schickle RK

[tom hansen]

Dietrich-


I was not suggesting that it is a fake, but am interested in the odd construction and the slightly lower quality appearance of the piece. That is part of the reason, beyond the rarity of a marked schickle RK, I bought the cross. Questions that come to mind after examination of this piece are-

1. Why the "low" swaz? Other makers of RKs, including 3/4 ring, had a swaz that is level, or higher, than the beading.

2. Why the low weight? It has an iron core, and despite a neusilber frame is lighter than juncker pieces made of neusilber with zinc cores. As pointed out earlier, it is not as light as the first piece that Detlev has listed in his catalog.

3. Could the lower level of quality of the beading, apparent only on 30X loop, be the factor, as with the 3/4 ring, for lack of approval as an official award piece? Or is it just the odd macro appearance of these pieces with the unusual shape of the ring?

4. Why the lack of finishing of the beading at the junction of the beading and the core? Has anyone else seen this on another maker?

5. Is the paint on this piece, which appears on a macro level to be "chalky" in appearance, another piece with bone black paint, or will this show a different type?

6. Do other members have schickle RKs that we could examine the flaws in the beading to characterize these and perhaps get information of a timeline with progression of flawing?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Those questions are already enough to make me think this is a fake!

- all other RK's have a high swastika
- low weight is a sign of a fake, refer to the post-war (Brit made?) S&L
- a cross has to show perfect beading, even under 30x or 90x (as I'm using)
- "chalky" paint is late, as has been said, L-numer is early, doesn't fit!

And, by the way, did you realize the round inner corners? As we know, Mr. Escher from S&L did all the dies for all the crosses. All other crosses have sharp corners (unless filed away). Why the round corners? It just doesn't fit what we would exspect from a genuine piece.

Must be a fake, sorry!

Dietrich

[Biro]

...I would presume that those marked "L/15", as this one, was made between late 1940 with the initiation of the use of "L" designation, and May 1941 with the banning of the private sale of RKs......

And yet Schneider-Kostalski wasn't made a Ritterkreuzträger until 9th July 1941....

Not to confuse possible manufacture dates (which were obviously early) with the ban of private sale date.....but he presumably wasn't to purchase his Schickel replacement until many months after the July award date (Russian front activities taking precedence...) so either he didn't purchase his Schickel 'over the counter' in late 41... or Bowen has it wrong somewhere....

Probably though, Biro has it wrong...

Marshall

[Jeff Nichols]

Tom, very nice rare cross. That unfinished beaded edges with so to say "teeth," I have never seen on known 100% fakes! Lets face it the fakers are not that stupid but are "stupid" at the same time. They would know not to screw up a beaded frame or a low swaz, thats to obvious to pick out,IMO. Therefore I think it is a very nice pre'45 RK..Congrats....Jeff

[Dietrich Maerz]

Jeff,

are you saying that signs of human nature, like unfinished beading or such, is NOT a sign of a fake? That a low swastika (or a pyramidial for instance) can be the real deal? That even a flat ring, when ALL other crosses have a round ring, can be real?

I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. This must be a fake!

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Those questions are already enough to make me think this is a fake!

- all other RK's have a high swastika
- low weight is a sign of a fake, refer to the post-war (Brit made?) S&L
- a cross has to show perfect beading, even under 30x or 90x (as I'm using)
- "chalky" paint is late, as has been said, L-numer is early, doesn't fit!

And, by the way, did you realize the round inner corners? As we know, Mr. Escher from S&L did all the dies for all the crosses. All other crosses have sharp corners (unless filed away). Why the round corners? It just doesn't fit what we would exspect from a genuine piece.

Must be a fake, sorry!

Dietrich
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->



Dietrich- It is unfortunate that you have chosen to change this thread into a rounder thread. I am sorry that this issue is so consuming to you that it prevents objective discussion of other issues. The tongue in cheek references to the rounder simply detract from the thread and post misinformation. Quite sad. This is a schickle discussion and not a rounder thread. Perhaps you could start yet another different thread on the rounder with regards to schickle crosses?

[Dietrich Maerz]

No Tom, not a Rounder thread!

Just a few examples of reasoning that has been brought forward to completely unfounded, unreasonable and with I don't know what intention to throw some mud on a perfectly honest and real piece!

But I finish this now and become serious again:

Congragulations, Tom, for a very nice and rare piece! No matter if one likes the style or not, it's a genuine piece of that area and needs to be preserved. Maybe there is even a way to come closer to any LDO dates with this one.

Again, good catch!!

Dietrich

[RoyA]

- all other RK's have a high swastika
Dietrich

I believe that Zimmermans have a low swastika.

[RoyA]

Here is an early Souval beside the Zimmerman that PK owned.

Yes, the Souval is very low, but the Zimmerman swas is below the beading.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Roy,

I was joking

Dietrich

[RoyA]

Yes I know, but I still wanted to make the point on swas height.

[Jeff Nichols]

Dietrich, what I am saying is I agree with Tom,this is a very early RK before regulations or probably does fall into the category of a RK presented for approval. IMO, if someone is going to fake this it would be near perfect, not with the obvious flaws that Tom pointed out, and you know as well as I do that there are a lot of peices out there that have yet to be discovered in which the collecting community is not use to seeing,therefore we deem it bad,right? If Tom's cross is bad how come that is the only one we have seen and such a rare "odd" (to some) maker? IMO there would be a lot more than one for sale out there in the market if it was bad. No one said anything about a flat ring, IMO I think this ring is quite interesting,its not totally flat, why deem it bad immediately, I have never seen one like that either which for some reason talks to me more, and yes there are low swaz's (below beaded edge) and there are low swaz's(fakes), on original period pieces, I know you know the difference! My Zimmermann has what I would call a low swaz. Cheers...Jeff

[Dietrich Maerz]

Jeff,

again, I was kidding and I 100% agree with what you are saying. This is a very nice example of a beautifull Schickle. I just wanted to make a point...

Dietrich

[Ludwig]

-

The L/15 comes from me.
Just out of curiousity:
How come you guys who say "oh, I have been looking for a cross like that for decades, but..."
Don´t you read the for sale posts?

When I had my 3/4 for sale it was the same reaction as Tom showed it here.

[Rich G]

The L/15 comes from me.
Just out of curiousity:
How come you guys who say "oh, I have been looking for a cross like that for decades, but..."
Don´t you read the for sale posts?

When I had my 3/4 for sale it was the same reaction as Tom showed it here.

Wanting one and being able to afford one are two completely different things.