800 marked KC

[ChrisJ]

Neither. I am referring to Wächtler & Lange, who listed the RK as one of their products in a wartime publication.

Does anyone have images of their other EK's ? (Might be interesting, hey, Dietrich)

[ChrisJ]

Join the Party

SteveB,

I think that we would all be very interested to hear your views on the cross that is the subject of this thread.
....and please, lets forget the rhetoric

I for one would also be very happy to see you join the Association (the fees are very modest) and so be able to post pictures of your "dipping donut" K&Q RK.

[Sergey]

Sergey.
Can you tell us where this cross comes from ?

Cheers.
Peter Wiking

Hi I dont know all its history I know only that it was bought from somebody in Russia by one of my friends in 70th. And if it cames from 70th I believe that it might be a period piece because if you remember that USSR has "iron curtain" in that period and therefore we didnt had so much fakes comes from another countries and the collecting of German awards was not so popular in USSR too. So I dont think that somebody could fabricated it in Russia in 70th. I understand that it is disputable facts but for me it is more acceptable than colour of its silver and its difference from all known types.

[Peter Wiking]

Do you like the cross ?

If yes keep it. Unless new information comes up about that cross, it will be a museum copy, reproduction and fake to me.
Is it not possible that it is a museum copy ?

Cheers and sorry.
Peter Wiking

[jujuy]

Sergey,

I think that you have to understand that there is a lot of 100% authentic items that are told to be owned since the war by a lot of friends or people (as vet bring back!), that were frequently made in the 60's or much more later...
I know that a lot of nazi items can now enter to Russia, but nothing can go out. Could have been exactly the same 30 years before

Hi I dont know all its history I know only that it was bought from somebody in Russia by one of my friends in 70th. And if it cames from 70th I believe that it might be a period piece because if you remember that USSR has "iron curtain" in that period and therefore we didnt had so much fakes comes from another countries and the collecting of German awards was not so popular in USSR too. So I dont think that somebody could fabricated it in Russia in 70th. I understand that it is disputable facts but for me it is more acceptable than colour of its silver and its difference from all known types.

[Sonderkommando]

I'm going to go against the general feelings about this cross and ask as well why is it a fake?

Gordon has shown numerous examples in his book of RK winners wearing a "dipping ring" RK. Obviously they existed. Obviously they are pre-'45. Now this RK looks of very high quality with "Zimmermann style" beading to the outer and inner corners. Swaz is crisp, dates are crisp except maybe a little off-center. Why is everybody saying fake? Because of the dipping ring?
Show one fake with the same beading characteristics, same dates and same dipping loop. A side by side pic and then we can finish this thread. So far, all the fakes shown do not match this cross.
I will keep an open mind on this one as so far nothing says fake.

Regards,
Brett

[Peter Wiking]

I'm going to go against the general feelings about this cross and ask as well why is it a fake?

Gordon has shown numerous examples in his book of RK winners wearing a "dipping ring" RK. Obviously they existed. Obviously they are pre-'45. Now this RK looks of very high quality with "Zimmermann style" beading to the outer and inner corners. Swaz is crisp, dates are crisp except maybe a little off-center. Why is everybody saying fake? Because of the dipping ring?
Show one fake with the same beading characteristics, same dates and same dipping loop. A side by side pic and then we can finish this thread. So far, all the fakes shown do not match this cross.
I will keep an open mind on this one as so far nothing says fake.

Regards,
Brett

Look at the hight of the 1939 and 1813. They are very low.
Remeber the investment needed. About 5000 US Dollars.
Collectors will be on the guard on this award here.

Sergey.
Could you provide a few photos from an angle, showing the soldering of the frame halfes and how the core is fitted in the beading/frame ?

Cheers.
Peter Wiking

[Sonderkommando]

Hi Peter,

I have to agree with you that nobody will fork out big bucks for this one. As to the depth of the numerals it is hard to tell.

I have had a look at the Latvian fakes it is NOT one of them, definately! Different frame, different core.
My point is that there was dipping ring RK's awarded pre-'45 and so far nobody can really say what is the accepted characteristics of them.
I think this RK presented makes a good contender for a POSSIBLE original.
If it is a fake, where are all the other RK's by this faker with the same die and core characteristics? A faker doesn't go to all the trouble and cost of producing dies for the frame and core and then make one RK.
I think it is worth keeping an open mind on this one until more information comes to light.
I should add that it is virtually a perfect match for the one in Gordon's book on page 271 which is an original with the dipping eye.

Regards,
Brett

[Brian S]

I don't think this one is a recent copy. The color looks old not recently produced. The core looks old also. I think it's put together very professionally from what I can see. It doesn't match anything we've seen so in my thinking it's a contender. If it wre mine I'd hold it until I knew what it was.

[Sergey]

hello here the scans of its edge.

[Sergey]

2

[Brian S]

Well Sergey I think you understand most of us are so used to seeing fakes it's just natural to dismiss any cross that does not match known pieces. This one looks more and more like a finely crafted cross. I think we should have considered the source, you, in this case and given it a better look. I for one would vote CONTENDER

[Sergey]

I put it on e-stand.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think it is worth keeping an open mind on this one until more information comes to light.
I should add that it is virtually a perfect match for the one in Gordon's book on page 271 which is an original with the dipping eye.

Regards,
Brett

Brett,

I appreciate your comment and it might very well worth the effort to persue this cross more in depth. But, and please don't take this wrong - you are one of the most vivid 'Againster" of the rounders and those are ahead in quality and documentation. Also pictures in Gordons book and Gordon behind it. But still, it is a fake of the early eighties.., so the saying goes.

Now I know how tough it is to prove a genuine cross against the gospel and what kind of up hill battle this represents. What, in your opinion, makes this one a better contender than the Rounder?

Dietrich


P.S.: Yes, it seems to strongly resemble the page 271 example ...

[Sonderkommando]

Hi Dietrich,

Your comments weren't taken the wrong way.
First off I would like to state publicly that I believe there are genuine pre-'45 rounders, no doubt about it!
What I look for in rounders is the beading following the curvature of the frame in the inner corners, not just a standard RK with the inner corners filed down. Another thing I look for is the outer beading meeting in a very neat, symetrical way. (Like the RK presented here). Crisp details to both the swaz and dates, and the symetry of the frame and how it is finished in relation to the beading shape are also other things I personally look for in original RK's. I have seen rounders that I personally think are good and I have seen ones which I don't believe are, and have commented on them.
Why I believe the RK presented here MAY be original is because of the above statements, plus the fact that it appears to match one presented in Gordon's book as original. Rounders are seen in pre-'45 pictures of RK winners along with the dipping eye RK's. There are originals around, we just need to keep compiling information about the characteristics of each.

Sergey,
please PM me about how much you want to sell this RK for as I am very interested in purchasing it from you.

Regards,
Brett