schickle RK

[George Stimson]

We are re-opening this thread. But before proceeding any further, all potential participants must read and understand the following:

Baseless accusations or inferences impugning the honesty of any Forum participant will not be tolerated. If such accusations or inferences occur they will be edited or deleted and we will ask the site Administrators to expel the offending party from the Association and from future Forum participation.

Stay on topic. There is a disturbing tendency of some Forum members to derail threads by inserting posts which have absolutely nothing to do with the originally intended subject of the thread. Thus, this thread -- which was supposed to be about Knights Crosses manufactured by Otto Schickle -- has degenerated into an irrelevant and confusing “discussion” about determining the silver content of Rounder RKs and the characteristics of certain fake EK 1s. It is a violation of Forum posting etiquette to make posts that are off topic. From now on there will be a zero-tolerance policy regarding this practice, and any posts deemed “off topic” will be summarily edited and/or deleted. If you want to talk about another subject outside the intended scope of a thread, START A NEW THREAD.

We prefer clarity over mystery. Most people here are trying to learn. Posts which include pictures with no explanations, or enigmatic captions (“What do you think this means?”), are pointless wastes of time. If you want to say something, just say it. If you want to play Hide and Seek or Peek-a-Boo or whatever, go somewhere else.

We are presently not going to edit this thread as it stands. But if any of the participants feel to go back, reread their contributions, and make any changes which would reflect a more moderate point of view or adhere better to the guidelines laid out above or to Forum guidelines in general, we encourage them to do so.

And now we would like to re-open this thread and resume the discussion, starting with my as yet unanswered questions about Otto Schickle RKs.

Thank you, gentlemen.

1. Why are there no discernable wartime pictures of this type of RK being worn?
2. Why is there no RK offering in the Otto Schickle catalog of June 1940 when that same catalog offers all of the other grades of the EK and EK Spangen (except the GK) which were instituted on 1 September 1939?
3. Why is an example (yours) which is silver plated stamped "L/15"? Doesn't the presence of an LdO stamp indicate that that cross was under some kind of auspice of the LdO, which was formed (in large part) to assure that awards such as the RK were made only from standardized material (i.e., iron and "real" silver)?
4. Why is the quality of the Schickle RK of a noticeably lower quality and aesthetic appeal (That flat ring!) than RKs by other manufacturers?
5. Why are there cores of these RKs with glaring differences, such as the differences in the obverse cores of your example and one that was recently offered by a major German dealer?
6. Why are there no Schickle RKs with any provenance (not counting the two examples claimed in -- gasp! -- books)?

[tom hansen]

1. Why are there no discernable wartime pictures of this type of RK being worn?---


That issue is disturbing. The possibilities are that it is not wartime. Two other possiblities are that the two dimensional nature of the flat ring is not readily discerbable on a two dimensional photograph or that the cross is uncommon enough not to be seen on available photos. I can buy the former, but not the latter. Yet the lack of photos should make us suspicious.


2. Why is there no RK offering in the Otto Schickle catalog of June 1940 when that same catalog offers all of the other grades of the EK and EK Spangen (except the GK) which were instituted on 1 September 1939?

The piece marked L/15 would be presumed to be Mar 1941 with initiation of regulations for private sales from the LDO. A 1940 catalog would predate this.


3. Why is an example (yours) which is silver plated stamped "L/15"? Doesn't the presence of an LdO stamp indicate that that cross was under some kind of auspice of the LdO, which was formed (in large part) to assure that awards such as the RK were made only from standardized material (i.e., iron and "real" silver)?

The possibilities are that it is post war, when the penalties of the LDO would be non-existant. Or, as Gordon has suggested, schickle was penalized by the LDO for deviations from guidelines they had established.


