Unknown RK Maker

[Sebastian Bianchi]

If this cross would have been on e-bay and not in Detlev's book, we would already have approx. 5 pages of discussion and another 5 pages of comments like your's . You are a brave man, Seba!

It is a shame that I was revealing the source so early! It' could have been a very good and interesting discussion. Sorry for that!

Dietrich

Honestly my comment was "not relevant" and could afford to be deleted, but I claim the Twinkie defense since I overloaded on Christmas cookies this afternoon.

On a more serious note I can not offer an opinion beyond some superficial comments because I don’t have enough information here. I don’t think any of us do. If the source of the RK is iron clad, we’d have something to talk about. The fact that it comes from a highly respected professional who has little to gain by adding a maker to the RK family holds considerable weight, if the cross was on e-bay, we would have laughed it out of the forum. Source does matter.

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich....I doubt we would have seen 3 pages had you NOT mentioned the publication!

Once the 'wannabe' Juncker landmarks were pointed out it would have been couched a FAKE and eventually off to archive heaven

[George Stimson]

It's easy to shrug off provenance if we don't have all the details of it. But suppose the pedigree of this RK is iron-clad. Where does that leave us?

[Sebastian Bianchi]

"This sounds like a job for ...............................

Def Ken"

Alrighty.... I think it's you that needs to lay off the late-night sugars...

[Dietrich Maerz]

It's easy to shrug off provenance if we don't have all the details of it. But suppose the pedigree of this RK is iron-clad. Where does that leave us?

We once supposed to have an (iron clad) provenance with a Rounder and is was declared as a switch and a fake. So I guess, Seba is right - source matters.....

But IF the provenance is iron clad (and I have no reason to believe it's not) then we have another maker that is damn close to a Juncker. And where one is, there could me more, or not?
This closeness to Juncker really disturbs me. Especially the misaligned beading. Talking about coincidence! What a freak thing!

Dietrich

[Peter Wiking]

The two (2) dietools theory ?...

Cheers.
Peter

[Dave Kane]

No! Peter then they would be the same, yes!


This cross is different....BUT so similar that it has to be an attempt to reproduce the Juncker frame. It goes beyond coincidence that the 'landmarks' are all there albeit NOT exact and isn't that what we want....jump back to the K&Q debate....exact....jump way back to the S&L debate....exact!

This isn't EXACT....it's a copy!

[George Stimson]

Has anybody seen (Not heard of; seen.) another fake like this? Does anybody have a picture of one?

[Dave Kane]

Didn't Manion's offer one with Oaks about 3 months ago....marked Lazy2 and it was pounded into the dirt????


Someone must have kept the picture...

[Harry]

Didn't Manion's offer one with Oaks about 3 months ago....marked Lazy2 and it was pounded into the dirt????


Someone must have kept the picture...

Is this the one??..........

[Harry]

reverse........

[George Stimson]

That's not the same style RK as the one in Detlev's book, IMO.

[Peter Wiking]

Do you guys remember this cross ? I know tom hansen do. He had this cross in his hand and we concluded that the swastika is unsymetrical and thus not an original cross. The core on this one is not the same as the croos in question, but what about the frame ???

Cheers.
Peter

[Dave Kane]

Thanks Harry! Yes, that's the one...

George you are right it's not the same...a wanna-be Juncker but not as close in 'landmarks' as the cross being discussed.

[Dave Kane]

Roy, don't make me fly to Canada just to kick your butt!!!!