schickle RK

[tom hansen]

The detailed pics will be interesting! I will be interested to see the degree of flawing on the '57 piece vs the L/15 piece.

Andy- Do you feel that all schickles are post war? If so, how do you reconcile the piece on p 332 which presumably has provenance? Any provnenance can, of course be just a story. Is there any photographic evidence of schickles in wear? This certainly brings up the whole issue, if we assume that schickle made wartime crosses, of restrikes and how one can tell a restrike from a post war piece, which, unless there is a progression of die flaws or poorer construction, would be difficult. Witness the recent grand cross thread as well as the issues of oaks and oaks with swords, as well as the S&L crosses.

[Luftm40]

Well, like I said I've got an open mind...but, there are just some odd things about the Schickle crosses. If the 57 dies match, at a minimum we have an SL scenario..ie, were restrikes w/ swastikas made, and if so how do you tell? The worst case I suppose is that NO Schickle RKs are wartime..that they never existed, and that all are postwar production. Bowen's book was a wonderful, goundbreaking piece in it's day. It was one of the first English language scholarly studies of the EK. When Bowen wrote that book, he was feeling his way thru uncharted waters in many cases. Discovery learning as they say, and he made many errors and drew some false conclusions about things. It seems that the Kostalski cross is the basis for Schickle RKs being considered original...but, as we know today, crosses w/ swastikas WERE certainly made in Germany after WWII. Is the Kostalski cross period, or something made postwar and acquired by his family? Many of the recipients and veterans that Bowen spoke w/ when writing his book would probably never want to admit that they had purchased an under the table award w/ swastika after the war as a replacement. Nor would the medal makers admit this. I don't know, but the proof will be in the pieces themselves, and as w/ the type B SLs...it would be nice to see other Schickle RKs w/ "provenance"

Andy

The detailed pics will be interesting! I will be interested to see the degree of flawing on the '57 piece vs the L/15 piece.

Andy- Do you feel that all schickles are post war? If so, how do you reconcile the piece on p 332 which presumably has provenance? Any provnenance can, of course be just a story. Is there any photographic evidence of schickles in wear? This certainly brings up the whole issue, if we assume that schickle made wartime crosses, of restrikes and how one can tell a restrike from a post war piece, which, unless there is a progression of die flaws or poorer construction, would be difficult. Witness the recent grand cross thread as well as the issues of oaks and oaks with swords, as well as the S&L crosses.

[Dave Kane]

Tom...Andy, thanks for a breath of fresh air! Writers, authors whom ever, over the last few decades have had an agenda....theirs


Your approach (clinical) good or bad is just great and what most collectors hope for...

Get rid of the grey...

[tom hansen]

Well, as noted before, on p 332 of Gordon's book, there is a piece that was awarded to Johannes Bolter, a Tiger tank ace.


The only maker where there is any suggestion that the dies were destroyed is juncker. Whether that is true or not, no one really knows, but apparently that is from Gordon's communication. That being said, one can assume that dies of other makers, maybe all of them, survived the war. That has been presumed of K&Q and there certainly appears to be some evidence of that for S&L. If the dies survived, it is likely that there were restrikes. With regard to the S&L, witness the debate over what constitutes wartime and post war pieces. Poor construction, different cores, non ferrous cores, with heavily flawed B type frames would probably be agreed upon as post war, but the rest is up in the air. What about K&Q? There was a long thread that showed pretty much all the K&Qs posted showed the same degree of flawing with no die flaw progression and the same font on the cores. What about zimmerman or 3/4 ring? One would assume that if schickle was a wartime maker of RKs, and it appears as though many collectors believe this to be true, that there would be restrikes of that maker as well.

I think that in order to make definitive statements, pieces need to be evaluated in detail and compared to the '57 pieces. I intend to do SEM on the paint of the shickle L/15 as well. Heavily flawed pieces and poor construction should be a sign of concern. It will be interesting how your hunch plays out!

With regard to the flawing, the schickle has die flaws within the beading, about on par with S&L under high magnification. The flaws are not as pronounced as those on the S&L, particluarly those in the corners, but are similiar to those seen on the lower 3 oclock arm. The lack of finishing of the inferior portion of the beading adjacent to the core is odd, however. I can see some of that on Andy's cross, but the area around the ring on Andy's is poorly finished.

[tom hansen]

Here is a couple of interesting photos that show Andy's cross next to the L/15. There is a marked degree of additional flawing on the piece Andy shows, which is interesting. They appear to be from the same dies, but Andy's pics are a little bright;mine are slightly blurry. Nonetheless, note the more marked flawingon the '57 than the L/15. Under 30x loop, I cannot see even the beginning of that degree of flawing. Interesting stuff! I will be interested to see higher detail photos as well.