"Firms who failed to follow regulations could be and indeed on occasion did have their manufacturing licenses withdrawn (Petz and Lorenz and Otto Schickle of Pforzheim being two examples)." - Gordon Williamson

Is this an example of this? Gordon further points out, as I had noted earlier in the thread, that silver plated examples exist, with provenance, and should not necessarily be considered fake, but are commercial reatil pieces that have been seen wartime. The presence of paint on the piece that matches wartime EK2s is presumptive evidence of wartime production, but I am sure there were a few buckets lying around post war as well. Matching paint is a plus, as this is an indication of wartime materials. The absence of matching paint, relative to chemical compostion and appearance under SEM, would be disturbing. Notably, despite being plated, this is not marked with a silver content stamp.


4. Why is the quality of the Schickle RK of a noticeably lower quality and aesthetic appeal (That flat ring!) than RKs by other manufacturers?


Possibilites, again, is that it is post war, where no one cared about quality. The second possibility is that schickle, as 3/4 ring, was not awarded an official contract due to lower quality. The quality of the piece under 30X mag and SEM, beyond the ridges on the beading, which is presumably a reflection of plating, is about on par with S&L. While the flaws are not as dramatic as those seen on S&L, they are more numerous. The aesthetic appeal (3/4 ring) was apparently not an issue for production, but perhaps awarding of a contract. The presence of greater flawing on the '57 pieces (from the images available) would suggest that the '39 is earlier. Does this mean wartime? Not necessarily- there was 12 years between 1945 and 1957.


5. Why are there cores of these RKs with glaring differences, such as the differences in the obverse cores of your example and one that was recently offered by a major German dealer?


Again, the presence of '57 crosses with the same beading suggests that the dies survived the war. They probably did not sit idle for that 12 year time interval and there were probably retrikes made. The date on the L/15 appears to match those in Gordon's book as well as the one on Winkler's site. The one on Detlev's site is different. Detlev's I believe has a non-ferrous core, which in the S&L has cast suspicion on post war production. I think a detailed analysis of the beading between the two would be helpful to see which piece has more flawing. The lack of the date similarit of Detlev's piece compared to those in Gordon's book and the one on Winkler's site with an iron core is suspicious. Also, perhaps they are all post war and mixing and matching the cores was not a big deal then.


6. Why are there no Schickle RKs with any provenance (not counting the two examples claimed in -- gasp! -- books)?--

Provenance for any piece is a matter of faith. I tend to be skeptical of any provenance. All provenance is just a story, as none of us were there. There are two pieces that apparently have provenance, which is better than none, but not much.

[George Stimson]

Thank you, Tom. Those are very good answers.

[tom hansen]

Thanks George-


I re read Gordon's posts regarding the schickle as well. An odd note that he makes is that wartime schickles had a thicker suspension eye than the frame. This piece seems to conform with that, but he does not state where he got the information. Further he states the belief that the schickle dies survived the war, partly by the simple presence of the '57 schickle RKs. The odd placement of the "L" mark was suggested by the LDO to appear on the suspension loop/ring, as it appears with "L" marked zimmermans.

Further, Gordon points out that failure to comply with the regulations of the LDO resulted in penalties for some firms, and he names Schickle in particular. Although this does not directly apply, this was stated about unmarked pieces with regard to the LDO:

"All members of this organization were issued a number, an “LDO number” or Prasidialkanzlei (Arabic) number , which was supposed to be stamped on all awards produced by these firms. In reality this particular regulation was not tightly enforced, and a great number of awards were produced with no mark all."

Hopefully we can learn more about these as more pieces are posted in the future and we may gain additional information about what consitutes wartime vs post war production.

[Brian S]

2. Why is there no RK offering in the Otto Schickle catalog of June 1940 when that same catalog offers all of the other grades of the EK and EK Spangen (except the GK) which were instituted on 1 September 1939?

It predates the L/ not the lack of them offering any RK at all.

[Brian S]

6. Why are there no Schickle RKs with any provenance (not counting the two examples claimed in -- gasp! -- books)?--

Provenance for any piece is a matter of faith. I tend to be skeptical of any provenance. All provenance is just a story, as none of us were there. There are two pieces that apparently have provenance, which is better than none, but not much.

