RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[Brian S]

Also, Brian - just so you know, I don't monitor these threads to the degree one might expect or hope me to, and I often don't reply to various portions, not out of any lack of will or because of some hidden agenda, but simply for lack of time.

Hey I was the one who discounted the conspiracy theory. Glad to hear you have a life. The forum keeps me away from my studying, good thing.

[Brian S]

Yes, I'd agree with the e-stand piece and yours, but they are much easier to compare...however, Craig's has a different texture of finish, which must be taken into account. For me, from what I can see they look OK, and have features that I'd look for in an original...but (and this is not a "cop out"), I'd have to have them in my own hands to really be 100% sure one way or the other.


Frustrating isnt it!

Yes, frustrating and a lot of work. But Craig's paying me by the hour so it's OK. Thanks Craig. Who's the BIG loser if these are sold and come back in 10 years when Craig's putting a daughter through college.

I know what you mean about finish, but the finish is applied over the pebbles and won't change those distinguishing features.

[ChrisJ]

I know what you mean about finish, but the finish is applied over the pebbles and won't change those distinguishing features.

Agreed... but the finish does obscure the features of the pebbles to a degree, and particularly so when you cant move them around in your own hands to catch the light correctly. But I can see many similarlities between the sets, and I dont see any telltale blemishes or inconsistencies that would make me uncomfortable at this stage.

Where are we going on this, Brian ?...we have some great pictures here (Thanks Mag!), The piece looks to me like a first type (we will call them that) with a 900/21 strike...the dimensional data is consistent with this.

But doesnt the fact that the other 900/21 from mag (the type 2) have just about the same overall dimensions interest you?...My guess is that it shows a nice curve to the "backside" the same as your set

[Brian S]

Last compare, even in Seattle it's getting late...

[ChrisJ]

Sorry Brian, but I am stil not seeing anything that makes me change my mind. Under the gunge the similarlities can be distinguished, and I not uncomfortable with them.

But lets move on from the issue of these particular Oaks.... and I think that you have to admit that you presented them with the intention of supporting your "restrike" theory whereby a minty set were presented for us "no believers" to prove that they were pre 1945. Backfired totally as they were in fact type 1, and not type 2

Moving on, there are some hints from Pieter....that should be followed up. We know that the "books" do not present all the facts ....for example, its stated that the type 2 were probably introduced because of a Swords attachment difficulty etc.. however, on balance I feel its likely that 2nd type were concurrent with the 1st type prior to July 1942, and the second type do also appear with a convex reverse which to me compares to those of the usual type 1...

It might interest you to know that the first set of Oaks I actually purchased were a 1st type feature Godet only marked "900" which were very heavily convex, much more so than your set...(purchased these from Gordon, actually).

We also know from Pieter's comments that both type 1 and 2 appear with an almost flat back (which I personally dont like)...and we can see that size wise there isn't much to compare between those that have been posted as examples of what we are calling a type 1 and type 2....(But notice that the flat backed type 1 alluded to by Pieter is noticably smaller).

Come on Brian...there is a link to all this...

[Brian S]

....you have to admit that you presented them with the intention of supporting your "restrike" theory whereby a minty set were presented for us "no believers" to prove that they were pre 1945. Backfired totally as they were in fact type 1, and not type 2

...some hints from Pieter....

We also know from Pieter...

A little out of context Chris. I presented the oaks with no agenda. Read my posts.

I never called them Type II, I pointed out they were Type I. Read my posts, look at my comparison. From the original photo at the top of this thread the obverse looked very good to me.

He (Steven Wolfe) also mentioned that he had never seen an L50 type example with 900/21 markings...

How many oaks you think Wolfe's seen? Even my muppet education was enough for me to think this was an unusual combination BEFORE I heard Steve's words and needed to at least be discussed for everyone to learn. In spite of Gordon's book I knew this combination not mainstream in fact in Steve's own words rare beyond even my thoughts.

If you do not think the pebble pattern and some other shapes do not need to align and match, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect you for having one and posting it but I do not agree. If you and Pieter think the back of these oaks can be a little this or that and OK, great. In my mind a die shape is unalterable. It does not deviate.

I not uncomfortable with them

Great, I believe they are still for sale.

