schickle RK

[Jeff Nichols]

Tom, looking at the photo of the '57 cross that both Andy and Dietrich posted, Your Shickle, IMO, looks like it is a better quality made cross. Yours has more quality detail especialy in the cores. Looking at page 332 in Gordon's book yours seems identical to that one and the other one's he shows. Just mu observation .

Andy,in reference to what you are saying about provenance and the stories and such, I do not think Gordon would say the cross on page 332 had provenance belonging to Johannes Bolter if it were not true. But to be sure Gordon is on the forum and he can be asked what proof his provenance on this piece is. Tom I would want to know since yours is identical, as far as I can see, to this one. Cheers...Jeff

[tom hansen]

Does the fact that schickle was not an authorized manufacture of the RK, and the fact that this is "L" marked suggest that the presence of neusilber would not be precluded prior to the mandate of standard materials with a silver frame? If not, the neusilber (presuming that is what it is) would be very interesting and may be suggestive of funny buisness, not unlike the 800 marked silver plated piece that we saw a few weeks ago.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom, looking at the photo of the '57 cross that both Andy and Dietrich posted, Your Shickle, IMO, looks like it is a better quality made cross. Yours has more quality detail especialy in the cores.. ..Jeff

I would think that it is not very helpfull to compare the cores - they are different because of the design anyway.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Yes, the design is different, but so is (seemingly) the overall quality, FWIW (very possibly nothing).
Just an observation.

[tom hansen]

The quality of the beading is better with less flawing as well compared to the '57. The area around the ring on Andy's piece is poorly finished. It will be interesting to see detailed close ups. Higher quality and less flawing indicates earlier production, but of course does not confirm wartime or post war dates. Again, the mandate for standard materials in the production of the RK would not, by my understanding, preclude the possibility of a "L" marked neusilber cross. However, have we seen other "L" marked crosses made of neusilber? I do not recall any posts of such pieces from juncker. There are no "L" marked S&Ls, zimmermans, K&Qs, or 3/4 rings (why not?) to determine whether they are of neusilber or not.

I think the presence of Andy's cross at the least shows an indication that the schickle dies survived the war, if we presume them to be a wartime maker. Otherwise, use of post war parts to assemble '57 crosses is a possibility. The third possibility is that all schickle crosses are post war.

[Bob Hritz]

There is a 4th possibility: The frames were left over stock and used to assemble the 1957 re-authorized Knight's Crosses.

Having worked, as a young man, for companies that did both die striking and die forging, I was witness to many bins of pieces (not to mention complete articles) made in excess of ordered pieces.When a re-order is anticipated, it is better to have the order match the first order in fit, finish, and quality.

As for hallmark placement; with each die is an instruction set that specifies the press travel, PSI of the press setting, and instructions for any marking or labeling.

We must remember that 1957 was only 12 years after the war and I would think it is not reasonable for some of the skilled wartime workers to still have been employed at that time.

Of course, this is just the drivel and speculation of someone who still believes in Grand Crosses.

Bob Hritz

[tom hansen]

Yes, I agree that is possible Bob. I had mentioned that as well as a possibility. We have seen post war S&Ls which have been presumed to be constructed from wartime parts. A couple of issues which would be of interest is:


1. Are there any photos of a schickle RK in wear?

2. What level of flawing and construction does Andy's cross have?

3. Are there other schickle crosses available from forum members to evaluate these details in a greater number of crosses?

4. Are the materials used for the schickle pieces consistent with what other wartime RK manufacturers used?

[Dietrich Maerz]

.... We have seen post war S&Ls which have been presumed to be constructed from wartime parts. ....

How can you determine that a part or parts of an S&L was manufactured before the war but assembled after the war?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

I can't. Apparently Detlev can, as he has stated so on a few COAs. I would presume it would be quality of construction and finishing that leads him to these conclusions, but I do not know.

[Jeff Nichols]

Tom, being Schickle was not authorized to produce the RK, I would think there would not be much left over stock of parts to be assembled after the war. I could see this issue more with S&L, K&Q, etc. IMO there is a definite difference in quality between your cross and the 57 posted here and thats why I lean tward yours being pre 45....Cheers...Jeff

[tom hansen]

I agree completely Jeff. There were '57 versions of S&L, zimmerman, and one K&Q, as well as a few schickles posted on this site. The presence of a more poorly constructed cross with increased flawing would suggest a later manufacture, as would be expected with a '57 cross. There is not a suggestion that S&L, K&Q, or Zimmerman are not wartime manufacturers, despite the presence of '57 crosses, given that there is some photographic evidence of wartime wear (zimmerman loops are seen, but the cross has been debated). If one assumes that the'57 cross is genuine, then with poorer construction and more flawing, there is the suggestion that this is later. This does not confirm that the '39 piece is wartime, but suggests that it is earlier in production than the '57.


No comments on this thread from other owners of '57 or '39 schickle crosses or any of the noted experts in this area? Input would be helpful.

[Brian S]

I can't. Apparently Detlev can, as he has stated so on a few COAs. I would presume it would be quality of construction and finishing that leads him to these conclusions, but I do not know.

Until that's been conclusively shown, it's not Biblical for me.

[tom hansen]

I agree Brian. He says he can tell. I can't. He does this for a living; I don't. More importantly than the potential use of wartime parts for post war assembly is the issue of restrikes and the ability to tell the difference between a wartime struck piece and post war. Progression of die flaws? Poor finishing? Poor assembly? Or a combination of all of the above leads one to a diagnosis of post war production?

I guess I would ask anyone who has a '57 schickle or a '39 schickle to post some detailed images of the beading. I have gone over this cross dozens of times with a 30 X loop and the degree of flawing is at least on par with S&L, if not better, given the corner flawing on the S&L crosses. This is better than that seen on the 3/4 ring crosses. Additionally, I will get SEM evalation of the paint. However, there is a significant contention placed that schickle RKs are essentially post war and it is incumbent upon those making that claim to present some evidence to support that contention and others to either support or refure that claim with comparitive evidence. The simple presentation of a '57 cross with no evidence does not support or refute a contention, much as the presence of '57 K&Q or zimmerman crosses refutes the wartime production of those crosses. Let's get some detailed photos and some evidence, otherwise the contentions are merely baseless hunches.

[George Stimson]

Evidence that they are post war: the RK is not listed in Schickle's wartime catalog.
Evidence that they are wartime: two crosses with alleged wartime provenance.

Anyone else?

[tom hansen]

Con- No photographic evidence of wartime wear

Pro- Two crosses with wartime provenance

Con- Not more than two pieces with provenance

Pro- quality of beading on par with S&L and better than 3/4 ring


Inconclusive-

1. presence of '57 pieces. If this were true, then S&L, zimmermann K&Qwould be fake

2. lack of wartime catalog- the catalog was in 1940. A presumed wartime "L" maked piece would be between 1940 and 1942.


Let's tee this up and get some data. Please submit some detailed photos and contentions based on photos. Let;s try to pool some photos and information and find out one way or another. Hopefully Andy, who brought the whole point up, will be able to provide some detailed photos to get things going.