schickle RK

[George Stimson]

Well, I could be mistaken. What does everybody else think? Does this date look the same at those on Tom's and Kai's RKs? To me the "3" seems much more angular on theirs. (Photo courtesy of Detlev Niemann)

[tom hansen]

I personally believe they are the same dies, or leftover parts, as the beading characteristics seem to match pretty well. Here is something interesting, however, in that Ed's cross has many more flaws than the '39 cross I posted. The only possible match is near the corner at thesecond bead on the 12 oclock arm. This, on the '39, is a defect, or divot, in the beading and not a "blob" in between the beads. Perhaps it is the photo. However, there are clearly more flaws. This would fit if the '57 was accepted as later production- later piece with more strikes- more flaws. This has been shown to be the case on both juncker and S&L crosses. The '39 does have the flaws shown on this piece between the 5th, 6th, and 7th beads, as measured from left to right at the outer corner of the 9 oclock arm shown here, but not the other flaws.

[tom hansen]

Here is the date of the Detlev piece compared to the '39 that I have. Slightly different angle, but the "3"s do look different.

[tom hansen]

Here is the L/15 compared to Kai WInkler's cross

[Biro]

Good eye Mr Stimson..

I don't think there can be any doubt that Detlevs piece and the two owned by Tom & Kai do not have the same core detail.

Where does this send us?

Marshall

[tom hansen]

Note also the increased flawing on the '57 that Ed has posted. Same beading- more flaws.

[Dietrich Maerz]

They look all three different to me . But the one from Detlev is for sure very different. Maybe Toim's and Kai's are the same, but only maybe.

And the L/15 and the 57 are made with the same die, IMHO.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

The Winkler piece and the L/15 dates look the same to me. Same font. Different shading from the photos and perhaps different paint. The Detlev piece is clearly different.I agree that the beading is the same for the '39 and '57 pieces. I do think it is interesting that the flaws appear to increase in number on the '57.

[Biro]

Also of interest is that while Tom and Kai's at least share the same 'blunt' tip to the top corner of the three, the cross Detlev has for sale does not...

and neither does Andy Hopkins '57er ......

and yet the '9's in each example looks sufficiently different to avoid any 'misinterpretation' of this similarity.....

Answers on a postcard please...

Marshall

[tom hansen]

I guess one question for those contending that schickles are all post war. Why is there more flawing on the '57 pieces than the '39 pieces. Assuming the dies are the same, which they appear to be, would not the increased flawing suggest a later production? If they were all post war reproductions, would not the degree of flawing be random between the '57 and '39 pieces? What about the cores? Would not the font of the dates on the '57 and '39 pieces be the same if they were all post war? They are different from the '57 for the L/15 and Winkler's piece, but apparently not the Detlev piece. Any further thoughts? It looks like I might get some time on SEM this tuesday to do a little paint work. The results of the schickle will be quite interesting. Thanks Ed for the close-up pictures. The increased flawing on the '57 is a key issue!

Another issue that comes to mind is the presence of schickle '57 crosses in of itself. S&L, K&Q and zimmerman have examples of '57 crosses as well as schickle. Gordon mentions a juncker/godet collaboration with different dies. It seems as though the major RK makers all have examples of '57 crosses, which we would expect if their dies survived the war. If they are available, why not use them. I guess I would be suspicious if there was not a '57 version of a given maker around.

[tom hansen]

Further flaw differences- 6 oclock- Right side

[tom hansen]

Here are some shared flaws in red and different ones in black on the 3 and 6 oclock arm. The rest of the beading has too much flash/blur to be able to tell clearly. I cant tell on the vertical arm of 3 oclock whether the flaw extends all the way up or whether it is a flash from the camera.

[tom hansen]

red- same flaws
black- different
green- camera flash? can't see if this is a flaw. It is not on the '39

[Brian S]

I'm not seeing anything of clarity here in good distinct non-blurry side by sides to agree with any of these conclusions. Tom, come on, get some clear photos of the other crosses and another '39!

[tom hansen]

Brian- I do not have any other schickle crosses to post. The details that are required exceed that of photos posted from a macro view on the forum. The areas I circled are the only areas I could see from the resolution of the photos. Perhaps other members who have '57 or '39 RKs could post high resolution detailed photos of these areas for further comparison.