You could try to hang the RK on a half-torso or a mannequin. If not, try hang the loop on something, then try to take the photo slightly to the right and looking downward towards the cross. Not an K&Q nor a Sedlatzek, but here's my try:
-
-
That's a very good try! The angles of the vertical 3 o'clock arm and horizontal 6 o'clock arm are almost, but not quite, the same as in the photo. I think this fellow's tie actually causes the cross to be "pushed outwards" a bit at the bottom.
If I had 3 hands, I could probably get it....
All this reinforces my opinion that photos can be extremely deceptive.
Found another photo of Bockhoff. Looks in the new one that the cross is a K&Q, but I couldn't swear to it.Comment
-
Another of Bockhoff. Confusing, but in the "blow-up", the delineation line between the ring and the frame is pretty clearly visible. Once again, a likely K&Q.
In Dietrich's book, the illustrated "Sedlatzek" is said (according to a source he believed) to have come from the dealer Sedlatzek just months after the war. The cross shown no longer has paint on the core, but the core is dark because the silver "wash" has tarnished.
It is well known that Sedlatzek had a direct "pipeline" to Souval and, according to older dealers I know who actually dealt with him in the 1960's, virtually his entire stock was Souval.
IMO, the "Sedlatzek" cross was really Souval's (failed) attempt to enter the RK market early in the war and those we see today are either legitimate wartime pieces (usually unmarked), or assembled briefly after the war from leftover parts. Once the earlier cores ran out, Souval switched, pretty early on, to the "dipping 3 core", but continued to use the same "silver wash" technique and the same frame, with the "crater" defect in the beading gradually disappearing over time. Maybe it had out-sourced the early core and didn't have the die, or maybe the die was lost or damaged. The "Sedlatzek" crosses were very well-assembled, but the paint job was uneven.
I doubt if we'll ever know for certain, just as we'll probably never know about other possible early makers who never managed to have any real market effect. The 3/4 ring and Schickle have now become accepted (even though the Schickle was not really an "award" cross, IMO, while the 3/4 ring appears too frequently not to have been - again IMO). To me, this is all part of the history of the RK and is fascinating.Comment
-
I think that is the most likely scenario based on what we know and can gather from circumstantial evidence.Originally posted by Leroy View Post
DietrichComment
-
-
Originally posted by Leroy View Post
IMO you are correct on the question as to the true origin of the Souval RK.
These two " Sedlazek" RK's both came with diamonds oaks which are very similar, yet more complex in construction to Souval's post war 1950/60's diamond oaks.
IMO they are Souval wartime made display pieces for museums/display.
They used their "Sedlazek" RK since it was available to them. As mentioned the diamond oaks are also somewhat different to Souval post war pieces. They are more complex in construction, having a small bridge part soldered in to connect the swords to the oaks.
The 1950's post war Souval oaks are not using any bridge Part and have the swords welded directly to the oaks. Also the finishing is better than in post war pieces ( if interested I can do a diamond comparison, since I have both variants).
In any way, IMO the fact that this type of Souval diamond oaks both came attached to "Sedlazek" RK's is another indication that these RK's are really Souvals wartime RK's.
Regards,
AlexComment
-
1Comment
-
2Comment
-
3Comment
-
4Comment
-
5Comment
-
6Comment
-
7Comment
-
Alex - You can always be counted on to show nice things!
Love to see more photos.
Did I correctly understand that Herr Umlauff once indicated that he had licenses from the government to manufacture display pieces?
The idea of the Schickle as being an "award" piece comes from what I believe is a misreading of Vern Bowen's comments on Hauptmann Schneider-Kostalski's crosses in his book The Prussian and German Iron Cross. I can understand this, as Bowen's writing style is sometimes confusing and it can take multiple readings to finally be able to understand exactly what he was saying. That book, however, seems to be the origin of the concept of the Schickle as an award piece.Originally posted by Schickle93 View Post
Although the illustrated Schickle in the book is shown housed in the award case of his actually awarded cross, it was NOT his award piece. That piece was destroyed when he was killed on August 1, 1944 in Normandy. The Schickle was kept by him at home (in the case of his awarded piece) and used when he was home and needed, according to Bowen, a "bright looking decoration instead of his battle-scarred award piece".
Schickle of course made both unmarked and (from March, 1941, to July, 1941, when it was authorized to, in essence, carry out a "going out of business sale" - the orders and medals business only , as it continued to make other metal products - under the supervision of the LDO) "L/15" crosses. Whether the government confiscated any leftover pieces (if there were any) in the hands of commercial shops after October, 1941, and added them to its stock to be used for possible award purposes, is unknown. The Schneider-Kostalski piece, again, as mentioned in Bowen's book, is the one cited (unfortunately, mistakenly) as the source of the type being used for award. Perhaps there are well-documented examples of such crosses being used for award in other cases, but I don't recall seeing them. They are still very nice (and scarce) crosses!Comment
-
Thanks Gentry.
As for wartime display pieces; According to Mr. Umlauf Souval indeed had the official license to produce some display pieces. Amoung them the super rare National Prize for Arts & Science made of silver and Sapphires.
It would have been totally possible for Souval to also have produced a period wartime diamond OLS set that was used as a display piece.
Best regards,
AlexLast edited by Alex W.; 04-17-2016, 02:33 PM.Comment
Comment