schickle RK

[George Stimson]

There are purported '57 Schickle RK owners in posts # 6 and # 8 of this thread: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=114306 Perhaps they could supply additional pics?

[George Stimson]

.

[Jeff Nichols]

Tom, IMO there are more flaws on the 57 than on yours which still leads me to believe:

A)Schickle started making RK's from 1940 on which means they survived the war which explains the major flaws on the 57, but that means we would see a hell of a lot more and we do not,which I think is a plus in your favor,or
B) they are two different dies,which IMO they arte

Remember also your cross is identical to what is in Gordon's and Detlev's books,which in of itself is a plus,IMO...Cheers...Jeff

[tom hansen]

Jeff-


Part of the problem is that the L/15 that I have IS the cross posted in Detlev's catalog as well as the piece on 334 in Gordon's book (just the maker mark there). So it would be nice to see some more detailed photos of the beading on the '57 and '39 pieces. I did what I could with Ed's photos, trying to blow them up and sharpen them and compare with a 30X loop to the piece I have in hand. Some areas, as those outlined in black, to me have clearly different flaws. Some, in red, are the same. Most of the other areas I could not see in sufficient detail.


Part of the problem also is that the flaws on the schickle are smaller and less pronounced than those seen on S&L. It takes very detailed close -ups. The flaws are there, but do not jump out on a macro image like those seen on the S&L.

[Brian S]

Always people believe because we don't see boatloads of postwar struck pieces, there are no postwar struck pieces. This is nonsense. As has been pointed out, look at the low volume of '57 crosses. So where are all of these? No boatloads, but struck postwar. You all assume because "everyone" wants an RK today that "everyone" wanted an RK in the 50's and 60's which couldn't be further from the truth. Also, you cannot rule out that someone somewhere simply got the die after the late 50's and put it aside in his home or passed it on to his son. So, best you prove your point with photos and not with idle conclusions.

[Henri S]

I have been tempted to post a few pictures of my Schickle, but the photos I have are not so clear and does not do justice to what the RK really looks like and more importantly show the flaws.

Still here it is, maybe someone has very sharp eyes

[Henri S]

Reverse

[Henri S]

The ribbon loop looks like it's circular in the photos, but it is a typical schickle flat loop.

[tom hansen]

That point would be impossible to prove, as one would have to find the absence of a die, which of course, is impossible. There can only be inferences based on the presence, or lack of, particular pieces and ask why or why not they are there. The presence of a piece would imply that there were in fact dies to create them. One can only guess at why there is lack of a particular piece.


I have asked a few owners of '57 schickle RKs to post the images of the beading on their crosses, so hopefully there will be more crisp comparisons. Again, the flaws on the schickle pieces are not nearly as large as those seen on the S&L, therefore the small flaws requires very detailed images. Hopefully we can get some that will allow a good comparison. On Ed's I can see some areas which have flaws to compare, but not on many other areas as the beading is too bright, which has reduced the detail.


Woops- Thanks Henri!! Let's see if we can blow those up for more details!

[Henri S]

If you need any other shots, let me know and I'll see if I can get them from my archive, as I sold my digital camera and am waiting for the new 7.1 MPixel camera to arrive . I can then take very good closeups, I hope .

[tom hansen]

I enlarged the images and there still needs to be a little better detail. Thank you, as I appreciate the effort. Some of the flaws can be seen, but the majority are too small.

[tom hansen]

Here is the best that I can do. This does show some difference in flawing of the '57 compared to the '39.

[tom hansen]

Here is another- this one is too blurry to tell any details for comparison. You can get an appreciation of the type of flaws I am talking about on the '39. The 3 oclock arm is the most flawed.

[Henri S]

Hopefully when the new camera arrives I can take clearer shots for you.

[tom hansen]

Thanks Henri-


I think on the 12 oclock arm, the difference in flaws can be seen with the images posted. However, the 3 oclock arm is a little blurry.

Differences seen, as numbering the first full bead from the bottom-

5-6 bead flaw on the '57
7-8 bead there is a flaw on the '39, but larger on the '57
8-9 bead flaw on the '57
10-11 bead flaw on the '57