And this does NOT make you a better person, or a smarter collector. Provenance is NOT just a story. When and if you ever figure that one out, you might be one step closer to the ability to grasp the meaning the pleasures of this hobby beyond your silly 400x CONCLUSIONS.

[George Stimson]

There are varying degrees of provenance, from say-so to iron-clad.

[Brian S]

Precisely George.



Some crosses that changed hands in the fifties and forties have nothing more than a 'story' as provenance from a vet from a war 10 to 20 years new was hardly noteworthy for 99 out of 100 of these guys.

[bratwurstdimsum]

Tom, you can be such a pompous ass. You can buy all the RKs known to man and still know nothing.

Gunslingers,

Please don't mind me, I'm just trying to get out by crawling to the saloon door I was getting quite a lot out of this, but then I read about 3 pages of testosterone and I feel dirty... I'm glad we've restored sanity and civility now.

What I was interested in is the consensus on schickle crosses, the two put up so far (forget the rounder for a second please), but especially Ed's cross. Are we in a position to say whether these were wartime or not and are schickle a good place to start collecting 57's?

BDS

[Ed Tainton]

Schickle

Mr. Williamson has stated that the Schickle-dies have survived the war. He can't be sure of that. It is not because he saw one or two Schickles on Ebay that gives evidence that these dies survived. I am sure there are other 1957 Schickles out there, but have my doubts that the dies are still being used (or even still exist) for the manufacturing of 57 KC. I think we would see more of these Schickles around for sale if the dies are being used. The person I purchased my Schickle from stated that it was made with original WW2 frames from Schickle, which were "over-stocked" from wartime manufacturing and also stated that early 57 crosses were partially made with extra parts from WW2. This info apparently came from Mr. Williamson.

[tom hansen]

That is quite possible, Ed. There appears to be some difference in finishing among some of the '57 schickle RKs, but not others, compared to the '39 version. Like the S&L, there were probably left over frames which were used for '57 crosses. These pieces, beyond the cores and the finishing, should be nearly indistinguishable from the '39 pieces. There apears to be more flawing on some of the '57 pieces posted so far, compared to the '39 version. The further issue is whether schickle made any war time pieces and all are post war. Gordon Williamson, as well as Detlev, think that schickle is a wartime maker of RKs. Gordon further points out (he does not state his source) that schickle suffered penalties for deviation from guidelines established by the LDO for manufacturing of awards. The paint on the '39 that I have matches the paint to a couple of other period pieces. I think that schickle was a wartime maker.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I also think that Schickle was a wartime producer of the RK. For how long? Most likely not that long which makes them actually rare.
They don't have that visual appeal but in measures of rarity and history they should actually rate above the Juncker and S&L and close or par with the 3/4 ring or Zimmermann!
Especially nice are the 57 version which are for sure a very safe bet for a collector.

Dietrich

[Henri S]

I finally got my high resolution digital camera, so please feel free to ask me for any particular shots of my 1957 schickle. I can take very good close-up shots now.

I hope I can be of help on the subject.

[Henri S]

1. Why are there no discernable wartime pictures of this type of RK being worn?---


That issue is disturbing. The possibilities are that it is not wartime. Two other possiblities are that the two dimensional nature of the flat ring is not readily discerbable on a two dimensional photograph or that the cross is uncommon enough not to be seen on available photos. I can buy the former, but not the latter. Yet the lack of photos should make us suspicious.

To this I would like to show a photo I took with my other camera ( 3.2 megapixels) where the ring does not look flat. If I remember correctly about a year ago this also fooled Gordon Williamson ( I hope I am correct that it was him), who thought that the RK was an S&L ( I've been trying to find that thread, hopefully I'll manage to trace down soon!!). So there is the possibility that a schickle would not show as evident on old photos. Hope my little comment contributes .

[Henri S]

And here is the same Rk with the new camera