57 Sl Rk

[Luftm40]

Hi, here is a 57 version of the RK. It is an early version, magnetic core and non-silver frames. Well made, but not spectacular. This cross appears to have been struck from the original SL frame dies. NOTE: there are no raised flaws to the beading!

[Luftm40]

Back

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Here is my '57 for comparason...

[Sebastian Bianchi]

bac

[Ludwig]

KC

The first cross looks like an Otto Schickle production (flat loop), not S&L? Or am I wrong?

[Rich G]

HI Ludwig

I was just thinking the same thing. Surely not an S&L suspension loop from the original S&L dies?

Andy

Is there any particular reason you're saying S&L?

Regards

Rich

[Luftm40]

No, I think it is SL. The flat ring just seems to be from sloppier finishing

[ChrisJ]

Andy,
Your RK certainly looks right for a frame that was struck from the original WW2 dies.... before the damage (or maybe old stock).
Do you have any information as to when the beading flaw first appeared ?

[Luftm40]

Chris, I certainly have my opinion about when the die flaw occurred, but I'll let readers draw their own conclusion from these pics. I've been looking for a cross like this for awhile, and just happened to acquire one in a grouping I just acquired. This cross was worn (or maybe just owned) by RKT Erich Lange. If I had to guess, I would say it dates from the 60s. Old stock doesn't seem to fit though, as these frames are struck from a more modern looking alloy, not the nickel silver of the wartime "non silver" RK frames. The die characteristics seem to match original SL production. Even the top loop is the right shape, it has just been finished down flat to the level of the frame instead of being rounded out

[Gordon Williamson]

I believe the 57 piece IS a Schickle. I have had a few of these through my hands and had the opportunity to compare directly with a wartime Schickle and the frame was identical in all respects.
If you look edge on at a Steinhauer piece, the eye is wider than the thickness of the edge of the frame, whilst on the Shickle it is exactly flush. If you filed down the thin hollow eye of a S&L frame you'd end up either with a wafer thin eye or breaking through the thickness of the metal into the hollow core.
Comparing the ones I had next to very early 57 S&Ls, the die work was definitely not the same.

The last one I had was 835 stamped, (Not a silver code known for S&L) and on the lower reverse arm, exactly where often found on wartime Schickle pieces.
Gordon

[Luftm40]

It doesn't show in the scan, but there is a slight bulge to the profile of the loop, which raises it slightly above the level of the frame. Gotta say it still looks like an SL to me, but I didn't know Schickle made 57 RKs. It would be nice to know who really did make it

[Dave Kane]

Different cores!

This should prove to be a very informative thread! I note that the cores are different as well suggesting a different maker..
John

[ChrisJ]

This hobby is great. A few years ago we didnt know what an Schickle looked like. (We are really moving on Gordon!). I've noticed that quite a few are making their way to the market now.
I blew Andy's RK image up and compared to my S&L and the frame looks very much the same. But then, I have never owned/handled an L/15 so I dont know how it compares.
Gordon.... have you any thoughts/info as to when the beading flaw on the postwar S&L's appeared ?

[ChrisJ]

...Oh yes, forgot to say, that JohnJ is right the cores are clearly different between the two crosses. The question has to be asked as to why S&L would have two (or more) core dies for what would have been expected to be a very limited run production ?....

[Luftm40]

I've laid this 57 cross next to an original SL RK, and the beading characteristics appear identical to me, although not quite as nicely struck. This is interesting!