RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[Dietrich Maerz]

My silence

Thanks George, since I was just in the process of answering the same. I do not know enough about this subject to make a statement either way. All I could do (right or wrong) in this case was to present my unbiased observation were I see differences and similarities. As I pointed out, I'm absolutely not qualified in this case to make a judgement about those differences which can clearly be seen. I left this to others with far more knowledge and experience with oaks to explain. Are those acceptable and normal for oaks? I wouldn't know!

I also found this thread very interesting and I guess a lot was been learned.

Dietrich

[rkdek]

Dear Brian,

These forums are like a dagger with two cutting edges:

1. They are a valueable tool for all collectors left with question marks regarding authenticity of a certain piece. In most cases, with the more common pieces, they will get an answer right away from many fellow forum members. When it comes to the more elusive and rare items, they will mostly get an answer too from the so-called "high end" or "big gun" collectors but they are fewer in number due to the rarity of the item discussed.

2. The forums are also a valueable tool for the fakers, they monitor these discussions in order to know how to get it right the next time they are at it. This is the major reason why advanced collectors like Pieter, Rich and others will stay economical with the truth. They lift a tip of the vail but don't just take it off, and with good reason. You must get into their reasoning to understand why: what are the odds of the average collector to ever own an Oak or even an Oak with Swords? What are the odds of ever finding such pieces in a jumble sale or even from the original owner? When a collector comes to the point where he can afford such items, he will most likely have to turn to the "big gun" dealers to get it because only they have these readily available and they stand behind what they sell.

Brian, you may try to get more info out of the mentioned "big guns" but they will only reveal what they feel is necessary for you -or us- to know.
It is my feeling that for the high end collectibles a nodd from these gentlemen should be enough.

I mentioned a few names, but rest assured that there are other "big guns" watching every post in threads such as this one. The never speak up but watch it all happen.

[Brian S]

Dear Brian,

What are the odds of ever finding such pieces in a jumble sale or even from the original owner?

I think after this proof, the photos side by side, the chances of finding one like the one I am convinced is a fake, you have a much greater chance of finding one in a jumble sale.

In most cases, with the more common pieces, they will get an answer right away from many fellow forum members.

On a more serious note, I had hoped to take some of the mystique out of these "high end items". After all, how many times have we compared PABs, IABs, etc., and discovered a fake by a lack of a detail or shape. This is no different. In fact, it couldn't be more easy. A cast fake would have been so much more difficult because most if not all of the pebbles and features would have been evidently visible. But with this one, clearly not present, clearly a fake. Mystery? I think not. I think anyone who can compare two photos is competant to make a comparison. Does it take owning an oaks to make an opinion. I sincerely hope not. Because if the average reader has a take away that a "nod" is the final word on these, we are all in trouble as these will not find their way to the jumble sales where they belong.

I have the Paepcke oaks and that makes me no more competant than any of you to see the differences between the original oaks in this thread and see the glaring deficiencies. I thought I made it abundantly clear that out of three oaks, two clearly match and one does not. You all have awards or you wouldn't be here, does the frosting on your awards cover the object like a field of snow covering the details? Is the inside detail where the pebble field lies finished between the three oaks? No.

Why does Detlev show his copy of the week and compare it to an original? Because he knows you can clearly see the comparison. Whether it's a $100 EKII or a PAB you have no problem with large photos identifying real/copy. Don't be fooled by a price tag.

Think about it, two perfect match, one odd oak out? You take excuses on your IAB's, PAB's, CCC's, EK's? But on this the price allows discrepencies in intricate format so clearly visible on two out of three?

Anyone ever compare these? From Detlev's site the real oaks are the Paepcke Oaks. Ignore the numbers on the back. A copy usually comes in many flavors.

[Brian S]

Closeup of copy. I do NOT think this copy is the same as Craig's. Merely illustrates comparison of oaks to isolate differences.

[Macmedal]

I thought the whole point of this forum was for collectors to discuss and debate awards and decorations?

Are we saying that just because an item is in the upper price bracket and is financially out of reach to most of us, we should not discuss it?

Are we saying that it should only be the right of the few who own such items, to keep to themselves the knowledge needed to identify good from bad.

I doubt very much if I personally will ever own such an item, and that is not just from a financial viewpoint. But does that mean to say I should never be allowed to educate myself from what is good or bad. I am here to learn, and I have a thirst for knowledge. I am also willing to help others by sharing my limited knowledge when I can. Sure we all have differences of opinion and we may all butt heads along the way, but that’s the way of the world, and wouldn’t be a duller place if we all agreed with one another all the time.

I have never felt that Brian S has been out to blacken anyone’s name or point fingers. He has been very diplomatic and his opinion has obviously been formed or perhaps his original doubts strengthened over the course of this thread. There has been a lot of paranoia and very defensive behaviour demonstrated over the pages of this thread, but all over what I am not sure. We all make mistakes even the “Big Guns”. Craig’s reputation as far as I can see has not been put into question, and I don’t see this as being an exercise in proving anyone right or wrong.

I personally can’t add any more to what has been said as like the majority I simply do not have the knowledge to contribute any more than has been said already. I am personally starting to have my doubts about these oaks but I could easily be persuaded otherwise. But there are others out there amongst us, the so called “big guns”, who for reasons best known to themselves are keeping out of this debate. Please don’t let it be an ego thing, that’s all I ask.

It has been mentioned about fakers and individuals not willing to give too much away on high end items. This theory really does not hold up to much scrutiny. We all quite happily talk about lower end items to the degree that there is thousands of pages of minute detail describing PABs IAB,s EK2’s EK1’s etc , but OAKS ohhh no far too dangerous ground !!!!!! WHY?????

Think of the economics people. What brings in the most cash flow ?? A high end rare piece that brings in a cool $15000 ? Or a good copy of a PAB that brings in $150 ? Well think of it this way, how many fakes of a rare high end oakleaf can be safely push out on the market before a rat has been smelt, one or two a year ?? Compare this to how many PAB’s can flood the market before alarm bells start ringing, a few hundred maybe a thousand ? What’s more lucrative ??

So what more can be said, are we to all shut up shop ? Shall we keep what we know to ourselves and watch the forum and collecting die a slow painful death.

[George Stimson]

I say, "Those in the know, discuss away!"

[Billy]

I think the odds of finding a rare set of oaks like Craig's is very good look at this site... it sold a set like Craig's for $15,000.

http://www.warelics.com/Sold.htm

[Brian S]

I now know I am in trouble for posting this, but here is his photo of those oaks.

[George Stimson]

Nobody here is "in trouble" with me -- for anything.

[Brian S]

Here's a little feature of Craig's that I've been looking for, a little tit that I circled. Couldn't find it on any of the others. Don't see how finishing could cause this to disappear on some examples.

[Dave Kane]

Brian!!!! Please....this is a public forum! You can't use TIT use BREAST


Dave

[George Stimson]

The areas I've circled in yellow look different to me on these two Oaks.

[Brian S]

I can't say you're right or wrong here George. The photo on warrelics was very small. I went for the single feature and overall look. Now I'll defer to the previous comments about finishing and light causing those apparent differences between these two.

[Dave Kane]

This one is obvious but take it to a jeweler and send along some very precise pictures so he/she can get the contours right, take down the excess between the leaves etc. and for a couple of hundred dollars it would fool.....


Now, take a potential $15,000.00 item to a MASTER craftsman for refinement and finishing....and it's not hard to imagine the outcome!!!


Dave

[Dave Kane]

1