Warning: session_start(): open(/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74/sess_04ca4af8de63a94b92af4e28d0a66789ace28276e45a441b, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 RK- on the way - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums
BunkerMilitaria

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RK- on the way

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
    #46
    Originally posted by tom hansen
    As noted by Dietrich, the specific gravity of silver is 10.14g/cc, while neusilber is 8.4g/cc, therefore silver would be heavier for a given volume. The individual componants of neusilber varied, but generally was 50% copper, 30% zinc, and 20% nickle. The relative "hardness" of the material is similiar to silver, but electrical conductivity is different.
    Tom,

    I hate doing this but whats wrong must be corrected:

    - there is no term like specific gravity. It is specific weight, which is a description for "density per volume"

    - silver is considerably softer than Neusilber

    Sorry

    Dietrich
    B&D PUBLISHING
    Premium Books from Collectors for Collectors

    Comment

      #47
      Dave,


      Sterling silver is 925/1000 purity and is therefore nearly pure silver. Neusilber is harder and therefore mechanically easier to work on, i.e. it doesn't bend, smudge and all the things that come with softer material. To file away a piece would take a little longer.

      Dietrich
      B&D PUBLISHING
      Premium Books from Collectors for Collectors

      Comment

        #48
        Thanks! Dietrich as I appreciate your knowledge as much as your opinion...what do you think would be the reason for the incredibly sloppy finishing on the neusilber frame..?
        Regards,
        Dave

        Comment

          #49
          Dave,

          a slip with the rotation tool, bad hair day, Monday, bomb explosion near by, foreign worker, just felt like it, pissed of by the Meister, didn't get laid during lunch brake, oops, ...

          Dietrich
          B&D PUBLISHING
          Premium Books from Collectors for Collectors

          Comment

            #50
            Ok...as I flipantly suggested earlier the 'hangover'!!!

            These boys and (the) early crosses were really sloppy...to include the L/12 but got better with the PK mandate.
            Regards,
            Dave

            Comment

              #51
              Wow! Lots of replies. Thanks for the looks, guys! Here is another photo of the cross at about the same angle it is hanging in the picture. So we know that one of this guy's crosses is a 3/4 ring. Do you think then that this is not the cross in the picture?


              If so, I guess I have a decision to make.
              Attached Files

              Comment

                #52
                Tom, it's not and you know I don't have any pleasure in suggesting this
                Regards,
                Dave

                Comment

                  #53
                  Well, let us separate emotions from reason. If not the cross in the photo and the other one being a 3/4 ring, it would be unlikely that the guy had 3 RKs! Then the issue becomes strictly the cross itself. or ?

                  Comment

                    #54
                    Tom, the cross is good...don't worry about that!


                    For a Juncker (only) collector this has to be a super rare opportunity..
                    Regards,
                    Dave

                    Comment

                      #55
                      Hi Tom...

                      If the picture of Radwan wearing this Juncker forms the backbone of the provenance accompanying the piece, I would be cautious.....not about the piece, but about the provenance.

                      The finishing of the top inner corners is the most damning comparison, as has been pointed out.........




                      but also, I have noticed the 'reflective' (uppermost) surface of the swaz in the wearers photo on the left is considerably thinner than that of your unmarked Juncker itself.......almost appearing as a 'stepped' swaz on the wearers photo?

                      That's where this type of old photo/object comparison gets tenuous to say the least, but as this negative shows, it appears that there was little need for any amount of finishing to the inner corners around the swaz on the cross being worn by Radwan - particularly at the lower right corner - whereas the unmarked Juncker has clearly been hand finished to accomodate the swaz.




                      Also, any mention of whether Detlev remembered or owned the Provenance as WELL as the piece?

                      I think having paid for provenance, and with the ultimate reason for collecting provenance being 'rock solid' proof of ownership and wear, that this does not nearly fit the bill.

                      Very nice piece, but with this in mind, .....expensive...your call on that, of course.

                      Cheers mate....


                      Marshall
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by Biro; 11-09-2004, 07:21 AM.

                      Comment

                        #56
                        Great photos! Thanks!


                        Now here is another question. See how there is no shadow cast by the RK, yet there is by the collar? Is it possible that this cross has been "added" in the photo????

                        Comment

                          #57
                          Tom.

                          Was i right about the gap between the core edge and frame?

                          Cheers.
                          Peter

                          Comment

                            #58
                            Peter-


                            There is no gap. There is just rough finishing along the internal margin of the frame. The cross is fine. It just seems as though the provenane is questionable, as noted with the discussion of the photos.

                            Comment

                              #59
                              Tom,
                              it appears that it was common practice to 'doctor' studio photos during the period, these efforts ranged from the subtle to the ridiculous!
                              Last edited by Harry; 07-10-2007, 06:38 AM.

                              Comment

                                #60
                                ......
                                Last edited by Harry; 07-10-2007, 06:38 AM.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next

                                Users Viewing this Thread

                                Collapse

                                There is currently 0 user online. 0 members and 0 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

                                Working...
                                X