Unknown RK Maker

[Brian S]

As much as I'd be thrilled to see vet photos and more conclusive info to provide concrete provenance and proof to this unknown, I don't think we'll see it. As much as Detlev has provided to practically all of us in artifacts, he does not contribute here. To provide concrete evidence of an unknown cross would be the zenith of a contribution, but...

And Tom, we're getting closer I hope to the elemental compounds in paints in the 'unknowns' and known crosses to scientifically prove what unclear photos and deceased veterans cannot provide.

[George Stimson]

Tom

"I also think that this is EITHER inconclusive or a reproduction."

What you think is fine. What you say you know you'd better be able to back up with some factual information.

[Dave Kane]

Brian I know and understand the 'unknown' but what I can't get beyond is the "in your face" suggestion by way of landmarks that this IS NOT attempting to be a Juncker cross.

Unknown...as much as this stuff has been disected and now 60 some odd years later!

[Sebastian Bianchi]

No I am not discounting that. I contacted Detlev and I am the one who posted that there was provenance. I have no doubts that he got the piece from where he said he did. But again, as has been noted before, vet pieces have been switched by other collectors or family members. Vet acquired does not equate to wartime.

I read Brian's thread and I also think that this is EITHER inconclusive or a reproduction. Heck, if it is for sale, i will buy and it and throw it under that SEM scanner, as I would be curious as hell as to what THAT paint looks like!

Doc, I'm going to say this and then I have to go. Inconclusive means that you have not reached a conclusion, ie it could be either a period piece, or a reproduction. With me so far? By definition, then, you're saying you don't know.

All this, and we reached an "inconclusive".

I will grant you this - I would not want an "inconclusive" in my collection. But plenty of people who can afford a handful of RKs in as many months might be willing to give it a go.

[Dave Kane]

BINGO...so why not throw it it out......there's lots of fish in the sea.....

[Sebastian Bianchi]

BINGO...so why not throw it it out......there's lots of fish in the sea.....

Kinda like a flawed S&L?

This might a case where you have to believe the veteran, the source. If don't know, then pass.

[Dave Kane]

Lad, I have never made any bones how I feel about "FLAWED S&L CROSSES".....I posted numerous pictures and superb close-ups....it sold to a wonderful 'researcher' and he chose the dollar amount by making an offer...........the in-fighting about who should have gotten the cross was factually interprepted by you which proves there was a line up to buy the cross...............it was not sold in the BAZZAR section so sactioned by the moderator......

I threw in every NEGATIVE and showed every angled PHOTO I COULD.....yet weeks later I get this???


Who else sold a FLAWED cross for 2x what I did and is held in high esteem....hell I even included a CASE!!!

Makes a guy feel really fulfilled...

[Brian S]

Brian I know and understand the 'unknown' but what I can't get beyond is the "in your face" suggestion by way of landmarks that this IS NOT attempting to be a Juncker cross.

Unknown...as much as this stuff has been disected and now 60 some odd years later!

George, you have an EKI or EKII that has cross hatching in the corners and by the core? Seems I've seen a few I just don't own one. That would show a maker who simply used the cross hatching techniques for no other purpose than personal aesthetics. And would certainly be in no way attempting to be a Juncker wannabe. I know I've seen more than one I just can't place it/them.

[George Stimson]

I have two EK 2s and one EK 1 with that effect, all by as yet unknown makers.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

George, you have an EKI or EKII that has cross hatching in the corners and by the core? Seems I've seen a few I just don't own one. That would show a maker who simply used the cross hatching techniques for no other purpose than personal aesthetics. And would certainly be in no way attempting to be a Juncker wannabe. I know I've seen more than one I just can't place it/them.

I have at least one too, I'll need to take better pictures.

[tom hansen]

The presence of cross hatching on other EK2s is a great point!

[George Stimson]

I have at least one 1914 EK 2 with cross-hatching as well. (I haven't looked at them all.)

[tom hansen]

I have at least one 1914 EK 2 with cross-hatching as well. (I haven't looked at them all.)

Again, I think that is a great point. I am not an unreasonable fellow, just skeptical. Here is an old Gordon thread regarding provenance and RKs which is relevant as well.

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 width=175>Gordon Williamson<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_42251", true); </SCRIPT>
Association Member


Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,812
Location: Scotland




</TD><TD class=alt2><!-- icon and title -->
<HR color=#cfb992 SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->When it comes to the RK, the only really safe buy is a Juncker piece with its easily determined die characteristics and more importantly the fact that it's tooling was destroyed during a bombing raid. The RK tooling for Steinhauer, Godet/Zimmermann, Klein & Quenzer and Otto Schickle (and also probably Deschler) survived the war so we have no way of knowing if any were restruck in the immediate postwar period for sale to souvenir hungry allied occupation troops by these firms.
I have reports recently from Germany that K&Q style RK with the fat donut style ring are being made, so there's another once "safe" piece which is now going to be a risky proposition.

