RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[Brian S]

....Brian, a type 2 comes in different concave shapes too, ...but I assume you are aware of this?

pIETER.

I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your words again. Could you please define Type 2 oaks?

I am not the acknowledged expert here by any stretch of the imagination. I thought Craig's Oaks were a Type I. I thought Type I was concave.

Or, is this a Type II because of the flatter back but just happens to have the Type I obverse. Now that really confuses me.

Please educate me on this because as you can see I am clearly lacking info. As we say in the US, I appear to be one brick short of a full load.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Brian,

May I make a suggestion, because I feel you are basing your self too much up on reference books. Not that they are bad, far from, I have every respect for an author who tries to give the best.

Take page 376 from Gordons book.
He clearly defines what he would like to call a First pattern and a Second pattern.
He also describes which one is to be bigger , more or less concaved.

Now I know you are an ace in research. Try now to get as much as possible info on the measurments and grade of concavity of both patterns. Try to get a few in hands to compare.
Make your list of it , and read p 376 of Gordons book again and let us know your conclusions.

You can start e.g. with Steve Wolf's Oak Leaves awarded to Guderian. A 900 21 Second pattern(according Gordons determination).
I've held it several times. It measures with a size o 20.2mm(W) x 19.4mm(H)
and is very concave.

You can continue with the Kemnade Oak Leaves a 900 L/50 (First pattern according Gordon) maesuring 19.5mm(W) x 18mm(H) and is very flat at the back.

Do your research and let us know your findings.

Pieter.

[ChrisJ]

Oaks

Well Brian...you dont seem to have taken up the challenge on the Oaks that I posted....
Here is another picture, of this particular piece alongside and original......so what is it then, fake, restrike or orginal ????

[Brian S]

Great Pieter. It appears we can trust the same book, which I have in hand for definition. I am indeed looking at pages 376-7. I just can't get away from my post #24 above that the obverse of Craig's oaks is a Type I. And, I'm seeing a nearly flat surface on Craig's oaks. Now, as you suggested, I have the Paepcke oaks in my hands and at most angles in comparison, I see a definite concave hollow which I do not see on Craig's oaks.

So, I'm trying to figure out what leads you to conclude Craig's oaks are Type II? I see a Type I obverse and a Type II reverse. Because I am not aware that a Type II reverse on a Type I oaks would be, shall we say, authentic.

That for me is very confusing...

[ChrisJ]

picture

Well Brian...you dont seem to have taken up the challenge on the Oaks that I posted....
Here is another picture, of this particular piece alongside and original......so what is it then, fake, restrike or orginal ????

here

[Brian S]

Chris, appreciate the bait but I'm trying to work something out with Pieter. As much as I would love to spend my entire day analyzing oaks, I have another life. I'll look at it tomorrow or the next.

For the moment let me quote a man I have the profoundest respect for, "It should also be noted that the Godet dies did survive the war and were used in the early 1970's to restrike Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords to go with the 1957 de-nazified Knight's Cross as well as for sale to collectors. Made from the original dies and carrying the correct "900" silver and maker marks, these sold at $20 for the Oakleaves and $40 for the Oakleaves with Swords and are all but indistinguishable from the orginal issues. This perhaps goes some way to explaining why such a rare award turns up for sale so frequently."

I'll let you guess the author. As to your question, the answer is simple. If the Oaks come from the original dies I would be unable to distinguish between strike or restrike.

Answered without looking.


Thank you.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Great Pieter. It appears we can trust the same book, which I have in hand for definition. I am indeed looking at pages 376-7. I just can't get away from my post #24 above that the obverse of Craig's oaks is a Type I. And, I'm seeing a nearly flat surface on Craig's oaks. Now, as you suggested, I have the Paepcke oaks in my hands and at most angles in comparison, I see a definite concave hollow which I do not see on Craig's oaks.

So, I'm trying to figure out what leads you to conclude Craig's oaks are Type II? I see a Type I obverse and a Type II reverse. Because I am not aware that a Type II reverse on a Type I oaks would be, shall we say, authentic.

That for me is very confusing...

...and do you have a type 2 to compare the concavity and measurements?
Would be interesting.
Pieter.

[Brian S]

I'm not sure that's a question that flows with a Type I discussion. Are we talking about Craig's Oaks or not? I am still very confused why you refer to his oaks as a Type II? If you are referring to them as a Type II then no, I have nothing to compare. I have not been willing to pony up for oaks which I am very suspect of given the above quote.

I have held Godet Type II oaks next to mine and the difference in curvature is apparent. Especially if you observe the retaining apparatus just as it is attached to the back of the oak you can see it clearly that it is more curved than a Type II. I'm not talking much, but it is visually apparent.

If you are convinced Craig's Oaks are a Type II, I am unable to continue a meaningful conversation. I just wouldn't have a clue how to continue?

This is the type of curvature I'd expect from a Type I oaks. Specifically this is the Paepcke oaks shown near the beginning of this thread. I wish I could offer the members better photos but this is about all I can do with my camera.

Craig, I know you're not on this forum much but a side view would really be beneficial. A few shots from various angles showing the contour of the back would be great.

[ChrisJ]

Chris, appreciate the bait but I'm trying to work something out with Pieter. As much as I would love to spend my entire day analyzing oaks, I have another life. I'll look at it tomorrow or the next.

