RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm still obsessed with the idea of the "fingerprint". If it can be prooven that two oaks from the same die exhibit the same characteristics, i.e. fingerprints, a third example can be checked against those unmistaken features.


I compared Rich's L/50 with Brians. The image is inversed for better clarity. I can absolutely see in the shown area distinctive features that are the same in both oaks. Actually, this should be the case when they are produced from the same die. However, I agree that the one or the other feature might not be present because of wear/handling/ polishing or what have you. But some always should be there to compare. The task here is to find maybe ten identifiable features that are present on both oaks. Then look for those features on other oaks in question. If none are there I think one can be pretty sure that those are not from the same die. At least IMHO. This has nothing to do with collecting experience, this is just comparison based on mechanical features and statistics. Here are three very easy features, but clearly the same:

[ChrisJ]

I'm still obsessed with the idea of the "fingerprint". If it can be prooven that two oaks from the same die exhibit the same characteristics, i.e. fingerprints, a third example can be checked against those unmistaken features.

I compared Rich's L/50 with Brians. The image is inversed for better clarity. I can absolutely see in the shown area distinctive features that are the same in both oaks. Actually, this should be the case when they are produced from the same die. However, I agree that the one or the other feature might not be present because of wear/handling/ polishing or what have you. But some always should be there to compare. The task here is to find maybe ten identifiable features that are present on both oaks. Then look for those features on other oaks in question. If none are there I think one can be pretty sure that those are not from the same die. At least IMHO. This has nothing to do with collecting experience, this is just comparison based on mechanical features and statistics. Here are three very easy features, but clearly the same:

Great work Dietrich.....you are a real asset !
(nice to know that my own "feel" is vindicated, too).

Even you, Brian, have to admit that the evidence has been provided that these pieces are OK beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dave....lets not go into a panic about master fakers.....you must put this all into context & proportion. Whyever should a "master faker" waste their time with 15,000 dollar items...(chicken feed).
Look...lets take the facts....everyone looks at the RK closely, and have we seen any wonder fakes ?...nope, they cant get that one right yet.
As I have mentioned several time in the past, these (the Oaks) are NOT simple pieces. They may appear so, but take a look at the work by Dietrich which shows just how many features their are to get right.

Personally, I'd like some discussion about the main issues (IMHO), for instance, why people believe that the Kamnade oaks is OK when it is so much smaller than (say) yours, Brian, and has a flat(ish) reverse ?...any takers ?

[Dave Kane]

Chris, I'll take it....the master faker!!! Kidding ofcourse However, as I attempted to show with my last pic it wouldn't take too much to get the set in to the 'area'!


And, that's why it's so important to take these things apart right here and not hold back any tidbits of information....afterall you said it yourself that they are not simple pieces.

Dave

[Brian S]

Chris you do realize that the work Dietrich did was to compare the oaks that sold on the estand to the Paepcke oaks. He proved as I attempted to that no two oaks are different. This comparison to Craig's oaks is impossible because they do not match. You maintained that Criag's oaks are fine, they are not.

Two out of three a perfect match.

Now if only someone had another oaks with provenance to complete the proof...

[Gordon Williamson]

I'm very late into this thread because I've been out of the loop for a week or two as I waited for my telephone exchange to switch on to Broadband at long last. At least I don't have the frustration of waiting ages for each image to load now !

I don't know how many have noticed that in "The Iron Time", Page 320 which is to show the difference between an L/50 and a 21 actually shows two identical First Types (compare the bottom First Type "21" with the Second Type "21" on Page 317, particularly the curve to the rib of the right hand leaf.

The Kemnade Oakleaves at 19.5mm wide as opposed to the typical 21.5mm, a variance of 10% ? Even the shrinkage in fake castings usually only produces a variance of about 5%. Extremely poor in detail and grossly undersized.
I don't know how anyone is going to explain away that sort of "anomaly".

[Brian S]

Are you suggesting that there are three Godet wartime oaks? Forget the numbering, just the obverse characteristics, three types? Because the Kemnade oaks are attributed to him and given by Hitler we are to believe by this single example that they represent yet a fourth type? What now?

[ChrisJ]

Chris you do realize that the work Dietrich did was to compare the oaks that sold on the estand to the Paepcke oaks.
Now if only someone had another oaks with provenance to complete the proof...

Oppps...you are right Brian...sorry.
I await Dietrich's analysis of Craigs.

"You maintained that Criag's oaks are fine, they are not."

Maybe I missed somehting...[please explain.)

[Gordon Williamson]

Are you suggesting that there are three Godet wartime oaks? Forget the numbering, just the obverse characteristics, three types? Because the Kemnade oaks are attributed to him and given by Hitler we are to believe by this single example that they represent yet a fourth type? What now?

Where did I mention anything about three types ??? I agree, the numbering (I presume you mean the maker marks) are completely irrelevant. Its well established that both First and Second Type can come with L/50 or 21 marks.
As for the Kemnade Oaks, I don't like them at all - not one little bit.

[Brian S]

Thank you Gordon. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page and we are.

Chris, then why have you been fighting with me this entire thread? "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye." etc. etc.

So after 5,400+++ reads to this thread, what exactly is your position on the Craig Gottlieb oaks?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I decided on different and rather more accurate approach:
- I created a grid with nearly transparent and equidistant lines
- I adjusted both L/50's to the same size and orientation
- the grid is put above both pictures and alignment can be checked
- now every spot can be (nearly) accurately checked and marked equally on both pictures. This eliminates mistakes in orientation, size and relative position.


I found (so far) 8 identical features that are of the same size and at the same spot, as can be verified by the grid system. Unfortunately, Rich's L/50 are not that sharp but even then ist is clear - at least to me- that it is possible to find identical die features and therefore verify one 'unknown' oak against a 'known' one.

I would like to test this method with a third set, find the same spots as a verification of this method (hopefully) and then throw the grid over the "oaks in question"...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Unfortunately the picture size restriction doesn't allow for a high resolution, but her is a better picture that shows the procedure a little more clearer.

[Brian S]

I know there isn't anyone out there who wants this thread to end

So, for all you nite owls, I have a surprise. Another set of oaks attributed to a Luft. Ace owned by one of our illustrious members has surfaced.

Photos are on their way to Dietrich. What will he find? Will it be a match to the estand and Paepcke oaks?

A match to the Craig Gottlieb oaks?

Stay tuned. The four oaks will be in the boardroom for a final decision. One of the four oaks, at least one oaks, will be fired! Which one(s) will it(they) be?



The e-stand oaks?

The Paepcke oaks?

The Gottlieb oaks?

The Mystery Luft. Ace oaks?

[Brian S]

Here is a side by side of the Paepcke and MEMBER oaks.

[Alexander Zöller]

If you'll allow me to drop in on this... IMHO they're a perfect match. Even at this resolution the same pebbling characteristics are visible (although it does require some staring).

[Brian S]

Thanks Alexander, that's really the whole point now, anyone can clearly see two oaks are either different or the same. It does take a bit of staring though doesn't it? I have no doubt we can de-mystify the Type I oaks.

Thanks again Alexander!