schickle RK

[tom hansen]

Thanks Henri-


That is interesting about the appearance of the eye of the cross, as it does not appear that flat in the photo you show. Perhaps you are right and the lack of wartime photographic evidence of the schickle cross in wear is more a function of the flat ring not being readily discernible on a two dimensional image.


Also, with your detailed images, it appears to me as though the dies are identical. However, there are a few more flaws on your piece, which bodes well for the '39 version actually predating the '57 !

[tom hansen]

Here are some detailed comparisons of the beading on Henri's cross to the L/15 '39

[tom hansen]

right lower corner

[tom hansen]

right upper corner

[tom hansen]

right upper lateral beading

[tom hansen]

right upper beading 12 oclock arm

[tom hansen]

left upper 12 oclock

[tom hansen]

left 9 oclock upper arm

[tom hansen]

right 3 oclock lower arm

[Dave Kane]

Tom Great comparrison photos.

Just a quick comment before we're off to dinner....


Look at the sharpness, depth and cut of the period Cross

This feature alone is ever overlooked in Crosses that carry 'baggage'!!!

[George Stimson]

Dave, unless the "Crosses that carry 'baggage'" are by Otto Schickle, don't bring them into this thread. They would be off topic.

[George Stimson]

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would agree that if these RKs were not struck from the same dies then they were struck from dies that were nearly identical. But if they were struck from the same dies, how do we account for the apparent "wear" on the presumed later example? Are we to believe that Schickle struck so many "period" crosses that the die got worn down? If we are, how many "period" crosses do you suppose would have to be struck in order to account for the wear? Dozens? Scores? Hundreds? Where are these crosses, then?

[Dave Kane]

Thanks George! Makes a guy want to participate....



How many have we lost? This PC crap is useless


I got an Email from the 'top shirt' of another Forum because I used the word 'gentleman' and was threatened with expulsion!


Where is this 'stuff' going????

[tom hansen]

Thanks Dave!

I think this comparison shows three things-

1. As Dave has pointed out, the appearance of the beading in the '39 is sharper than the '57

2. There are a few more flaws on the '57

3. The beading appears identical. Therefore one would presume that the dies survived the war.

These features would indicate later production for the '57. This is important, given there has been a contention that schickle crosses were exclusively post war. I think the detailed comparison here would suggest otherwise, although there was 12 years from 1945-1957. The comparison side by side is interesting.


George- It is an interesting thought. I guess no one knows how many strikes are required to produce wear on a die. However, that is not as important as the fact that relative wear can be seen that may allow a timeline for these pieces. If wera has been produces, where are these intermediate pieces? Who knows. Apparently the schickle dies did surivive the war and recieved quite a bit of use during thier time. Perhaps there were alot more strikes of these pieces than we have presumed and that many have been lost over the years. Perhaps there wear quite a a few strikes of other makers that seem to have '57 versions, such as S&L, K&Q, and Zimmerman.

[Biro]

Gentlemen.....

Two questions...

1 - Are we able to descern from Toms comparisons that this is definitely wear to the die and not just wear to the 57 cross?

if so...

2 - Does the (undeniably) sharper strike on Toms cross with a core marked '1939' necessarily proove that there were wartime dies that survived or simply that one was struck earlier than the other?

No dog in this fight, etc...

regards

Marshall