RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[ChrisJ]

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?

Brian....I have not been fighting you...but rather questioned your original motives which I suspected were aimed at supporting the restrike theory. The thread has moved tangently away from that issue.

I've enjoyed the banter, as I know that you have

But I cannot see that there can be any confusion about my position on Crqig's Oaks....it remains unchanged.

From what I can see they look OK...and I await with interest the results of Dietrich's excellent work on comparing these Oaks with the data from the others. But quite honsetly, I dont think that the originality of this particular set (which I think are OK, withouot handling them) is the most important issue.

All very interesting, but I would also like you to ponder some what I believe to be very important questions as to why we can see both types of Oaks with flat reverses...we are minutely checking pebble features, and yet this significant reverse characteristic is being (apparenlty) ignored.

Gordon...I agtree 100% with you over the Kamnade Oaks...I have always believed them to be very suspect indeed.

I have my own theory about flat backed Oaks (of both types), and I would be very interested to learn if you have any particular views, Gordon.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm eagerly awaiting the pictures from Brian to compare the third set and thereby confirming my theory.

Dietrich

P.S.: Thanks a lot Chris!

[Brian S]

The originality of these oaks is now the whole entire point. People who have handled them have called them OK, people who have seen detailed photos have called them OK. Rather a large point I believe. From a distance I thought them either OK or a restrike. So yes, the discussion moved when I saw the closeups. Moved to the point that I knew beyond a doubt these were fake and then couldn't believe so many people with 'reputations' held onto the illusion they were OK. And I've said nothing to suggest there is any motive/hidden agenda/fraud/evil intent. I don't think there is any evil behind it. So much more the problem for collectors relying on casual thumbs up/down.

So yes, originality of these oaks is terribly important to a collecting community that is caught on a balance beam of trust and doing their own homework. I am trying to prove, albeit a bit desperately at times, that any collector can make a 95% educated opinion about Type I oaks from photos. The other 5% I just can't get into a photo, the backside curve. So a cast copy with today's techniques of casting could show every pebble on the obverse and not provide an adequate back. For that other 5%, some experience is essential. Some expertise is essential. But, where you going to get it?

The only persons with expertise on oaks that have made a consistent opinion on Type I's are both Detlev and Gordon.

But I'm absolutely convinced you cannot make a cavalier statement after a 10 second look at a set of oaks and declare them real/fake. Surely in this case the obverse of the Gottlieb oaks was so completely off the mark that a detailed analysis of the obverse would show that they are fakes to anyone who took the time.

Chris you think a set of oaks can be real Type I's and not have almost perfect characteristics. These come off a die and there can be no 'new' pebbles, no 'new' patterns. We now have THREE dies that match perfectly. And a fourth that does not. The only possible conclusion is that the Gottlieb oaks are a fake.

Reverse characteristics being ignored? Chris we can't get agreement on the obverse. And once the obverse characteristics of the Gottlieb oaks is finally clear to everyone that they are fake, why make an analysis on the back? The other three are all the same. Slightly curved. The original Type I's do NOT differ from oak to oak.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Okay,

here is the comparison in detail between the "members' oaks and Brians set. The theory is confirmed! Not all points are the same (or identifiable as 'same') but more then enough for me at least to make up my mind: Oaks from the same die can be positively identified with pebble comparison.
The picture here is not doing the process justice since a lot of info goes missing when posting under the forum restrictions.
On my screen it's clear as it can be! As Alexander already pointed out, ther are common features even visible with the "naked" eye on the scree.

This system works, no doubt!

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

As usual


DM can you do the same with pics 154 and 159?

Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here is the final comparison between Brians L/50 Paepke Oaks and the one's in question. I have marked the spots on Brians with green, i.e. the spots that did check out with the other two L/50.

Then I did mark the same spots - as identified by the grid coordinates - on the oaks in question. IMHO not one checks out as an even remote resemblance. But everybody can compare on his/her own.

