Original KC???

[SteveM]

Posting this KC for a friend who has had this for many years but has doubts. The photos aren't the best and I wiil try to get closeups of more detail. In the meantime, if anybody would like to venture an opinion, it would appreciated.

Thanks
SteveM

[Dietrich Maerz]

Your friend is right with his doubts - it's not a good one. Search under 'dipping ring' and you will find some more examples, some even marked with "800".

Dietrich

[SteveM]

More photos

[SteveM]

Thanks for the quick response on this. Yes he mentioned this one even has the 800 mark under the ring. The scanner failed to pick up. I'll search the thread under this topic.

Steve

[Steve B]

Knights Crosses with dipping donuts

Again with the dipping donut controversy. I have addressed this question to Gordon Williamson and his response was that there were indeed original RKs with donut holes that dipped into the frame. In fact those marked 65 had this feature. Mr. Williamson has included a number of the dipping donut crosses in his book. It is true that some frames from the 1950s version of that cross were used around bogus centers, but each cross needs to be evaluated on its own merits. I am the proud owner of a dipping donut RK and the wonderful detail is a true marvel!

Because the this "collector chatter", I was able to buy the RK without paying through the nose. With all of the fakes in this hobby, it is easy to understand why people feel they must rely upon generalizations?

Steve B.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Steve,

I agree with you that there are genuine 'dipping' ring crosses as Gordon states in his book and the picture on page 338 seems pretty clearly to show one. I'm surely not against any controversial RK since I'm a very strong defender of the so called "Round Corner". But to defend a genuine RK it takes a little more than just one very unclear picture, at least in my opinion. A lot of research is necessary to come closer and closer to a possible positive conclusion.

The above shown cross fits chracteristics of other 'known' dipping ring fakes and is IMHO not one of the "extremely rare" examples.

If you could, please post pictures of your dipped ring RC!

Dietrich

[Steve B]

Dipping Donut RK

Hi Dietrich:

I do not disagree with anything that you say. I do have scans and will attempt to find a way to post.
Steve

[Steve B]

Dipping Donut RK

Hopefully, you will be able to view these. Judging from the mutiple pictures in the beforementioned books, I do not think that these wearing crosses were that rare?


http://www.geocities.com/sbreeskin/rkclose.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/sbreeskin/rk1x.jpg

Steve

[Steve B]

Pictures will not post

Dietrich -
Please send me your e-mail address and I will send the jpgs.
Thanks,
Steve

Sbreeskin@yahoo.com

[Dave Kane]

Man, I know my eyes are getting a bit weaker but, I see THREE different crosses represented as one! Even different digital settings...
Let's discuss someting of substance Steve M.

[SteveM]

Something of substance? If its not meaty enough for you, don't respond.
I simply asked for an initial opinion until I can get better scans. The first 2 were redundent, I apologize and will try to get clearer ones soon from the owner.

Thanks to evreyone else who took the time to look this over.

Steve M

[Dave Kane]

But they are not the same cross! Explain?

[SteveM]

I am only posting the scans that were sent to me. I will pose the question to the owner, an elderly gentlemen in his 70's who acquired the cross sometime in the 60's.

Just for my education, why do you believe these scans are not of the same cross? Which ones are different? To me the scans are of the same quality that I cannot tell myself.

Thanks

[Dave Kane]

Frame and swaz aren't the same as the one shown in the case!