The right loop ???

[Dietrich Maerz]

There are different types of RK-loops for each manufacturer and even different types within one manufacturer. So, how important is it for a Knights Cross to have the 'correct' loop? Or a loop at all?

We all know that dealers switch pieces between cases, change pairings between crosses and oaks/swords and even rip pairings apart when the set is not selling.

That is most likely the time when 'new' loops, more often than not incorrect ones, are attached. What is the impact on the piece?

Dietrich

[Sonderkommando]

Well Dietrich,
My thoughts on the matter are that if the loop on an RK has been switched and it is not the right loop for the cross then it becomes a mis-matched piece.
This of course should be reflected in the price of the piece. The trouble is, the price reduction would be so negligible that it really wouldn't matter in the end.
As nice as it is to get an RK with the correct loop, I think a good 40% would have been changed over the years and I think we all have to accept it as a fact of life....sort of like replaced breast eagles on tunics these days.



Brett

[Calvin Hall]

I think a correct loop is very important.

In fact, I am still searcing for a 'correct' loop for my Junker!

If anyone has a lead on a Junker loop, please drop me a line.

[Nick_since_1985]

Wich part of the RK are we talking about when we talk about a loop?

[Das Reich]

Wich part of the RK are we talking about when we talk about a loop?

picture was lifted from the forum for demonstration purpose. i believe it belongs to harry.

[Nick_since_1985]

Why would dealers take of that part of the cross and change it with another one?
Thx for the picture 'DasReich'.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Why would dealers take of that part of the cross and change it with another one?

There are lot's of reasons:

- a cross could come w/o loop to the dealer - so he adds one
- the cross had oaks or swords attached which were kept or sold separtely
- just a mix up between manufactureres
- could already come with a wrong loop from the recipient

Is there - as a general question - a consensus which loop is what? Other than the obvious ones.

Dietrich

[Nick_since_1985]

There are lot's of reasons:

- a cross could come w/o loop to the dealer - so he adds one
- the cross had oaks or swords attached which were kept or sold separtely
- just a mix up between manufactureres
- could already come with a wrong loop from the recipient

Is there - as a general question - a consensus which loop is what? Other than the obvious ones.

Dietrich

Either I'am stupid or slow understanding, but why mess upp a nice KC??? That's a question I'll never understand, these are historical artifacts...

Maybe it's yust me, but I don't understand how money takes a first place in this hoby

[Harry]

The cross in the photo above by the way is a fake........

Loops are hard to come by, so I would be put off buying a cross which had an incorrect loop.

[Craig Gottlieb]

I wonder where people get loose loops - not a very common thing to find, I would say.

[Jason Burmeister]

Craig,
<O></O>
With the advent of the internet and digital photography, most collectors are farming internet sites and forums for images they can save and share with others. In doing this, any changes made to a cross that has been previously photographed will be identifiable. The question is this, how does the collecting community feel about a cross that at one time was photographed with a set of oakleaves or oakleaves and swords but now only has a correct jump ring? What if a cross was previously photographed with the wrong type of jump ring but has since been corrected? How do these scenarios effect the value? For the record, we are assuming these pieces are without attribution, and or provenance and the oakleaves, swords and or jump ring could’ve been added years ago. Without provenance, there is no way to know.

[Craig Gottlieb]

I agree, Jason. Collectors and dealers are doing just what you said - separating high-end pieces such as an RK and a set of swords, because rare is it to find a buyer who wants both. In cases where the cross and swords are attributable as being a "came together" piece (rare), it's better to leave them together. In cases where there is no provenance, I say there is no problem separating a cross and an oaks (or oaks and swords).

[Dave Kane]

Interesting and thought evoking question!

I think that we as a 'group' are the greatest purests and romantics among the collecting community......nothing wrong with that of course


I WILL NOT switch or otherwise change an item from WWII and will attempt to maintain even the slightest bit of paper, tissue or anything associated with a piece!

That said however, I don't have a problem RESTORING a muscle car or interchanging better pieces for less attractive items in this venue.

It's a bit nuts but I prefer to see a loop associated, made by and identified with a particular maker on (that) Cross.

In other words I think that a proper loop is important.....!

[Craig Gottlieb]

Do doubt, Dave - the proper loop IS important. I wonder how many crosses that came out with Oaks and Swords, have had the Oaks and Swords replaced with either the "correct" for the maker Loop, or one that is incorrect. I submit, that locating correct loops to match crosses would be a duanting task, but if accomplished, how would one tell, short of the cross having been photographed in a reference, with the original oak or oaks and swords.

[Marc Garlasco]

You could always just snatch Dietrich's chain from around his neck...
Marc