Kevin's new baby.....a KC of course!!!

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I would consider an unmarked (= Neusilber) Schickle also as safe. However, the L/15 marked ones are for sure the rarest ones.

Dietrich, what is your opinion on the unmarked crosses with a L15 marked loop?
Pieter.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich, what is your opinion on the unmarked crosses with a L15 marked loop?
Pieter.

It just makes no sense, especially when the marking is L15.

[Brian S]

L/15, L15. 835. 800.

Why?

Maybe, just because they did it that way. Unless you see die flaw progression I just don't get these witch hunts.

Don't own one of these, don't want one, but I truly don't get this. To ask WHY a company stamped what they stamped, why they used one silver here and another there is NO reason to cry wolf.

I've seen some pretty nasty looking Otto's that just plain looked rough. Those I wouldn't touch. But one mark versus another...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Why?
Maybe, just because they did it that way. Unless you see die flaw progression I just don't get these witch hunts.

It is always the same thing that causes one to ask 'why': when the the discussed occurance does not fit the overall pattern. Which is cleraly the case here.

Is it wrong or is it a witch hunt? Certainly not.

Don't own one of these, don't want one, but I truly don't get this. To ask WHY a company stamped what they stamped, why they used one silver here and another there is NO reason to cry wolf.

I humbly disagree. I think that even Kevin would rise an eyebrow if somebody would post a loop that is marked L12 (instead of L/12). Remember the outcry the L/13 marked Juncker created?
The use of different silver content was and still is a good point for debate and IMHO a legitimate question - especially when discussing Schickle!

Just to make one point perfectly clear: I'm not crying wolf, all I'm saying is that I personally would not buy a Schickle which is marked 800 or 835 and that I would have and have legitimate questions regarding an L15 935 (!!!) marked loop.

Nobody needs to share my view and nobody needs to think about it in depth.

[Brian S]

Are there any awards legitimate marked L15? Does the stamp exist wartime? Was it just handy or is it a postwar mistake?

Is the KVK marked L15 now for sale? http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=l15

Floch isn't making this easy to call the mark legitimate...

[Kevin V.]

I humbly disagree. I think that even Kevin would rise an eyebrow if somebody would post a loop that is marked L12 (instead of L/12). Remember the outcry the L/13 marked Juncker created?
The use of different silver content was and still is a good point for debate and IMHO a legitimate question - especially when discussing Schickle!

Just to make one point perfectly clear: I'm not crying wolf, all I'm saying is that I personally would not buy a Schickle which is marked 800 or 835 and that I would have and have legitimate questions regarding an L15 935 (!!!) marked loop.

Nobody needs to share my view and nobody needs to think about it in depth.

Dietrich, I absolutely agree that I would rise an eyebrow if somebody would post a loop that is marked L12 instead of L/12. No doubt about that. Why? Because all the original known examples are marked that way.
As for my Schickle, Yes is marked L15 on the loop and not L/15. Why I don't know!
But do you know any other Otto Schickle KC marked that way? Probably not. Does it have a completely unmarked frame? Yes. Any other examples known? Yes. Any provenance with the unmarked one? Yes, the one awarded to Johannes Bolter from the former Bo Bremer collection (Ludwig).

As I have told you before I have compaired three crosses:
Mine with loop L15
Unmarked with unmarked loop
Unmarked frame with L/15 eyelet

Difference: none exept the markings of course.

When I was at the last Max show with Pieter we saw a 835 marked on the lower arm. We compaired it and Pieter didn't like it. Why he saw a difference in quality as I recall.

As you know I don't have anything to loose or to win here at all. I participate in these threads to learn and share.

Lets presume I take the loop of and put an unmarked loop on the cross. What would be the difference then.

Why did they have so many different variants in marking? I don't know and I believe others don't know either.

Why did Juncker produced so many variants?

Did the dies survive? I don't know.

What was the quality of the '57 Schickle version? Scandally.

What about all other medals and badges? Did their dies survive?
I believe we can almost question every piece.

Why do we not question the Juncker KC's? Because the fabric was bombed and the dies were lost!! I believe a couple years ago collectors presumed there was only one die and now there are at least two. Did they survive? I don't know.

As for the S&L crosses, the same. I will not call any names but I know of at least one person who has seen the S&L crosses made in England on the original die. They looked terrible he said. Believe it or not.

Same story with the Godet oaks marked "21" etc.

A couple of years ago I believe there was a letter published in a magazine that Juncker crosses marked 2 were never produced. Who wrote the letter, as I recall correctly someone of the board of the former Juncker company! Pieter has the magazine if you haven't read it yet.
M thougths on this? Bull...!

