RK Group

[Brian S]

Hello

The question is, would you trade a good salmon for that RK ?

Regards
David

Maybe not, but definitely a few dogfish that go after my herring.

[Rich G]

I get so disappointed with this forum when I see comments like this:

That piece, to me anyway, just doesn't have the quality or workmanship that you usually associate with an original wartime RK. Nor can I find anything that even remotely matches it. And what about the die flaws that seem to be evident virtually all the way round the rim, (the lines that look as if they are joining all the beading together).So I would agree with the others and say it is a fake.

I'm sure, only a few years ago if someone put a 3/4 loop up for discussion it would be branded fake. Why? Because it does look crappy compared to S&L, K&Q, etc.

So by definition then crappy = fake?

For sure we all don't know what has been made during the 3rd Reich. I think we can agree on that.

At last, someone with an open mind which is so sadly missing these days.

Nico,

I think you miss the point. As Stef rightfully pointed out nobody here knows whether it is a fake - all we know is that it is not made by documented and known manufacturers. This does not necessarily constitute "fake". Way too often the word 'fake' is used for 'unknown'.

Exactly! Too many armchair experts spewing out rubbish kills any kind of worthy discussion. Jeeze, if you don't know then just say so!!

It is about restricting the posts to what one actually knows. Sentences like:

" I don't know anything about RK's but I think it is a fake. But I let others give their opinion"

are useless.

Bravo! Exactly the point!

Is it real is it fake? I have no idea but at least I'll keep an open mind. For goodness sake people, try to not to be so blinkered and maybe a good discussion will prevail!

Rich

[DavidM]

I'm sure, only a few years ago if someone put a 3/4 loop up for discussion it would be branded fake. Why? Because it does look crappy compared to S&L, K&Q, etc.

So by definition then crappy = fake?

.....Too many armchair experts spewing out rubbish kills any kind of worthy discussion. Jeeze, if you don't know then just say so!!
Rich

Hello

I note that you have quoted me in your post. I'm sorry that you are disappointed Richard, but I was simply expressing a personal opinion on a specific piece, and not a generalisation of anything which doesn't match a currently known item.

So by definition then crappy = fake ? No, not at all. If you took the time and trouble to look at some of my other replies on the forum you will see that I am more than prepared to examine the data, the evidence etc and make a worthwhile contribution to a discussion, and have on more than one occasion gone out on a limb over items that have looked really, really poor and terrible - provided I have sufficent knowledge to be able to do so.

Too many armchair experts spewing out rubbish kills any kind of worthy discussion. I certainly don't consider myself an expert, far from it, but I assume that this does not bar me from expressing an opinion, provided I explain why I have formed that opinion. I don't comment on things I know nothing about. Let's face it, in order to have a worthwhile discussion over any item, especially a suspect or controversial piece, people will have to examine the item, the evidence available and form an opinion. Without it you haven't got a discussion. I would suggest that as long as I am prepared to explain why I have formed my opinion, that my contribution is as worthwhile and valid as your's or anyone elses.

Finally, I note the highly selective nature of the quotes in your post. I'd recommend to anyone reading this that they should read all the postings themselves first. Yes, I did indeed call it a fake, and gave an indication as to why I thought that. I also made other posts in the thread, which expanded on my position and my reasoning. Dietrich makes some very valid points in his postings to this thread, as does Stefan. That said, while Dietrich doesn't actually call the RK in question a fake by use of that word, my interpretation of what he has written is that he is highly sceptical of it and strongly hints that he feels it to be a fake. Of course, as I say that's only my intrepretation of what Dietrich has written.

So, sorry you feel disappointed, but at the end of the day my opinion, provided I substantiate it, is as valid as the next persons.

Regards
David

[Rich G]

David

Don't take it personally because it isn't. I just used your quote as a generalisation of what can be bad for discussion and coupled it with what can be good for discussion. That's all.

Regards
Rich