57 Sl Rk

[Dave Kane]

Die wear

Wouldn't wear and tear on a die diminish the sharpness over time and thus the first run RK look sharper than the last group and even more so than the 'flawed' group?
John

[Gordon Williamson]

Die wear where RK frames is concerned isn't too likely a factor. Silver is a very soft metal and it is unlikely that it would wear out hardened steel dies after striking x thousand frames. Think of the national mint where the dies will strike out MILLIONS of coins and not "wear out". Die failure (cracking) is always possible but for these dies to wear out would take a huge amount of production going through them.

Obviously I can't say regarding this particular piece, but certainly those I had were dictinctly different to the framing on the early postwar S&Ls. No possibility that those I had were from the S&L tooling.

The early S&L pieces I had showed no die flaw which leads to the conclusion that the cracks appeared AFTER the earlt 57 pieces were struck -i.e. postwar. There are many who believe that the dies showed the flaw during the war, but that doesn't reconcile with the evidence of the non-flawed postwar dies unless you believe that S&L had more than one set of RK dies. If that was the case why would they then need to make yet another set of fies postwar to make the late 57 type with the eye dipped into the frame ? Makes more logical sense that the dies were damaged postwar and thus had to be replaced.

Gordon

[Ludwig]

KCs

If both crosses are S&L produced (but I am sure one is Schickle - yes they produced 57´s!) they have or had two different stamps for the center piece (the iron). Look at the 8 in 1813...

[Luftm40]

1) Can someone post a pic of either a 57 or wartime Schickle cross?

2) If my cross is NOT an SL, can someone post an example of a 57 SL RK without die flaws (or is Seba's cross an example)

3) Has anyone discovered production records for the 57 RKs?...how many firms made these?

[ChrisJ]

Here you go !

[ChrisJ]

MMmmm, maybe Gordons got a point, they do look pretty similar dont they.

[ChrisJ]

Do my (aging) eyes deceive me, or is the "1939" the same... think that it is.

[Luftm40]

Well, if thats a Schickle, I'll concede It does look almost identical, including the ring. But the frame beading is also very similar, at least to my eye, with the SL. So retitle my thread "hey guys, a great new Schickle 57 RK" Actually, I'm glad it is a Schickle, as you don't see them as often. Interesting!

[ChrisJ]

Looks like it doesn't it Andy... but the intersting thing is the similarities in the date 1939 ?....
Assuming that these are both Schickles then was the oringinal WW2 die used as a model to make the 57 die, including the shape of the numerals...
I dont know enough about manufacturing, but could the original die have been modified to provide the 1957 die?... that could lead to some interesting conclusions.

[Sammler]

Wartime shickle RK

Hello,
I am long time thread reader and first time poster to this forum, I have an original Otto Shickle RK on the german daggers froum medals and badges category under the title " 835 RK" It is not on the the most recent page. I have included some good scans front and back as well as dimensions. If anybody would like to try and copy the scans to this thread it would be nice to demonstrate the differences between the two. Gordon Williamson and Prosper Keating helped me identify this cross from discription alone! Mine is described as being textbook for this maker. Mr Hopkins if you concur the stats for this item may allow you to update the info in your article? I would be happy to help with any details. I have been waiting for Gordons book as I believe this cross will be covered in it.

[Luftm40]

The down side is that my 57 RK raises the spectre of post war Schickle restrikes made from original dies.

[Sammler]

Point understood, but it also applies to the other makers as well.
Bowens book fortunately has information and a close up of the cross eye for a Otto Shickle cross purchased by a Panzer officer during the war.
More work can be done with these. The nice thing , and I hope the information does not reverse it is how uncommon they are and how they can be readily identified.

[Prosper Keating]

which leads to the conclusion that the cracks appeared AFTER the earlt 57 pieces were struck -i.e. postwar.

Fasten your seatbelts!



PK

[Prosper Keating]

Sammler's Schickle RK...

Here is the Otto Schickle RK of which Sammler speaks. A very nice item indeed.

PK

[Gordon Williamson]

I'm sure no one wants to go through the whole "die flaw" argument again. Some believe they are real, some don't.
I could see that if the die flaw was only beginning, then a tiny amount of flashing on the ribbed rim could be polished out before the frosting was added, and some could have slipped through without this clean up operation being done. However, some of the definite postwar restrikes I have seen have had such serious flawing on the frame that it would be difficult if not impossible to remove. This just doesn't tie in with the flawless early 57 frames I have seen from the original tooling.

We are back at the point where the believers can't prove the flawed pieces (certainly not the seriously flawed ones anyway) are real and the disbelievers can't prove they are wrong.

The fact that early 57 pieces don't have the flaw, and postwar restrikes from the original tooling do have the flaw can't be ignored however, so each individual just has to make up his own mind if he would be happy owning a flawed piece. If he is happy with it, then fine.


Gordon