RK fake?

[nostromo]

hello
I see this I think RK is Fake (latvia?) would like your opinions
feel they could not provide more and better photos
greetings and thanks

[streptile]

That's a good looking fake, if a fake it is. I'll wait for the experts...

[Leroy]

This is believed to be a fake, but it's not Latvian. These supposedly came out about 20 years ago and at least one was pictured in Gordon Williamson's book. I"ve seen 3 or 4 in person over the years, and it is certainly the most convincing and well-made one I know of (if it is, in fact, a fake, and not a cross by an unknown maker). One of the problems with this type cross is that some have had spurious maker marks added to them to help sell ("L/12", "20", etc.). The "800" is correctly centered, but the "maker marks" are all over the place, not balanced with the "800". At the last SOS, I saw 3 big names in this hobby looking at one and trying to figure out if it was real.

[streptile]

Thanks, Gentry. That is interesting information. Of course fake (postwar) marks are often added to perfectly good, period decorations in order to enhance their value, as some collectors are very focused on maker's marks (often passing over a finer example of the same item simply because it's unmarked). So the existence of spurious marks does not necessarily make these fake, as you say.

[Ludwig]

Fake it is!