Opinion on RK, just curious...

[gebris353]

Hi gents, I still cant tell the difference between RK makers, just a very few and not close to recognize a fake unless it's too obvious even for noobie eyes like mines so I would like some opinions on the next cross. Not thinking in buying or anything but since I think this wasnt here before I thought I might post it.

I found the year similar to Tim Calvert's 3/4 ring RK (from the pinner RK photo base), except this is not a 3/4. Sorry but these are all the pics I have, at least they are big enough, just click on the little images and then again on the middle size image to get the original high resolution ones.

Fab.-

[wolfeknives]

It is a poor repro, artificially aged. Poor beading, low swas, combined with dipping ring and fresh rust and forced patina - not good.

[gebris353]

Thanks Wolfgang! Now to study the thing!

[streptile]

This core has been around for a very long time (if I see the photos correctly) and is the same used in a postwar cross listed some time ago on Weitze as a postwar S&L product. I have no idea if the latter is true, but so it was described. We also saw it recently on a postwar cross, HERE, with a different frame.

Do you have more photos of the cross? Reverse?

[Leroy]

The cross on Weitze' site appeared to me at the time it was listed to have an S&L frame, although the details are hard for me to make out precisely and I could well be mistaken. The core, however, is NOT any S&L version I have ever seen. This core is most often seen on fakes such as the one that started this thread. At one time, Philipp Militaria was selling (as copies) crosses of this type for @ 300 Euros.

[gebris353]

Thanks Trevor and Leroy for the explanation, checked the site but they dont have it anymore although in the link I could see an example and seems pretty similar comparing both years. Unfortunately these are the only pics I have but at least I now know it's not a good one.