The 3/4 ******246;se! From what I have heard and read, it was considered a long time as a fake untill period pics and the wonderfull grouping from a member here turned up that was bought from DN. If you compair the cross, the loop etc. it is exactly the same as the one on the period pics in every detail.
Look at the loop attached to that particular cross (no way that loop is original) but it is! When I compair it with the 3/4 ******246;se Pieter has it has a completely different loop and is marked if i recall correctly.

etc.

I could go on and on.

I have nothing to gain or loose
To me this hobby is just a passion and of course with all the fakes etc. we need to be very carefull and discuss as much possible, but I believe sometimes we are going to far in a subject.

Dietrich, I got the chance from you to see a part of the book you are writing and I can say from what I have seen you did an excellent job. As you know yourself some things you write will also be disagreed by other collectors.
For writing the book you did an extensive research etc. Most things you publish will be based on solid evidence, but some things will probably also be based on what you have learned from others, or own opinions etc.

I got the little knowledge I have gained from books, internet, info. shared by much more experienced collectors and of course by studying my own collection.


Nobody needs to share my view either but this is how I think.

Not everything can be explained. It is just how it is.

Best regards
Kevin

[Kevin V.]

L/15, L15. 835. 800.

Why?

Maybe, just because they did it that way. Unless you see die flaw progression I just don't get these witch hunts.

Don't own one of these, don't want one, but I truly don't get this. To ask WHY a company stamped what they stamped, why they used one silver here and another there is NO reason to cry wolf.

I've seen some pretty nasty looking Otto's that just plain looked rough. Those I wouldn't touch. But one mark versus another...

Do you have any pics or are there any collectors here who have what they consider a postwar Schickle cross.

Thanks

[Kevin V.]

I personally would not buy a Schickle which is marked 800 or 835

What is the reason or what are you basing on? On solid evidence or own knowledge?

Thanks

[Kevin V.]

Hi Dietrich.

Schickle's KC's have two different cores (most noticeable in the obverse date '3').

I don't suppose it's as simple as the '800' and '835' marked pieces have one type of core and the unmarked Neusilber and L/15's have the other type.....

....so anything to add to this interesting thread about the two different cores?

Marshall

Are there two different cores?

[Dietrich Maerz]

As for my Schickle, Yes is marked L15 on the loop and not L/15. Why I don't know!

I don't know either but I'm raising my eyebrow.

But do you know any other Otto Schickle KC marked that way? Probably not. Does it have a completely unmarked frame? Yes. Any other examples known? Yes. Any provenance with the unmarked one? Yes, the one awarded to Johannes Bolter from the former Bo Bremer collection (Ludwig).

I think I said it before but I don't mind saying it again: your Schickle cross is a very nice example, pre 45 IMHO. I doubt the award date, but I might be wrong and a nice scan of the gentleman with the cross might prove me wrong. I certainly doubt the loop.

When I was at the last Max show with Pieter we saw a 835 marked on the lower arm. We compaired it and Pieter didn't like it. Why he saw a difference in quality as I recall.

Guess why?

Why did they have so many different variants in marking? I don't know and I believe others don't know either.

It is not the questions of different markings. Juncker had a lot. It's about the timeframe ...

Why did Juncker produced so many variants?

Because that's what happened in the market and they just went along with it. Nothing strange about it.

What was the quality of the '57 Schickle version? Scandally.

Not really.

... and if I ever made the impression to you that I doubt that there are Schickle that are pre-45 you mistook me greatly. Schickle is one of the rarest models one can have and I think you have one - but with a wrong loop and with shaky provenance. But still a beautifull cross from what I can see so far.

Dietrich

[Biro]

Are there two different cores?

Yes Kevin.


Marshall

[Sal Williams]

What on earth is an "oese"?

Thanks, Sal

[Kevin V.]

What on earth is an "oese"?

Thanks, Sal

Sal do you mean öse ?
If so the 3/4 öse KC is an unidentified maker but an absolutely period made cross.

sincerely

[Dietrich Maerz]

Sal,

"Öse" is just another word for "ring". Maybe in this case - since it is not a ring - eyelet might be the better translation.

It has nothing to do with the cross itself, it's possible maker or whether it's genuine or not....

[Luftm40]

So then...what constitutes wartime vs postwar w/ the Schickles? The frame dies obviously survived the war and were used to make the 57 versions. Were crosses w/ swastikas made prior to 57 as w/the SLs? I would have to assume that they were.....