I'm here to learn. Oaks are no more difficult than a Silver IAB. Anyone ought to be able to distinguish good from bad with a little information.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Brian: In my view, shape is definitely consistent with respect to a die-struck product, which these ("mine") are. However, there will always be minute finishing differences. They can be attributed to a variety of things, such as planchette thickness. We see this on Gestapo Disks - sometimes, an ever-so-slightly thicker planchet will result in added detail, but not added shape, to a particular feature of the bird.

[Dave Kane]

I'm not about to count pebbles..but these are the areas that to me are very different in shape!


Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

I guess I'm the pebble counter then. I tried as close as possible to size the both pictures to the same size, added contrast and one pass of High Pass Filter to pronaunce the pebbles, i.e. high lights. Granted, both pictures are not really high resolution and dont have the same lighning and so on.


I have no knowledge about pebble consistency and how close the comparison between two pieces must be. Same die, same imprint, I guess, is the rule. Imprint can be deeper or less deeper (die wear, pesssure, ..) but the pattern should be the same, as it is with coins or such??!! Pebbles might be less strong with one piece but the pattern and arrangement should be the same, I think?? If I'm wrong, I'm here to learn and will thankfully take the advise of the experts.

I found strange differences, but also some similarities. Some pebble patterns are completely missing or look completely different, some seem to be the same.
The best indication for me are the lines which can even bee seen in the L/50 pictured in Gordons book, going from 10 o'clock right to about 4 o'clock.
The same lines can be seen on the L/50 oaks Rich posted.

I leave the explanation to others, I'm just doing a visual comparison without any judgement.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here is the scan from Gordons book. I think one can see the 'lines'.

[Dave Kane]

Come on guys!!! Just when it was getting good all goes SILENT, why?

Dave

[ChrisJ]

Hi Dietrich... nice work.
Everyone...please remember that we are looking at minute features here....it just looks big on the images, but dont get drawn into thinking that these like the # on the Junckers RK frame.
My own L/50 set, have an almost intact frosting, which does tend to hide these miniscule features in the pebbling.....and also remember that the very nature of the die stamping used will give slightly diferent results dependent on temperature and material.
Anyway, I am not going to give anymore opinion on this piece, as they look OK to me, but (as I have mentioned) you need to have them "in hand" to give a final verdict.
Just for interest, on my Oaks some of the features we can see on the pictures are very faint, but there....others that are weak on the images are much stronger on mine...for example... the wavy lines on the bottom left are bearly visable....not at all clear on a digital image, and can only really be seen with a low powered microscope where you can adjust the light.

But its a shame that this thread is drifting off in a debate about this peice, and missing the really interesting subject about what we know (or dont know)about the Godet dies.....

Little teaser for you, fellas....how can it be that the reverse of the Oaks can be either flat or convex (both types) when the obverse show unchanged features ??

[ChrisJ]

(Quote)
A little out of context Chris. I presented the oaks with no agenda. Read my posts
(Unquote)

If I have been unfair Brian, then I am truely sorry...but this quote from you seems to be is out of context ???

(quote)
...and the issue now for a potential buyer and the owner, is an unfounded rumour ruining the possibilities of this piece in the minds of collectors? Did Klietmann restrike these or a later owner of the dies restrike?
(unquote)



..and so to bed, perchance to dream....and there's the rub (it wont be of Oaks I hope). g'nite all from Asia

[Brian S]

No longer for sale? Did this quietly get a from someone? I mean someone other than me, Dave, George and Dietrich. Rich, not that your opinion is going to change mine, but I'd like to know your thoughts.

I think the members need to know what's right so they can make an informed decision on one of these if they ever see one. I'd hate to think a member ponies up 7 or 8 grand for a 'deal' at a show and finds out it's a 'maybe' with no possiblity of a refund.

Enquiring minds want to know.

[magprint]

Opinion

Brian,

As I have previously stated when I "stuck my nose" in this thread I will offer no opinion - good, bad, or indifferent - on this set of Oaks. I was, and will continue to act as, the photographer.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - that is the beauty of being an American. Were all lucky that Seba provides this outlet for us to express our personal opinions.

I am sure we both have things in our repective collections that others label as not correct - even though we know that they are 100% and that is why we bought them. In the end that should be the only one we all should keep happy - ourselves.

Regards,
Rich