RK Oaks Strike or Restrike

[Dietrich Maerz]

It was very interesting, to say the least.

This thread did show in scientific clarity that one can compare (good pictures provided) even the tiny little details of the oaks and determine the origin from the same die. One should not forget the detail involved here: the distance between two grid lines represent approx. 0.2 - 0.3 mm. This is how detailed we were looking, something the bare eye can hardly achieve.

I'm pleased with the results which should give a lot of people more confidence in this process and also will scare off the 'bad' guys a little more.

As I said before, I do not know whether the presented oaks are good, BUT I know now that they neither did come from the Type I nor the Type II Godet dies. If there were only those two dies, the oaks are no good.

Also, it is clear that those oaks are no restrikes since they did not come from the two above mentioned dies. The question of marking which type with what and hollow/not-hollow is a mute point.

There might be people out there who will doubt the results because of photographic distortions, light, frosting or whatever. However, if one compares down to a level of 0.2-0.3 mm and find NO common features at all those remarks turn into self denial.

There will be others who will say one has to handle the real thing to determine the "real thing". This might be true as a final determination check, but this method as developed and used here is free from "feelings" and has the cold and unbetrayable trait of unromantic science. And can be done by everybody.

We are dealing here with pieces made on machines with the typical traits of machine-created pieces. As I said before and will say again and again: Same die, same features. This is one of the corner stones of our hobby.

It is not taking the "romantic" aspect out, it is bringing more security in! Part of the 'secret handshake' has been replaced..

Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

A big on that, Dietrich....

If there has been a slight disappointment it has been that some of the upper end authorities have not participated.

Your grid method of verifiation against the pebbling allows a much more precise verificatin to be performed...and its somethiong that can be applied across the board. with due allowance for wear, finish and manufacturing tolerances. All of whihc should be comforting with those having Oaks in their collections, or those contemplating a purchase.

Ref the restrikes....my own personal advice is to stick with 1st type Godets, and to beware of second type with flat backs !...but thats only my feelings, and each must decide for themselves.

[Brian S]

If only one of us had moderator powers and could close this thread while we are completely in agreement.

[Dave Kane]

All in all, yes a wonderful learning experience!

Chris you sort of 'down played' an observation that I'm sure occured to a lot of members....


"If there has been a slight disappointment it has been that some of the upper end authorities have not participated"

It is really too bad that information wasn't shared but on the up side we (Dietrich) now have a grid system and aren't as dependant on opinion which ofcourse leads to collusion.

I suggested early on that Oaks weren't an interest of mine but just in the last few days I've learned more than I possibly could have without the good exchange of information here!!

Thanks all!

Dave

[Brian S]

However, what I find strange is that they have been physically in the hands of various people who know Oaks, and they had only positive things to say about them. Strange, eh?

...and later...

Given the hands that have held these, I didn't really give them an in-depth study. However, they don't actually belong to me, and so they are being returned to the owner tomorrow.

Dave, unwittingly, some of them participated more than I think they wished they had.

[Gordon Williamson]

To close the contribution from my side (which has been somewhat contrary I have to admit, to keep the debate lively) I'd like to pose the question yet again...how can we have different concave features to type 1 and type 2 pieces... for example 900/21 pieces can be almost flat, or the same as the L/50's ? This is not heresay, as I have owned two sets of 900/21 Oaks with sound provenance... one about flat on the reverse with the elongated "9" of 900 that was the later feature, and the other identical (in my eyes) to my L/50....it can only be more than two sets of dies cant it ?...what other explanation can there be (You got there didnt you George)

I think the question of flat / concave reverse isn't necessarily one which need be a determining factor.
Steinhauer used their wartime Oaks tooling for postwar restrikes. These can come with widely varying degrees of hand finishing to remove the excess metal in and around the edges of the leaves, AND show a large degree of variance in the degree of concavity, from very deep on early pieces to almost flat on later postwar stuff. BUT, they all show commong obverse features, widely differing reverses, but clearly from the same obverse tooling. Clearly the use of a common "die" (the female part) , but differing "punches" (the male part of the tooling).