Like the restruck Godet Oaks and Oaks/Swords made on the original tooling any RK made in the early postwar years will have assumed sufficient natural toning and patina to give the appearance of originality.
The only thing that can be claimed for ANY of these makers is that it APPEARS to be original and can be determined from its die characteristics to have been made by one of these firms.
Even obtaining items direct from the original German veteran is no guarantee as some did replace missing/lost/stolen stuff after the war or had stuff "switched" by visiting collectors. If the collector sticks to the old advice "Buy the piece, not the story", anecdotal and even most documentary provenance is of limited value,( wouldn't be the first time that genuine letters of provenance have been matched up with fake items) so you are left with the actual item itself to consider.
Can it be categorically proven that any RK other than Juncker is of pre May 1945 manufacture ? I doubt it.

Photographic evidence is a double edged sword. For many years doubters claimed that the RK style with the 3/4 eye was a postwar invention and that photos of it were "retouched". I have several crystal clear portrait photos of this style being worn which are in no way untouched and in fact the 3/4 eye suspension is shown in the original 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt.
Also for many years a lot of collectors doubted that Steinhauer actually made the Oaks and Oaks & Swords in wartime and that these were only made for the 57 series of awards. Only thing wrong with that theory is that the Oakleaves appear in the Steinhauer 1940 catalogue and so far I have located one photo in the U-Boat Archive of a set being worn (the small "blob" on the right side edge of the central leaf being visible) in wartime by a U-Boat Ace.

In the end it will all come down to what the individual wants to believe. As for the "round corner" RK, having examined a couple I can find no fault with them other than the unusual configuration of these corners. They are superior in construction to any fake I have ever seen and better than several known original manufacturers pieces. In fact I accepted one once from Chris Jenkins in part exchange against a Lazy 2 Juncker some time back. Unless someone comes up with any sort of evidence to support the contention they are wrong, I wouldn't have any problems with owning another if I was looking for another RK and the price was right.

For preference, my own favourite is the Steinauer & Lück which I personally find the most aesthetically pleasing of all the RKs, but the Juncker is the only one I personally would jump at without a seconds hesitation. Until of course the day arrives when the market suddenly becomes flooded with 100% accurate Juncker RKs and we know the perfect fake has arrived.

Gordon
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus --> <!-- END TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus --> </TD><TD class=alt2 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Brian S]

In a nutshell, you willing to take a chance on provenance and gut feelings based on experience? Proof is not always on request but by chance. Rick L. and I still marvel at the Legion Condor Tank Badge proof that showed up in Gordon's Otto Schickel catalog. Or Walter B coming on with his grandfather's pilot badge. Questionables aren't for everyone's collection. But I've done well with two and believe the third, Round Corner RK, will be the next to prove, yes prove, itself in a photo or a catalog. You have to have a strong stomach but if, if, and when it proves out it's a marvelous thing.

[tom hansen]

More pertinent information to this thread............




<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal">12-10-2001, 04:09 PM <!-- / status icon and date --></TD><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal" align=right>#4 </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 width=175>Gordon Williamson<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_6229", true); </SCRIPT>

Association Member


Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,812




</TD><TD class=alt2><!-- icon and title -->

<HR color=#666666 SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->There are certainly a few Rk that would fit into the category of "unknown maker". The early type with the 3/4 eye, the type with the "curved" corners next the swastika, and the type where the eye dips slightly into the frame. These are all undeniably authentic to the period as all can be found on original wartime photos, yet we have no real firm evidence as to who made them.


There are also cases of knowing a maker made the RK but no authenticated examples by that maker yet having been unearthed ( e.g. Wächtler & Lange). It could be that the "dipped eye " type or the "curved corners" type belongs to W&L but we have no way of knowing. It could be yet another type we are not yet familiar with.

I very much doubt however, if there were any small-time "cottage industry" makers. Anyone making the RK would be involved in fairly expensive tooling operations and the presses involved would be large industrial presses, not hand presses so the makers would have been large concerns.
Any of these crosses is going to be a pre-1941 piece in any case. After the ban on retail sales, no maker, large scale or not, would have risked making an official award which he was mot authorised to manufacture.

The only exceptions I could see to that would be those RK made on board ship, in Japan etc where the "real deal" was not available.

Gordon
<!-- / message -->
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>