For the moment let me quote a man I have the profoundest respect for, "It should also be noted that the Godet dies did survive the war and were used in the early 1970's to restrike Oakleaves and Oakleaves with Swords to go with the 1957 de-nazified Knight's Cross as well as for sale to collectors. Made from the original dies and carrying the correct "900" silver and maker marks, these sold at $20 for the Oakleaves and $40 for the Oakleaves with Swords and are all but indistinguishable from the orginal issues. This perhaps goes some way to explaining why such a rare award turns up for sale so frequently."

I'll let you guess the author. As to your question, the answer is simple. If the Oaks come from the original dies I would be unable to distinguish between strike or restrike.

Answered without looking.


Thank you.

Roger that....let me know when you are ready to comment...

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Craig, I know you're not on this forum much but a side view would really be beneficial. A few shots from various angles showing the contour of the back would be great.

Craig is on vacation.

[Theodor]

I regret to inform you, that all oak leaves posted here are fakes.


My neighbour has an oak tree and not a single leaf on it is silver!

So, all these are fake.

BTW I won't be telling my neighbour what the oak leaves go for... Not before I manage to break at least a few big, full of leaves branches from the tree...

/this thread just needed to be made a little more constructive /

[mott5ranch]

In nine weeks I will be on vacation as well! That idea really curves my oak leaves! Oh yeah.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I regret to inform you, that all oak leaves posted here are fakes.


My neighbour has an oak tree and not a single leaf on it is silver!

So, all these are fake.

BTW I won't be telling my neighbour what the oak leaves go for... Not before I manage to break at least a few big, full of leaves branches from the tree...

/this thread just needed to be made a little more constructive /

...are you sure it's a Godet tree...

Pieter.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I'm not sure that's a question that flows with a Type I discussion. Are we talking about Craig's Oaks or not? I am still very confused why you refer to his oaks as a Type II? If you are referring to them as a Type II then no, I have nothing to compare. I have not been willing to pony up for oaks which I am very suspect of given the above quote.

I have held Godet Type II oaks next to mine and the difference in curvature is apparent. Especially if you observe the retaining apparatus just as it is attached to the back of the oak you can see it clearly that it is more curved than a Type II. I'm not talking much, but it is visually apparent.

If you are convinced Craig's Oaks are a Type II, I am unable to continue a meaningful conversation. I just wouldn't have a clue how to continue?

This is the type of curvature I'd expect from a Type I oaks. Specifically this is the Paepcke oaks shown near the beginning of this thread. I wish I could offer the members better photos but this is about all I can do with my camera.

Craig, I know you're not on this forum much but a side view would really be beneficial. A few shots from various angles showing the contour of the back would be great.

Brian, I think you should read my post a little more better.

I never stated Graig's oaks are type II, or giving the impression I believe it's a Type II. GRAIGS OAKS ARE TYPE I.
I only suggested you to read the discribings of Gordon on the differences he makes between a Type I and Type II.
Then try for you selve to compare as much Type I and II oaks, make your notes and compare them with Gordons points...and see what you will find out.
Nothing more, nothing less was posted by me.
Regards Pieter.

[Brian S]

Conclusion

All is yellow to the jaundiced eye, Brian.

I saw a problem with this one. But I didn't jump on it. I wanted to open it up to discussion. That 'flat back' on the oak had me concerned.

....Graig, from what I can see from the pics, your piece is as good as it can be.
I can even explain why it has that color...but that's my one.

Let's start on the diamonds...were we can start counting stones....

I think this set of oaks is a fake. The front was so good I wondered if they came from the obverse original die. The back looked flat and didn't conform. But I can't weigh it, measure it, so it may just be a cast.

[QUOTE Andy Hopkins]Craig, I would have no hestitation buying your set as original based on the pics...I think it is a shame to taint it as questionable.[/QUOTE]I didn't taint it, I am questioning and looking for proof myself about the Godet Klietmann legacy. Klietmann tainted Godet items, I didn't. Opening up discussion about this legacy may bring out some eye witnesses.

Yes...you caught me. I am secretly on Craig's payroll. Look, anyone who is familiar w/ online dealers would recognize those pics immediately, so it was really no mystery. I care not one bit WHO is selling something...my comments were directed at the piece in question, nothing more. Apparently this thread is actually some kind of sour grapes about a questionable dagger of yours?

Your last words were a cut to my motive. If the analogy wasn't clear that's my fault but questioning my motives to make the thread appear a personal vendetta is not what I expect from a moderator.

The oaks had the blessings of TRM "Big Guns". God bless Jason, Steve and the rest of them but I'll take Military Collectibles Authorities like Frank, Daniel, George, Gordon, Lorenzo and Rick L's careful analysis anytime over a quick blessing or put down. A quick blessing is not sufficient in today's world of casts and laser cut dies.

I was concerned this thread was going to end up like the S&L RK (Craig's) Thread. Photo requests of the S&L RK were ignored, the thread died. This isn't a "get Craig" issue, it's a "let's examine this high-end item" issue. Let's learn more. We were talking S&L die flaws and we wanted to examine this one.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
My conclusions (in lieu of better photos);

1) This is a near exact copy of a Type I obverse Godet Oaks. Could be a cast, could be from a die.

2) The reverse is very flat. It should show curvature per the Paepcke oaks but apparently does not. A Type I curvature should show more than a Type II. This shows almost nothing. At best it copies the slight curvature of a Type II.

3) These oaks are a fake.