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

[Dietrich Maerz]

Let's stay with the loop for a moment:

Why would Schickle use a (high grade) silver for the loop and not for the cross and why would they mark the loop L15 and not L/15 like they used to mark the (very few) crosses on the ring?

[Kevin V.]

Let's stay with the loop for a moment:

Why would Schickle use a (high grade) silver for the loop and not for the cross and why would they mark the loop L15 and not L/15 like they used to mark the (very few) crosses on the ring?

Honestly I can't explain why they marked this loop L15 and not L/15.
Why did Schickle made KC's with unmarked frame and unmarked loop, unmarked frame and marked L/15 on the eyelet, frame marked 800, frame marked 835 etc.
Can you explain why the Juncker 800 and 800"." have such a different jumpring finish comparring with the unmarked frames, L/12 800, 800 L/12, lazy2, ...?
From what I have been told by DN, Pieter V. etc. this is also the only known piece marked on the loop L15.

Thanks

[Kevin V.]

I hope you will take the time to explain me and other collectors the reason why you have issues with the Otto Schickle KC marked 800 on the frame under the eyelet or marked 835 on the lower arm? How many Schickle KC's have you seen and comparred for making a conclusion for the book?

Thanks

[Kevin V.]

If I see the difference of quality between the other Schickle KC's which are in other forum members collections and compare it with the quality and detail of the '57 Schickle KC I see no reasons at all to be cautious. All I can say is they did a bad job.
Just my opinion.

Do you know a Schickle KC that is marked L/15 on the loop or besides mine marked L15? If you do or anyone else please post pics of it.

Thanks

[Dietrich Maerz]

Honestly I can't explain why they marked this loop L15 and not L/15.
Why did Schickle made KC's with unmarked frame and unmarked loop, unmarked frame and marked L/15 on the eyelet, frame marked 800, frame marked 835 etc.

So, what do you think was first? the L/15 marked crosses or the 800 and 835?

Can you explain why the Juncker 800 and 800"." have such a different jumpring finish comparring with the unmarked frames, L/12 800, 800 L/12, lazy2, ...?

No, I can't and I explained at a different spot why I don't even try.

From what I have been told by DN, Pieter V. etc. this is also the only known piece marked on the loop L15.

Okay. That's unique then. Who's 'etc'?

[Kevin V.]

So, what do you think was first? the L/15 marked crosses or the 800 and 835?

I can't answer as I don't know as I don't have any solid evidence to base on.
Do you?

[Kevin V.]

Okay. That's unique then. Who's 'etc'?

Is that so important? If I say DN or another German dealer who handled hundreds of groupings over the years never ever had a Schickle KC that was marked L/15 or L15 on the loop isn't that enough. If someone else has they can always come forward and post pics.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Is that so important?

No, not really. I just inquired since you mentioned it.

[Kevin V.]

No, not really. I just inquired since you mentioned it.

Dietrich, as for my last post of today I can only say that the otto Schickle KC is a very rare maker and I personally believe undervalued;

I have comparred mine in detail with an unmarked piece with an unmarked loop and another marked L/15 on the eyelet and I can't see or find a difference.

Thanks
Kevin

[Dietrich Maerz]

.. I can only say that the Otto Schickle KC is a very rare maker and I personally believe undervalued.

I can only agree with that.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I can only agree with that.

Dietrich...and safest with an L/15 eylet MM cross if you want a period one?
Pieter.

[Kevin V.]

Dietrich...and safest with an L/15 eylet MM cross if you want a period one?
Pieter.

Pieter, that's a hard one to reply on as I think there is no evidence (solid evidence) only assumptions to give a response.

I compaired :

1. unmarked frame - unmarked loop
2. unmarked frame - marked loop
3. unmarked with L/15 marked on the loop - unmarked loop

I can'f find any difference at all!

Which others Otto Schickle are there

4. Marked 800 frame
5. Marked 835 on the lower frame (for whatever reason marked there)
...
etc;

I believe we need to be very carefull to make any statements concerning wartime and postwar without any written evidence.
Did the Schickle KC dies survive? I don't know.
I do know they produced for a short period during the war.

If I look at the picture that was posted of the postwar made '57 version I can only say they did a very bad job.

[Kevin V.]

What was the reason Juncker produced so many different types ?

unmarked
800
800 dot
800 L/12
L/12 800
2
micro2
Lazy2 (2 types left - right)

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich...and safest with an L/15 eylet MM cross if you want a period one? Pieter.

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

[Biro]

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