Laurence Strong Posted November 23, 2005 Posted November 23, 2005 I found this surfing e-stores.What I don't like with it are the hilts on the swords, and from what I have read, the "thick" RK's are repro's. Also I don't like where the 900 is, has anyone seen this before?
Laurence Strong Posted November 23, 2005 Author Posted November 23, 2005 The placement of the MM. Look how thick the suspension ring is.
Laurence Strong Posted November 23, 2005 Author Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Close up of the obverse wreath. Edited November 23, 2005 by Laurence Strong
Laurence Strong Posted November 23, 2005 Author Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Wreath reverse, whats with the weird center! Starting to see some file marks or scratches Edited November 23, 2005 by Laurence Strong
Laurence Strong Posted November 23, 2005 Author Posted November 23, 2005 Close up of the suspension ring, this medal has alot of scratches on it.
Stogieman Posted November 23, 2005 Posted November 23, 2005 In addition to your concerns, I do not think the "pebbling" looks quite right.
Gordon Williamson Posted November 23, 2005 Posted November 23, 2005 I found this surfing e-stores.What I don't like with it are the hilts on the swords, and from what I have read, the "thick" RK's are repro's. Also I don't like where the 900 is, has anyone seen this before?It certainly doesn't match any known originals but the simple fact is we don't know how many firms manufactured this award so apart from gut feelings about certain aspects of its execution that don't quite match up with other known originals, there is no way to be absolutely sure. Certainly not the kind of piece it would be worth risking a lot of money on though.It is NOT however true that all "thick" RK are fake. There is a marked difference in the thickness of the common Deschler type and the Steinhauer type which is noticeably thicker. (The Steinhauer is itself however, thinner than the very thick postwar Souval pieces).Its a bit like the "low swastika" wisdom of the Souval RK of the EK, which caused some people to worry over perfectly original Knight's Crosses because of the swas being a little lower than the beading when what was meant was really that "very low" swastika were a worry. Same with the KVKs. The Souvals copies weren't just thick, they were "very thick".
Larry L Posted November 23, 2005 Posted November 23, 2005 Gentlemen,Like Mr. Williamson said, it is not a known original (at least not for me).Souvals are thick, here is a pic to compare the thickness.L
MattGibbs Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Given that the numbers awarded are so small, and the orders chancellry might have taken projections of this into account when placing orders with firms isn't it quite unlikely that there would have been 10's of firms producing these awards.?Just making a point, I don't wish to start an argument but there doesn't seem to be all that many makers of this, I know we don't know HOW many. Anyone researching in this area made a stab at looking at makers and die characteristics to get an idea of how many makers?ttfnMG
Guest Darrell Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Anyone researching in this area made a stab at looking at makers and die characteristics to get an idea of how many makers?ttfnMGGordon has a KVK book in the works soon ...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now