[ChrisJ]

I think the question of flat / concave reverse isn't necessarily one which need be a determining factor.
Steinhauer used their wartime Oaks tooling for postwar restrikes. These can come with widely varying degrees of hand finishing to remove the excess metal in and around the edges of the leaves, AND show a large degree of variance in the degree of concavity, from very deep on early pieces to almost flat on later postwar stuff. BUT, they all show commong obverse features, widely differing reverses, but clearly from the same obverse tooling. Clearly the use of a common "die" (the female part) , but differing "punches" (the male part of the tooling).

Thanks Gordon...
So we can safely conclude then that the male part of the Godet dies existed in different guises...
I dont want to prolong this discussion needlessly, but have you ever encountered a flat backed type 1 ?

[Craig Gottlieb]

Wow, I haven't been on this thread in about two weeks, and it's over 18 pages long since my last visit. Rich and Brian - thank you for your kind words. I will continue to watch and learn. Why don't we have an "Oaktoberfest" at MAX 2004 in Charlotte. I'll get the Oaks in question back again, and you all can bring your L/50s and we can compare them in person. Come one, come all - it'll be a very fun learning experience.

[Brian S]

Thank you Craig for being so gracious. I had hoped, naively as it appears, to have a discussion on the item and get down to the construction and features of it without naming names.

This is not a swipe at you or anyone, but as soon as your name was quickly associated with the item, in my opinion, discussion was not as 'open' as it would otherwise have been with an eBay auction or say Joe D'Erricho's items.

I think in retrospect you must be very pleased that a fake oaks carrying your money back guarantee was not concluded in a sale. Certainly someone may have just stuck it into a display and a better photo may never have surfaced. But...

A couple of years down the road if a photo and analysis was produced I think the result would have been a serious blow.

I hope the collecting community sees both sides of the coin here. It's not the collector who necessarily would have been damaged but to some degree a possibility of your loss. It's in everyone's best interests to get the facts straight. I'm proud to know Joe and I know that when one of his items proves out negatively he's relieved it won't come back to haunt him. I feel the same way but I reserve the right to disagree with a 'quickie' thumbs down based on nothing more than a cursory review.

I think you'd have to agree this was more than a cursory review and the results are conclusive. But, I still have not read anything from you or the other experts that would suggest you do agree. I'm wondering after looking at all the oaks that show complete resemblence what else might hold these oaks to be genuine. I have no doubt they are probably pure 900 silver and finely wrought. But these have been conclusively determined to be from another die by identification of the several points of comparison.

If I were to go the MAX I would gladly share a beer with you but I pointedly do not go to shows. It's too difficult to make a conclusive determination for me on a show floor. As these oaks have illustrated, I'd much prefer to conclude my business with considerably more deliberation.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Thanks Gordon...
So we can safely conclude then that the male part of the Godet dies existed in different guises...
I dont want to prolong this discussion needlessly, but have you ever encountered a flat backed type 1 ?

...if you want I'll post in the comming day's an original FLAT L/50...
Pieter.

[George Stimson]

flat L/50

I'd like to see it.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

I'd like to see it.

Have some patience I sended the photos to a friend to be scanned for posting.
Pieter.

[Brian S]

It is not inconceivable that the back of an oaks could have been finished in such a way that some of the curvature was polished away. It is also not inconceivable that a flat male die half might have been employed to more easily enable the attachment of the swords. Not inconceivable, but unlikely as the Type II appeared so quickly on the scene.

[ChrisJ]

It is not inconceivable that the back of an oaks could have been finished in such a way that some of the curvature was polished away. It is also not inconceivable that a flat male die half might have been employed to more easily enable the attachment of the swords. Not inconceivable, but unlikely as the Type II appeared so quickly on the scene.

I'd answer those points as follows

~ no, not conveivable

~ yes, possible

~ you are forgetting that type 2 Godets also appear with with a curved back similar to type 1 Godets

[Brian S]

And you are forgetting Type II dies definitely survived the war and were used for restrikes.

I don't want to end up in unending arguments that try to find plausable cause for items bought over the years and sitting in certain people's collections.

You and Pieter should start a thread presenting the many shapes of Godet oaks according to the both of you. I'll stay out of it. I have no doubt there exist collectors so hungry to consume, their desire to consume will overrule.