[tom hansen]

Here is the ring. Note the difference is finishing. Is this the same type ring with the appearance of the '57 being different due to very agressive filing around the ring?

[George Stimson]

Tom, aren't the core details of your '39 much crisper than those of Andy's '57? (I don't know if that means anything; it's just an observation.)

[tom hansen]

Yes, George, it appears that way, but it may be the photos. Note the difference in appearance of the 1813 as well, which one would expect for a '57 core. It is interesting in that they appear to be the same dies, however, for the beading. Here is a better resolution photo of the core on the L/15 compared to the '57 that shows the details a little better.

[tom hansen]

1813 comparison- they look pretty much the same in style with the L/15 being a little more crisp. It could be the paint also.

[Luftm40]

Tom, I'm sorry...I thought you were referring to a page ref from Bowen's book vice Williamson's. Even w/ it's flaws I value the Bowen book for it's scholarly study of the subject. Bowen seems to have had less of an agenda than many modern author/dealer/collectors. Attributed to Bolter in what way?...typically, Mr. Williamson gives no references or explanation. What is the background of that "attributed piece"... a dealer COA?, the say so of a collecting crony? Did he sell it (or authenticate it for) the collector in the attribution?...what is the agenda? Isn't it odd that there seems to be no record of Schickle having been an authorized wartime manufacturer of the RK, yet we ASSUME that to be an oversight because the collectors who own one, the dealers that have sold them and the "experts" that have authenticated them over the years have a vested interest in them being real? I would also point out that there is another postwar maker of RKs who was never authorized to produce the award wartime, whose workmanship is a bit shoddy and who also marked much of their postwar production w/ their old LDO #...L58, Souval. I DO have an open mind about these, I really do...but I have always had some unresolved questions about them. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of it.

[tom hansen]

Andy-

Correct me if I am wrong, but was there not someone who said that schickle listed the RK on their product list, thus the presumption, coupled with the physical presence of schickle crosses, that they were a non-authorized RK maker? I agree that the "L" designation means little. There have been plenty of fakes with "L" numbers and various maker marks.

There is two other crosses with quite a bit of flawing and one with relatively poor workmanship. They are the S&L and the 3/4 ring. 3/4 ring and S&L have apparently wartime photos of their crosses in wear. Has anyone seen a schickle in a wartime photo? If the schickle is a post war cross, why is the quality better than those of the post war S&L crosses, and the degree of flawing relatively comparable to wartime pieces?

With regard to the flawing, more detailed pictures will be helpful. But assuming that your piece is a genuine '57 schickle cross, is it not interesting that it has more flawing than the piece presumed to be '39? Do not flaws increase in number and size over time, as noted with the S&L and juncker crosses? Therefore we would assume that a piece, within one maker that is more heavily flawed and is of poorer construction would be later. That does not guarantee that one piece is wartime and the other is not, yet the progression of die flaws has a clear time line with juncker crosses.

There is no wartime record of 3/4 ring crosses being a wartime piece, yet they are presumed to be wartime due to photographic evidence as well as provenenace. The quality of construction is not the best, but is still relatively high. Are these post war also?

Lastly, the provenance issue is interesting as well. What provenance DO we believe? Is it all bunk and we should only rely on forensic examination of pieces? If so, we are back to quality of construction, relative flawing as a time line, and materials used to make the piece. I am looking forward to the more detailed shots of that piece, as we may be able to make some inferences from the comparison.

[George Stimson]

The Schickle catalog I have dated June 1040 does not list the RK as one of their products. There is another sheet I have that I got with the catalog that has a picture of an RK, but there is no notation to indicate it's part of a catalog (it looks like just a display layout) and it's clearly not the type of RK being discussed here. (As an aside, there is also a picture of a Pour le Merite featured in this same "display" style. Did Schickle ever manufacture those?)

[tom hansen]

That is interesting, George. One would assume that if they were making an RK, it would be in the catalog. That leaves 1941 and half of 1942 for the manufacture of the cross if it is in fact wartime. A "L" marked piece would presumbaly be within these dates.

[George Stimson]

Here is that RK, just for everybody's information.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Another thing to consider is the (presumably) non-silver frame.

Surely Schickle as a licensed LDO-supplier was aware of the requirements of an RK having a silver frame. Unless, of course, it is silver and they forgot to mark it with "835' like the other two examples shown in this thread

Dietrich