Greetings,I just received this case Rk today,but however,I think the oakleaves with swords seems to be very suspicious to me,so I wish to hear your opinions first,any commets will be appreciated.
-
-
Why do they look suspicious? While the pics are not that great, there are no red flags for me as far as '57 versions go. Could you post a pics straight on from reverse? Thanks. -
Well the case is a '57 or at worst fake.......we do have some guys with knolwedge on the '57 case's.
I can't help on '57 versions, I don't know enough about them.
But I'm sure the guys will be able to help.
Kr
MarcusComment
-
I think you should post this in the cross section. Try to take sharper photos.
Cheers.
PeterComment
-
Thank you for the commets,gentlemen.here are better quality pictures,hope this helps.
Cross front
Cross back
Oak front
Oak back1
Oak back2
Comment
-
Hi Tony,
To me, the case looks like a typical later 57er type from what I can see. The oaks+swords look like the 8 dot (on the hilt) S&L type (no detail to the reverse of the swords is correct for 57ers), and an earlier set as the reverse of the oaks does not have the sharp scoop - unlike the current matt silver finished and silver marked examples.
The RK actually raised my eyebrows in this instance though. There is a strange pitting effect at the top of the 12 o'clock arm and there appears to be a "rippling" on the 3 & 9 o'clock arms. So some questions; is the core magnetic? I know 57ers usually aren't really high quality, but is there any indication that the frames have been apart and put back together?
Regards
Mike KRegards
Mike
Evaluate the item, not the story and not the seller's reputation!
If you PM/contact me without the courtesy of using your first name, please don't be offended if I politely ignore you!Comment
-
The cross is fine , i,m still not sure on the oakleaves though i,m sure other members will help with this one .Comment
-
Hi,
I was typing my Post #6 while Tony was loading his Post#5. Based on those additional pictures, I have further "questions" over the cross. The core appears to be S&L but the frames definitely aren't imo - the ring does not dip into the frame for a start. I'm starting to wonder if someone has added a 57er S&L core (real or cast, I can't say) to a set of fake RK frames.
Regards
Mike KRegards
Mike
Evaluate the item, not the story and not the seller's reputation!
If you PM/contact me without the courtesy of using your first name, please don't be offended if I politely ignore you!Comment
-
Couldn't the frames be early which sit above as opposed to dipping into the frame , with a later core ?Comment
-
Hi Grant,
In this case I don't believe so. Give me 15 minutes or so to do up a side-by-side comparison or two.
Regards
Mike KRegards
Mike
Evaluate the item, not the story and not the seller's reputation!
If you PM/contact me without the courtesy of using your first name, please don't be offended if I politely ignore you!Comment
-
I do not like this set. It is not a true or genuine 1957 set in my opinion.
- The cross is of really low quality even for a late 1957.
- The oaks loks like a reproduction made on 1957 S&L oaks. Note the crude ribbon loop and blurred details at the obverse.
Sorry.
PeterComment
-
OK, back again.
If a set of S&L 57er early-type frames were combined with the later type core, I would expect the frames to be heavily flawed. I don't recall ever seeing such a combination and this example does not appear to be flawed either.
If you look at the attached image, you'll also see that there is a big difference in the width of the flange on the 12 o'clock arm (red arrows on the diagram) between Tony's example and both early/late S&L 57er frames. The top of the 12 o'clock arm on Tony's example also appears very uneven - which imo is very unsusal, even for 57ers!
Regards
Mike KRegards
Mike
Evaluate the item, not the story and not the seller's reputation!
If you PM/contact me without the courtesy of using your first name, please don't be offended if I politely ignore you!Comment
-
Peter,Originally posted by Peter Wiking
You may be right re the oaks, I couldn't make my mind up definitely either way after seeing the additional images. In some images the oaks+swords look OK, but in "Oaks back1" they look like a casting (may just be the image angle though).
Regards
Mike KRegards
Mike
Evaluate the item, not the story and not the seller's reputation!
If you PM/contact me without the courtesy of using your first name, please don't be offended if I politely ignore you!Comment
-
Hello Mike sir,the cross is 3 piece instruction,the core is non-magnetic,and no trace shows the frames have been put back together,ONLY there are 2 very tiny gaps on the suspansion loop show me the RK make of 3-piece,please view picture below,which are the gaps located(piont out by red circuit):
Comment
-
I think Mike is right,
There is something seriously wrong with this cross. The centre looks very odd and the date is VERY low, not to mention the centre looks like it is made of play-do and has a nice fingerprint in the centre of it......
The top of the frame looks as if it has been filed to remove the "dipping ring" effect, and based on the microscopic, 1 pixel pics, I would pass on this cross if it were offered to me....
BrettComment
Comment