K&Q RK

[tom hansen]

I just got a swanky scale to match my calipers and was weighing and measuring medals I have recently acquired. I noted that the K&Q RK I have, which has been reviewed on this forum, is 30.85 grams and measures 48.70X48.70mm. The "light" examples in Gordon's book are 31.5g and measure 48.5X48.5mm. Is this within the manufacturing limits of this cross? Thanks

[Dietrich Maerz]

I just got a swanky scale to match my calipers and was weighing and measuring medals I have recently acquired. I noted that the K&Q RK I have, which has been reviewed on this forum, is 30.85 grams and measures 48.70X48.70mm. The "light" examples in Gordon's book are 31.5g and measure 48.5X48.5mm. Is this within the manufacturing limits of this cross? Thanks

This represents a diviation from some 'artificial' measurement of 2.06%. I have serious doubts that your weight measurement (down to 5/100 of a gram) as well as Gordon's are perfectly o.k. Now let me ask you this: What would you prefer? A cross with correct beading, correct numerals and evereything but 2.06% off against a (correct?) date line, or, a cross that has exactly 31.5 grams but the beading is off and also the numerals?

I guess you can tell I don't believe in weights (as a first or second line of determination)! By the way: with or without ribbon loop?

Dioetrich

[tom hansen]

Dietrich-

That includes the loop. My scale is accurate to within .01 gram, so I do not doubt the scale. My calipers are accurate to within .02mm, so I do not doubt the calipers. They have both been calibtrated. Do you think then that this is normal variance? Why are the weights not reported within a range? Lack of data? Thanks

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,


I guess you didn't get my sense of humor! Your cross is perfectly ok! IMHO the weight is only relevant if other indications are also off (or if the weight is really off, like 15-20% or so) I don't think at all that the RK was produced to meet specific weight (or size) requirements in the area of +/- 3%!

We should not be to critical with certain things. If the beading and numerals are ok and the weight is in the area of 28-33 grams (plus/minus) with a steel core, I think we should not be too paranoid at all.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Tom, don't forget these 'jewels' were hand finished thus the possibility of a varience in weight and size!

Dave

[tom hansen]

Thanks for the information Deitrich and Dave. I guess these should not be viewed as precision instruments. The hand finishing componant would certainly throw a variance in both length and weight.

[Dave Kane]

Tom, this is what makes 'it' fun! Not 2 are alike...different strikings, finishings and overall presentation!


Dave

[Brian S]

No Dave, the rounder corner RK's are almost identical in weight and finish. Much more perfectly constructed than these 'other' RKs. True examples of German engineering.

[Dave Kane]

Don't bloody well start!!

Dave

[ChrisJ]

Weights

This represents a diviation from some 'artificial' measurement of 2.06%. I have serious doubts that your weight measurement (down to 5/100 of a gram) as well as Gordon's are perfectly o.k. Now let me ask you this: What would you prefer? A cross with correct beading, correct numerals and evereything but 2.06% off against a (correct?) date line, or, a cross that has exactly 31.5 grams but the beading is off and also the numerals?

I guess you can tell I don't believe in weights (as a first or second line of determination)! By the way: with or without ribbon loop?

Dioetrich

The weight of an RK should be used as one of the "pointers" to assessing the cross overall. Variations do frequently occur, and quoted weights should not be considered "set in stone".... for example 800 marked Junckers, and 800 dot Junckers often come in at the 30g odd mark, whereas 2 and L/12's usually come in at around 34g. Similarly, with the RK to KVK three distinct weight groups have been identified (to date) whereas up untill a year or so ago this was not appreciated generally.
The last K&Q that I had in my collection was also around 30g. It part of a large group with a great provenance... so I would not be concerned if I were you and enjoy your piece.

[tom hansen]

Thanks. I am looking at another K&Q RK now that is a part of a grouping. If I get it, I will note the dimensions and weight on the site. The grouping has alot of other stuff and good documentation. We will see. Thanks for the information again. I am learning and finding this stuff, as well as the history behind it, quite facinating. Given that, I think I will only get RKs in the future that have documentation so I can read about the winners.

[Brian S]

That seems like a good idea. I thought Gordon said the K&Q dies survived the war. Provenance would be critical if this was the case.

[tom hansen]

If the K&Q dies survived the war, would any K&Q, despite being an otherwise perfect example, be suspect of being a post war reproduction? How, without documentation from the family of the recipient, could one know that a K&Q RK was is not post war, and therefore technically a fake?

[Brian S]

For any RK dies that DID survive the war, die strike quality, fit and finish become critical as well as maker mark.