Bother, I wish I'd known it was for sale. I wonder about repaired dies as well
-
-
Originally posted by Leroy View Post
The more I look at this bar, the more I suspect it is a "re-ribboned" original. I know this was done occasionally by families wishing for a better presentation of their forefathers' medalbars.
The reason I suggest this is that I think the medals are all probably pre-1945 or even pre-1918 vintage. But look at the ribbon looped through the suspension of the Baden Field Service Decoration: it's original and old. I bet if you lifted the backing off this bar, you would find the medals are attached in the original style (sewn individually to strips of ribbon). The plate looks original too (I saw the full reverse photo on GMIC) but the backing cloth looks glued on. This is a very odd combination of original and postwar techniques and components.
Probably what happened is that the backing cloth and ribbons were tattered and motheaten, and someone brought it to Sedlatzek to restore. Sedlatzek put new ribbons and backing cloth on, and affixed their new label.Best regards,
Streptile
Looking for ROUND BUTTON 1939 EK1 Spange cases (LDO or PKZ)Comment
-
I've been meaning to get back to this thread, but work has really been bouncing for the last several days.
Chuck's discovery is GREAT.
I have just tonight had a chance to look at my crosses ("Sedlatzek" and Souval) and he is exactly correct. No chance yet to take any photos, but here is a 'rotated' view of a cross posted by another member in this thread (so that the vertical arm of the 3 o'clock arm is now at the bottom and is horizontal) which shows this clearly.
Wonderful job!Comment
-
Hi Gentry,
I don't really notice this flaw on either of my crosses. Maybe slightly developing on the one with silver diamonds but nothing IMO on the one with the golden diamond set...
Regards,
AlexComment
-
golden diamond setComment
-
Any thoughts on what caused this? Are we seeing different working dies, possibly some offset effect in striking from the defect which caused the "crater"on the lower arm, or something else entirely? The early "regular Souval" crosses, which still have the "crater" (but getting smaller) don't have it.Comment
-
Like already written in post 147 Friedrich Sedlatzek's shop was located at Friedrichstrasse 205 (ecke Mauerstrasse).
I looked in my Phonebook and I found out that there are some Jewelers with the same name, Herbert, Max and Werner.
Regards,
Wim.Last edited by Wim D; 11-04-2016, 01:19 PM.Comment
-
His shop in the Friedrichstrasse 205 (ecke Mauerstrasse):Comment
-
Seen from Checkpoint Charlie:Comment
-
Current situation:Comment
-
Now looking for a 1945 dated picture.
Regards,
Wim.Comment
-
If you compare the paintwork between the Sedlatzek cross(right side) showed here ''PAGE 9'' and the early postwar Souval crosses its has the same features/characteristics like paint traces on the frame.If souval made this type(Sedlatzek) cross before the LDO period why not using this core type postwar only and chance/choose to use a new core with dipping 3(wich excist during the war)after the Sedlatzek 1939 type core wasnt no more available?Originally posted by Alex W. View PostComment
-
Interesting comments on this thread. It is intriguing as well that there appears to beOriginally posted by AGFA40 View Post
wartime photos showing a "dipping ring" cross (whatever maker that might be).
Have owners of this type of cross compared, side by side,the quality of the beading to other wartime makers? In isolation, many fakes appear to be of "high quality", yet
a side by side comparison to wartime makers shows an inferior product.
Have you owners of this type of cross made such a comparison? Has anyone examined the elemental composition of the paint?
Unlike other "questionable" RKs, this style seems to have some promise.
PS- To those who thought Schickle may not be an awarded RK, I have a killer grouping with solid provenance that has an unmarked Schickle RK. Just picked it up from a Hermann Historica auction.Comment
-
Regarding the Schickle, IMO there is NO doubt that they were manufactured, acquired and worn wartime. The only question is whether they were used officially as award pieces. As I recall, in Vern Bowen's book there is a confusing example of a Schickle, in which, on initial reading, the Schickle was the awarded piece. This example has been cited multiple times as proof of award. On closer reading, however, the Schickle example in Bowen was in fact a private purchase, kept stored at home for wear, but in the original award piece's case. I would love to see actual proof of use as an award piece and would not be overly surprised if that showed up.Comment
Comment