Now it was stated earlier that Brian did miss something in the comparison between his oaks and the one's in question and that it takes more experience to detect the real thing. This might still be true and I guess an explanation will be comming to this respect.

For me one thing is absolutely clear - the oaks in question did not come from the same die as the other three prooven examples. Not possible at all!
And I think that this was prooven here. Not on the basis of experience and knowledge of the real thing (which I admitt again: I do not have) but rather scientific based on a three to one sampling and correct comparison by exclusion.

I hand the discussion over to the more knowledgable people about oaks.....


Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

The originality of these oaks is now the whole entire point. People who have handled them have called them OK, people who have seen detailed photos have called them OK. Rather a large point I believe. From a distance I thought them either OK or a restrike. So yes, the discussion moved when I saw the closeups. Moved to the point that I knew beyond a doubt these were fake and then couldn't believe so many people with 'reputations' held onto the illusion they were OK.

Brian...I repeat yet again, (and please do not twist my words) that from what I can see on the pictures Craig's Oaks look OK, BUT it would be necessary to assess in "person" before casting judgement. Have you got that now ?

So yes, originality of these oaks is terribly important to a collecting community that is caught on a balance beam of trust and doing their own homework. I am trying to prove, albeit a bit desperately at times, that any collector can make a 95% educated opinion about Type I oaks from photos.

If you can prove this, you are a better man than me...and fine....I would never judge any piece from a photo alone.

The only persons with expertise on oaks that have made a consistent opinion on Type I's are both Detlev and Gordon.

(Sorry...dont understand this).

But I'm absolutely convinced you cannot make a cavalier statement after a 10 second look at a set of oaks and declare them real/fake. Surely in this case the obverse of the Gottlieb oaks was so completely off the mark that a detailed analysis of the obverse would show that they are fakes to anyone who took the time.

What's this then ?...are you saying that I am guilty of making cavalier statements ????
Please see my reply above, and check back through my posts...and please dont misrepresent what I have said. (You tend to do this Brian, and it detracts from important points that you do actually make from time to time)

So the reverse of Craig's Oaks are completely off the mark are they.?? I must have missed that one.

Chris you think a set of oaks can be real Type I's and not have almost perfect characteristics. These come off a die and there can be no 'new' pebbles, no 'new' patterns. We now have THREE dies that match perfectly. And a fourth that does not. The only possible conclusion is that the Gottlieb oaks are a fake.

(you mean Oaks , and not "dies" surely)

Once again Brian....as far as I am aware Dietrich has not compared Craig's Oaks with the others using the same technique. If he has (and I have missed it) and the Oaks bear no resemlance then that's fine by me.

Dietrich, perhaps you can answer this one, is that really your conclusion ?

Reverse characteristics being ignored? Chris we can't get agreement on the obverse. And once the obverse characteristics of the Gottlieb oaks is finally clear to everyone that they are fake, why make an analysis on the back? The other three are all the same. Slightly curved. The original Type I's do NOT differ from oak to oak.

Oh dear Brian, I have to repeat that for me the originality (or not) of Craig's Oaks is personally of no consequence to me...my questions are/were about Oaks in general....I think that it would be beneficial if you thought of why both types can either have (apparently) a convex back or a flat back... and in the case of the very early ones, a very pronounced convex shape.... but the obverse remains unchanged. Wasn't Pieter hinting at the same thing ?

The usual statement has been that the type 2 were introduced with a flatter back than the type 1. Well, I think that we can largely discount that as both types can be found with equal convexity (is this a new word?), and its clear that the second type were concurrent, at least of a while, with type 1.

So, was the flat back introduce for both type 1 and type 2 in the later period prior to 1945 ?....if restrikes were made (which I personally discount) would they be flat backed ?.....are the reverses of later pieces identical ?....

I'd appreciate your lateral thinking on these points, Brian.

[Dave Kane]

Well....that about says it all!

However, as we all get ahead of ourselves at times and jump to a conclusion ( as evidenced w/ Dietrich's RK S&L posting ) I look forward to some reconsideration of previous comments....

