Not speaking up for this partucular cross, for which I'd agree with the majority view here, but I would certainly caution the use of the "it doesn't match known original types" test as any way of defining originality.
Bear in mind that of the eight positively identified makers of the RK, there is still one that no one has ever been able to produce a maker marked and thus definite identified example for.
I'd hate to think that when an example of this gem is finally found, it is declared a "fake" because it doens'y match up with one of the identified makers.
Bear in mind that of the eight positively identified makers of the RK, there is still one that no one has ever been able to produce a maker marked and thus definite identified example for.
I'd hate to think that when an example of this gem is finally found, it is declared a "fake" because it doens'y match up with one of the identified makers.
Comment