RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[tom hansen]

I have stated that I will never have the knowledge to participate in this debate. However Brian, I think it takes some moxy to state your position in the presence of some noted authorities. It is only through questioning that knowledge advances and sometimes those questions are uncomfortable. I learned quite a bit from this thread. Thanks

[ChrisJ]

----------------------------------------------


OK Brian.... you cant get away that easily.... I am still awating you comments on the pictures I posted .....

Oh well, I guess that you wont respond... so let me give you the gen.

Try to go back 30 years... no digital cameras, no forum...even no internet....and what did the collector have to go on. "Very Little," is the answer to that one.

As I have mentioned earlier, at that time, those of us who were in the hobby were hard put to diferentiate between RK's let alone the Oaks..... many of the easily distinguishable fakes that we see today were considered 100% OK at that time.

The pictures that I have posted are of a fake.....but 30 years ago these would have past muster. This particular set came to the surface this year, when a member posted them to me for an opinion.....but these pieces, and their dies have been around a long long time.....

The pictures arent that good, but I think that you will see that they are very convincing even with the benefit of digital technology...but with no more than a 10 loop and no reference book you can well see how these fooled collectors in the 70's..... they are still catching people out even now. In my opinion, this is where roumours of restrikes come from.... given a capfull of these, who wouldnt draw the same conclusion. But carefull study shows that these are actually caste, and very slightly on the small side.

Ref the convex shape of the different type of original Oaks... I have a examples of both types that have a very simlar degree of covex shape. This is the reason that I started my thread a little while ago, when I questioned the theory that the type 2 was introduced to allow fixture of the swords.

[Brian S]

Chris, it was easy to see it was a cast copy. I didn't want to digress away until a conclusion was reached on the other oaks. I have Gordon's first book for reference. At that time, and that was 1984, we had drawings of oaks and swords to help us along. Seeing fakes then I knew it was impossible for me to acquire a set of anything high end without the 'real deal' in hand. Without a real oaks in hand how would you know by looking at an item then that it was a cast copy? You wouldn't.

The Internet and this Forum have combined the best of all possible forms of communication to ensure we "won't be fooled again".

I think a lot of the guys who have been around for a long time have not apparently kept up with the intricacies of analyzing items. The fakers wares have gone beyond anyone's ability to make a two second blessing.

Given the hands that have held these, I didn't really give them an in-depth study.

And that's really the whole nine yards of it.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I Quote Brian:
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.[/QUOTE]
Brian,
I asked you to gain some personal research info on the style of the two types of oaks, but I see you can only repeat what you heve read in books or have heard on the Muppet News.

Every hint I gave you to help you to have a better sight in your dark world, you ingnore and never answered it to the point, but oké to me.

I think this will be my last post on this thread, but I feel free to give my final points on your views. I put them in corresponding color to make it not too difficult for you to understand to what I refer. I don't want you to have to apologize each time for misreading my comments.

No proof, only personal guessing, wonder how many oaks you have handeled.

This statement only indicates you do not have a lot of experience with this type of collectibels.

A risky statement, I wonder who takes it serious.

Best regards Pieter.

[Brian S]

A condescending reply that attacks me and does not explain your position on these oaks. That you say you are smarter than I am, I have no doubt.

This is not about 1) Obverse die characteristics based on photo we have or 2) Maker mark 900 and 21. This is about the lack of concavity on the reverse. I wish I had these oaks in hand so I could get a weight on them down to the hundreth of a gram. 900 silver content is 900 silver content and weight would not vary significantly from Godet Type I oak to oak.

I have read nothing that describes this item in question to make me believe it is genuine from you. You called it genuine but I see no proof. I ask you questions about the oaks that conflict with the reality that I know from Type I oaks, but you have not refuted the facts, you have rebuked me.

No proof, only personal guessing, wonder how many oaks you have handeled.

To answer your question very directly, I believe based on what I've read that I've handled one more genuine Type I oak than you have.

I would rather handle only one example that is true than 20 of a mixture including false.

But that's just the Muppet in me speaking.

[Sonderkommando]

Brian,

Great thread and hang in there!
It's hard for everyone when people with knowledge refuse to share it and speak in nothing but riddles and cloaked answers.

Regards,
Brett

[Brian S]

Thanks Tom, Gary and Brett.

[ChrisJ]

[QUOTE=Brian S]Chris, it was easy to see it was a cast copy. I didn't want to digress away until a conclusion was reached on the other oaks.

NO BRIAN...THESE WOULD HAVE FOOLED YOU...EASY TO SAY THAT YOU COULD SEE THAT THEY WERE FAKE AFTER I TOLD YOU..SORRY, BUT YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE

THATS IT FROM ME...NITE ALL

[Brian S]

Even to a Muppet Boy like me this Oaks has characteristics of the Verdun Battlefield revealing it as a cast copy.

[ChrisJ]

Even to a Muppet Boy like me this Oaks has characteristics of the Verdun Battlefield revealing it as a cast copy.

HA...yes indeed !....but (and this was my point). I viewed one of these in Spinks in London (now linked with Christies as you probably know) in the early 1980's cataloged as original, and with a letter and seal of authenticity from a (then) well known authority which was, I am sure, provided in good faith.
Makes yer think doesnt it.
The super fakes of yesterday would not so easily pass muster today, even though they are still to this day (it has to be said) catching out the unwary. So go back another 15 to 20 years from that time, and how much credance can we give to what we have been told and what is repeated ?

Look at the errors (as we now understand them to be) in the early reference books...

No hard facts here, you will rightly say, but another point to throw into the hat.

Well, think that readers will be getting tired of this subject so I'll shut up, and thanks for an interesting thread.

[Brian S]

Well you and I are quickly heading towards the center line of this discussion at a point where we are probably going to meet and agree.

5 years ago, we relied on experts like Manions to tell us what was right. And sometimes they did get it right. You can't say every RK they sold in the 90's is bad. When I DID buy one from Ron, however, I sent photos to Gordon to confirm it was an S&L, and it was. It went unsold in one of their sales and I picked it up at a discount.

Thanks Chris.

[magprint]

Oaks

I have this set of Oaks in my possession now. Craig sent them through Steve Wolfe to me for another opinion - not on if they are re-strikes but how they match up to sets I own. With their permission . . .

Tomorrow I will take side by side photos with a set of L/50's and 900/21 so we can all compare.

For now the Oakleaves weights and measurements - Weights in grams and sizes in mm:

900/21 Set - vet acquired - Schloss Klessheim

Weight - 6.6
Height - 19.18
Width - 20.02

L/50 Awarded set

Weight - 6.5
Height - 19.25
Width - 20.11

Craig's 900/21 Marked set

Weight - 6.3
Height - 19.22
Width - 20.05

Regards,
Rich Moran

[Brian S]

Craig's 900/21 Marked set
Weight - 6.3
Height - 19.22
Width - 20.05

Regards,
Rich Moran

Rich that's great.

Paepcke Type I Oaks are;

Weight: 6.76 +7%
Height: 19.27 nearly identical
Width: 20.14 nearly identical

[ChrisJ]

Now we are really getting down to it.

So...type 2 are supposed to be smaller, are they ?

(not much in it is there)

[ChrisJ]

My original 900/21 second type is as follows:

Width 20.05mm
Height 19.15mm
Weight 6.81g

Back is convex to same degree as my L/50

(Small weight differences will be due to slightly longer/shorter loops or solder quantities)