Gordon,
I honestly think that if three corners are a near perfect match and the fourth one is very close, that one can really say with near certainty that this frame came from a S&L die. The minute difference in the fourth corner is in my opinion due to the dirt and maybe wear.
I certainly do not object against the notion of another unknown maker. But all makers so far have very distinctive differences between the dies. I just cannot believe in such an incredible coincidence.
As the Round Corner has shown, there will be "yet" other makers found and established by serious and well founded investigation, backed up by documents and pictures. This has been clearly demonstrated in the last 5 month with the Round Corner, which I strongly believe to be Maybauer.
If I have to give a judgement, it is either a S&L with an 'unknown" core (I'm sorry about the non-magnetic assumption, I was mixing up the dealer listnings.... But that really doesn't matter in this case) or a very, very good attempt to fake a S&L, which would be very frightening. However, I doubt that very much. Another possibility is that S&L was selling frames to "X", who made his own cores. The seemingly honest wear of the cross point to the frame and core being together for quite some time and a side view, as Gordon suggested, would help.
Further investigation into the characteristics of the core might also help in this case.
No matter what, this is a puzzeling piece and I'd stay clear of it at this point in time.
I honestly think that if three corners are a near perfect match and the fourth one is very close, that one can really say with near certainty that this frame came from a S&L die. The minute difference in the fourth corner is in my opinion due to the dirt and maybe wear.
I certainly do not object against the notion of another unknown maker. But all makers so far have very distinctive differences between the dies. I just cannot believe in such an incredible coincidence.
As the Round Corner has shown, there will be "yet" other makers found and established by serious and well founded investigation, backed up by documents and pictures. This has been clearly demonstrated in the last 5 month with the Round Corner, which I strongly believe to be Maybauer.
If I have to give a judgement, it is either a S&L with an 'unknown" core (I'm sorry about the non-magnetic assumption, I was mixing up the dealer listnings.... But that really doesn't matter in this case) or a very, very good attempt to fake a S&L, which would be very frightening. However, I doubt that very much. Another possibility is that S&L was selling frames to "X", who made his own cores. The seemingly honest wear of the cross point to the frame and core being together for quite some time and a side view, as Gordon suggested, would help.
Further investigation into the characteristics of the core might also help in this case.
No matter what, this is a puzzeling piece and I'd stay clear of it at this point in time.
Comment