Schickle RK with rare core version

[Leroy]

Dietrich,
I was looking at the "wavy" line of the "1" next to the "9" in 1939, which seems a match to the one I just posted. Can you put my photo side-by-side with the photo (Post #4) of the date on the cross which started this thread? I don't know how to do it!
Best,
Gentry
("Leroy")

[Dietrich Maerz]

Has the cross been restored?

Absolutely not! The loop has been added, though!

[Kevin V.]

Absolutely not! The loop has been added, though!

You are pretty sure so you handled this piece in the past?

Best regards
Kevin

[Dietrich Maerz]

I had the cross in my hands during a collectors meeting in Germany some time ago, I can also testify that the core was never replaced. The frame is w/o any doubt a Schickle with the original frosting nicely applied and intact.

Sorry when I was unclear in my earlier statement. Yes I handled the cross personally


Here is your comparison, Gentry:

[Leroy]

Thanks!

I must say (although different lighting and, perhaps, different paint) they look VERY close. Even the "9"s have similar indentations and waves.

Another edit!: Is this the "variant" S&L core which has been, vaguely, mentioned by DN and others? Did S&L perhaps acquire some of the Schickle stock?

[grueni1208]

At first I asked me, why Schickle used two types of core.

My theory:
At first Schickle produced a RK mould tool for a non-iron core production, like the early 3/4 RK. Most of the early RK's were with non-magnetic core. But the PKZ gave the order that the RK must be with an iron core. Schickle produced his RK's with iron core, but the mould tool (primary for a non iron core production) was fast worn out. After wear Schickle produced a new and better mould tool for an iron core production. The ironic is that the old number design look's like more the typical Schickle EK number design like the new RK number design.

Here is a pic of another Schickle RK with the early number design (but with sharper mintage) from a Niemann Update.

Regards

Daniel

[Leroy]

If you compare the tops of the last "9" in "1939" with the last "9"s in posts #12 and #13, they have the SAME indentation on their upper left side.

I believe these are the same.

[Roglebk]

Frank, not here to pick a fight, i'm here to learn. If you think it's a fake please enlighten us why you think so. Could have used the edit button as you say, but then it would have been just another post written in haste and then altered. I chose to apologize for my poor wording skills instead (was in a hurry) hope you accept that.

[juoneen]

So ...I take it .. the general consensus is this RK..IS an original schickle ? RIGHT? Seems to have some hanging wear to the ring, and awful crisp on the corners. (sharp) Too bad dietrichs lower comparison is so dark..as we cant reall see all the details as in the top comparison photo. But i agree they look very close on the numbers die flaws. Verrry Interesting .Thanks for posting it.

[LuckyLuudje]

I am still wondering about the paint on the core.
And also the scratches on the frame.

[grueni1208]

I checked the RK with a magnifier.
The scratches are on every cross shank (see on pic), but these scratches are all under the silver finish. The scratches look's like hand made. Some scratches you see very good and another you can see only with a magnifier. On some points the silver finish is lost. Between the frames there are no signs of opening.

Regards

Daniel

[grueni1208]

silver finish lost

[grueni1208]

another scratches under silver finish

[grueni1208]

number design

[FrankS]

wavy 1 and the same indentation on top of the second 9 in 1939 - and definitely not a Schickle RK