Schickle RK on Regimentals

[Ludwig]

Regimentals´ Schickle:

[Ludwig]

-

[Leroy]

A little brighter, so the dates can be seen:

[Ludwig]

Are my eyes that bad?

[Ludwig]

-

[George Stimson]

The balls of the "3"s look different, too.

[Leroy]

Here's another. The Regimentals' one (the one being used for the date comparision) is photographed at a slightly tilted angle. Still, I see what you are saying about the "1" and wish we had better photos.

[Leroy]

Comparison.

[George Stimson]

I meant the "3"s in both "1939"s.

[Leroy]

I think this is very interesting and that we may learn something from this.

According to DM (and I believe he is exactly right - no argument this time), the Schickle cross had more than one date font. My friend Ludwig has pointed out that the "1" in '1939' had an extended tip which could cause damage to the frame on assembly. If, in fact, the obverse date is different on the Regimentals' cross, is this a 3rd date font, meant to correct that problem? Is this a fake meant to look like a Schickle? Is it a variant (perhaps made by Deumer)?

Hopefully, we'll find out.


P.S. George - I see what you mean, too, and wish we had better photos of the Regimentals cross.

[George Stimson]

But since we're looking at the backs....

[Rich G]

Question: Are the Schickle RK's marked 835 considered and/or proved to be post war or are they considered wartime?

Rich

I ask again:

Are the Schickle RK's marked 835 considered and/or proved to be post war or are they considered wartime?

[Leroy]

Richard - I believe that the wartime Schickles are noted to have neusilber frames, while 1957 versions have been noted with the 835 silver content. I don't think anything is "proven" yet, finally and definitively, about these crosses, nor has the full story of Schickle-attributed crosses been established.

George - What do you think about what you are seeing? A copy? A variant? More photos needed to judge?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I consider them post war based on circumstantial evidence. And based on the different core and different finish. But I might be wrong. However, nobody should forget that Schickle didn't produce a lot and did not have a lot of time. And the "835" compared to "800".

[George Stimson]

"George - What do you think about what you are seeing? A copy? A variant? More photos needed to judge?"

I think that I'm seeing enough to make me too wary to buy this cross (which is a purely academic scenario, anyway) unless I had a lot more info to go on. (But if I had to make a conclusion based on what I've seen so far, I'd say that it was a copy.)