 Terminology. Are you going to play your usual Nothing is original if it's post May 45 crap. And by the way we think the Oaks are ARE a 1957 set & not a fake of a 1957 set. Give us all a brake and go away ! Tom

[speedytop]

Tom,

my comment is addressed to Chris, because "He is new to the 57 Terminology".

My comments are based on knowledge, experience and - in particular - based on proofable facts.

If you detect something wrong in my comments, please document it on the basis of verifiable official sources.
If not, please stop your freakish comments.

It must be possible to have here factual discussions! Especially for inexperienced collectors.

Uwe

[Tom B]

Tom,

my comment is addressed to Chris, because "He is new to the 57 Terminology".

My comments are based on knowledge, experience and - in particular - based on proofable facts.

If you detect something wrong in my comments, please document it on the basis of verifiable official sources.
If not, please stop your freakish comments.

It must be possible to have here factual discussions! Especially for inexperienced collectors.

Uwe

Well the "OFFER" him the proof instead of your short No proof comments. All you do is confuse the issue. Your opinions are well know here, but not to new people. So Have your so called factual discussion. Quite frankly we'd be better off without your comments, but it's a free world (at least in some places)

[Nigel N]

Uwe, after all I have said, I cannot believe you are starting this again!
I come back from work, looking forward to spending some time on the forum, and what do I find? You have caused another argument by your insistence that we all have to agree with your thoughts on Oaks, or whatever the item may be, well this is the last time!, my patience is at an end!!
I can hardly be bothered to argue with you anymore but the Oaks shown here are authentic, made by an acknowledged maker, and for wear with a 57 RK!
A piece that isn't authentic is a fake, a piece made maybe in China or Latvia, and trying to fool collectors into thinking they are something they are not, wether wartime originals or postwar replacement pieces!! That is not what these Oaks are!!!!!!!!!
I will infract you again for this, and any repeat either in this thread or any other will result in further infractions and eventually a suspension!
The choice is yours either stop spoiling threads by forcing your opinion's on others, and thereby causing unnecessary arguments or be prepared for the consequences!!
-Nigel

[Leroy]

I will defend Uwe a little bit.

The Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords were never banned from production because they did not have a swastika. They are technically not "1957 re-issue" because were not "re-issued" (or even "re-authorized"- which is really the better term) because they were never forbidden in the first place. Uwe is absolutely correct about this. Pieces produced after May, 1945, by companies which produced during the war, are "copies" (I would not refer to them as "fakes") because they were not made during the period of the "issuing government".

All 1957 collectors, however, already know this. They also realize that the vast bulk of Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords from S&L (and others) which were produced postwar were produced in 1957 and later. No one, as far as I know, is trying to say that these later Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords (with discernible flaws or other characteristics which differentiate them from wartime pieces) are, in fact, "original" wartime pieces.

Uwe is upset by what he regards as "loose language". In reality, these discussions, and the use of that "loose" terminology, is taking place within the
"1957" forum, not within forums dedicated to wartime pieces, so I believe everyone already understands the parameters of the conversations.

[Skyhawk]

Hi All,

@Nigel and Tom: well stated, thank you!

@Uwe: The horse has died, please stop flogging......

@Chris: Nice '57 RK and OL

Back to the thread topic, all three flaws can be seen on the OL and the lower left flaw arrived last. The manufacture dating has been listed as the 70s so I want to be clear on the timeline. I realize this is not an exact science. If the OL have the first two flaws and not the third would this make it late 60s? Does the third flaw move the manufacturing period into the 70s?

Best,

Jeff

[Nigel N]

Hi Jeff!
I have seen some Oaks which have all three flaws but are of excellent quality and finishing, so I would think they were probably still 60's pieces? Later certainly, but not too late, though as you said, its not an exact science!!
-Nigel

[Skyhawk]

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for the fast reply!

So, all three flaws more than likely existed in the later 60s so it is the finish which move this OL set more than likely into the 70s? What is the best guess for the appearance of the third flaw? Middle 60s?

Best,

Jeff

[Nigel N]

Hi Jeff!
I would say, as well as the flaws, and quality of the finish, the area around the edges of the outside leaves is quite important too, with early pieces usually having all the area between the leaves filed away, whereas on later pieces more and more of the "excess" was left in!!
I don't have the knowledge to say exactly when the 3rd die flaw appeared, maybe someone else can tell you more, but from me, it would only be a guess!
-Nigel

[Tom B]

Uwe, after all I have said, I cannot believe you are starting this again!
I come back from work, looking forward to spending some time on the forum, and what do I find? You have caused another argument by your insistence that we all have to agree with your thoughts on Oaks, or whatever the item may be, well this is the last time!, my patience is at an end!!
I can hardly be bothered to argue with you anymore but the Oaks shown here are authentic, made by an acknowledged maker, and for wear with a 57 RK!
A piece that isn't authentic is a fake, a piece made maybe in China or Latvia, and trying to fool collectors into thinking they are something they are not, wether wartime originals or postwar replacement pieces!! That is not what these Oaks are!!!!!!!!!
I will infract you again for this, and any repeat either in this thread or any other will result in further infractions and eventually a suspension!
The choice is yours either stop spoiling threads by forcing your opinion's on others, and thereby causing unnecessary arguments or be prepared for the consequences!!
-Nigel

Thank you Nigel Tom