Dave

[Dietrich Maerz]

Quote Chris: "Dietrich, perhaps you can answer this one, is that really your conclusion ?"

Chris,

I want to state this again : I have no knowledge about oaks and I will not pass a judgement based on experience or other knowledge one needs to have to judge those (as Pieter hinted). I also do not know about flat or hollow reverses in conjunction with Type I and/or II.

What I can say is this: IF all Oaks of the same obverse type are from the same die, which is my understanding, then the Oaks in question DID NOT come from the same die. Clearly not.

I would be very carefull with this statement if I would have looked only at one example. This is why I wanted a third one. Now if three check out the same and the fourth does not, one does not need to be an expert in oaks, one rather needs to have an understanding of dies and relatively good eyes.
This process works with every mechanically produced item, as you as a technical oriented person know very much. It works with EK1 and 2's and with all other badges, why not here?

Again, maybe there is an explanation...

Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

Thanks Dietrich...great work.

If they do not match, then they do not come from the same dies as the other examples..

.....but then going back to my previous questions (Pieter...can I ask you to step in here )

[Dave Kane]

Chris, c'mon now hop off of the fence!!!!

That "If they do not match" leaves too much wiggle room and after all of this work I think that the muppet ( I love you man! ) deserves a solid yay or nay...

Hell it reminds me of " define sex "!!!

This entire discussion was by far the BEST I can recall and culminated in a very profound discovery!

Best yet ofcourse...no name calling, no personal crap but just plain good discussion, science and logic!!

Dave

[Brian S]

Chris, love the green. I am sceptical about Type I restrikes. The volume just isn't there. But Swords Godets, there used to be quite a flow for such a rarity.

[ChrisJ]

Convexity. Type I and II's are of two and only two types. No flat back Type I's. Type II with a much flatter back but not flat. No inbetweens. What comes out of a die comes out of a die. What is cast will not most likely look like a proper Type I/II. A restrike Type II should have exactly the same convex characteristics as it comes from the original die. A restrike Type I should have the exact convex characteristics also of it's wartime stuck original.

(Here is some more green for you, Brian)

Unfortunately its a fact that both type 1 and 2 can be seen with a similar degree of convexity to the reverse. I have owned two type 2 pieces with impecable provenance that showed this feature, and which were of equal convexity to my L/50 piece...and also match your piece too. I believe that Pieter has also made note of this to you before...are you rejecting this ?

I believe that early pieces are very convex indeed (remember that 900 marked one Gordon).

There is an explanation to this, isnt there ?

Any fake variants just do not enter into the discussion. The original oaks presented in this thread are fake, not a variant, not a Type I/II, just a really good fake but not so good that a careful study of it in hand would have fooled someone who was not cavalier. There does that say it

Thanks for the complement

Chris, I've also said it, I think before we declare ANY oaks genuine it should be examined by someone who has one. But fake is fake if the die characteristics aren't there, no handling is necessary. On the Gottlieb (don't know what else to call them) oaks, no handling required.

No...I would still want to handle them for the "laying of hands" feel that you can get.





Again, Chris, love the green. I am sceptical about Type I restrikes. The volume just isn't there. But Swords Godets, there used to be quite a flow for such a rarity.[/QUOTE]
type 1 or type 2 swords

[tom hansen]

Chris-

I do not know anything about oaks and have been trying to follow this thread to learn something. However, many of the statements/responses seem to be veiled in riddles and further questions.
In my line of work one must make a definitive statement and note clearly what facts there are to support such a statement. Further, the transmission of that thought must be so clear and simple such that even a child can understand what is said.
I do not mean to be offensive at all, as you obviously are very experienced in this area, but what exactly do you mean? I can tell exactly what Brian and Dietrich have stated throughout this thread. But I cannot understand exactly what your position is on this piece. Not other pieces in general, but this specific piece.

[Eric Stahlhut]

I have a simple question: why would anyone be willing to fork over $15,000 for a few grams of silver that is obviously very easy to reproduce?


Ok, I get it now. This thread is NEVER gonna end..................