DK in Gold - Real? - Maker?

[tom hansen]

I don't have the cross but I did compare to my Juncker.

How do I explain the "1"? Damaged? Squezzed? If more is plus, would be the one the thing to dismiss the cross?

Dietrich

I would not think so. Ivan said the same thing. He would want to see this more closely. If there was a return policy on the cross, I would buy and take a closer look. There are MANY very close characteristics, but a few differences that would cause me concern if I could not send it back.

Hopefully other will weigh in as well, as I think we can learn alot from some of these subtle flaws. Could you post some close-ups of your juncker at these areas as well? Thanks

[Dietrich Maerz]

I would not think so. Ivan said the same thing. He would want to see this more closely. If there was a return policy on the cross, I would buy and take a closer look. There are MANY very close characteristics, but a few differences that would cause me concern if I could not send it back.

Hopefully other will weigh in as well, as I think we can learn alot from some of these subtle flaws. Could you post some close-ups of your juncker at these areas as well? Thanks

Have you - or somebody else for that matter - ever seen an alledged or prooven fake that comes that close to a Juncker?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Have you - or somebody else for that matter - ever seen an alledged or prooven fake that comes that close to a Juncker?

Dietrich

Nope. I am not saying that it is a fake. I said I would want to see this in better detail or in hand with better magnification. There are many positives on this, but a few subtle differences that I pointed out. I think you can verify that by comparison with your cross.

If there was a return policy, I would buy it and take a look. If there was not, I would pass.

Now I am sure that you posted this because the reverse looks good, but you also noted some of the subtle differences as well. Is that the case?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I would still like to hear more opinions before I show the reverse.

I think this is a very good example of how close one has to look, but not too close, because there always will be differences. I know that you Tom look with a 30 x loup which 'allows' you to spot differences of the size of less than 0,1 mm. If you would do that with Rolex watch and compare other examples to the one you have, ALL others would be fakes based on the differences spotted.
How do you account for wear, incidential damage, rubbing off, ..?

How close must one original be to another or - better - how far away must a fake be to be a fake?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

I agree with what you are saying, Dietrich.


However, there are enough subtle flaws that can be seen and compared with higher mag that would be nearly impossible to fake. There will be some differences due to wear and minor damage, but there should be enough minor flaw similiarities to make an identification.


I think this cross is a completely different situation than say, the spotted DKiG, where there are GROSS differences in the wreath. This cross has subtle differences in flaws, but not gross characteristics of the wreath. I think given this, one could not definitively say or without a closer look. What is wrong with that? If the closer inspection shows excellent similiarities with very minor flaw differences, then great, keep it. If it does not share these characteristics, then I would pass. I just think this needs a closer look. Heck, I think Ivan and I are the only ones so far that have wanted a closer look and are not sure with the current images. The other posts think it is a fake.

[Dietrich Maerz]

It is so easy to say something is a "Fake" without going into a detailled description why (participants in this thread excluded, of course). One always errs on the side of caution.

I remember very well a thread about a RK where everybody was saying fake (including the BIG names) and it turned out to be a very nice S&L!!

Clearly I would like to have it in hand to make a btter judgement. But, 95% of all determination here is made based on pictures! So can we conclude that 5% of all fakes are so good that they cannot be determined without handling? And do we catch always those 5%? Or is it paranoia?

I wait for more opinions before I reveal (tata, tata) the reverse!

Dietrich

[IVAN]

.............. Heck, I think Ivan and I are the only ones so far that have wanted a closer look and are not sure with the current images. The other posts think it is a fake.

When I see a DK not clearly wrong with known errors, never I say is a fake if I am not sure ( IMO ) because I am far to be perfect and I cannot to make troubles with pieces so expensive .

for this DK I need more informations ( reverse, weight and dimentions ) but till now IMO I am afraid is not a good one........

[IVAN]

...we have done in the same time a topic, I didn't read your last one........

[Dietrich Maerz]

Weight is 58,66 gr. Dimensions can be off a little. As you see by the pictures, I also went thru the due dilligence....


Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

bump!

[tom hansen]

No more takers! Step up and take a look at all the pics.

My cross is 63.5 mm X 63.5 mm. The dimensions noted for examples in the reference section are all greater than 63 mm. The one posted is just under 63 mm. Is this another example similar to the smaller Klein fake, which is also slightly smaller, or are we just too damn precise with our measurements and appearance criteria?

[Dietrich Maerz]

The range for measured DK's in Gordon's book goes from 62.5 mm up to 64.35 mm, wheras I doubt an accuracy of 0.05. This is pure academical, i.e the 100 of millimeters. One bump and it's gone.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

So can the guy who is looking at this just buy it and take a closer look? I think you are right when you had noted that the majority of pieces can be given a or based on photos alone. Usually these pieces are pretty clear cut. The photos here are not quite as clear to be able to clearly make out some of these details as well. Here there are some differences that may be just fine on close inspection. I would be more concerned with telling someone that this is 100% perfectly okay, only to have concerns raised in the future after an inspection period has passed.


Heck, if there is an inspection period on this, I would buy it and take a look if the cross was offered to me. Juncker DKiGs do not come up as often as the other makers and it would be worth it to take a look. Has the buyer just been spooked by the questions raised? Did he have questions to begin with about the piece that prompted the posting of the photos?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

there is no buyer. This cross is in the possesion of soembody and he has it already for a long time. He asked me about my opinion, which I gave him. Since (nearly) nobody is infallible, I got his permission to throw it in front of the wolfes. So far, he has some more opinions, but nothing specific.
I'm very astounded about the lack of responses here. Normally, when a DK comes up, people are jumping in heavily. Not here....

I also understand that it would be better to have the cross in hand, but, as I said earlier, most of the time judgements are made here w/o actual inspection. So it seems to work in general, or??

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

I am also suprised by the lack of volume on this issue, as this is very interesting with regard to DKiGs.

With regard to closer inspection, again, I think that is warranted if it is not absolutely clear cut. Many times the photos are adequate. If these photos were sharper, it probably would be adequate. But the guy is asking that an evaluation be made of fine details with blurry images, which is not doing him any favors. Maybe he can get some more pics and crop the images for better close-ups.

Perhaps some of the lack of volume is probably related to the fact that many people have other makers, but not a juncker. Unless you have one in hand to compare, it makes it alot tougher to comment.