BunkerMilitaria

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oaks marked 21

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Yes, probably a

    What is interesting is that the 900 on this piece looks very much more like a 1st Type OL stamp. Maybe it's a 1st type stamp on a 2nd Type?
    Last edited by Sly; 04-24-2012, 03:20 PM.

    Comment


      #17
      Again, thanx for all the comments. I'll try to figure out how to "check" my caliper Sly. I've heard these sometimes go out of whack. Maybe I'll just buy another - they're cheap enough.

      As to the stamp - were these all stamped with the same set of hand stamps? Again, I don't know and am just wondering....

      Comment


        #18
        If I may - Douglas 5 posted side-by-side imagery of the present piece and another 900/21 marked Oakleaf. While I haven't studied types 1 & 2 OLs in much depth, these ‘appear’ to me to be different dies if one looks at the ten o’clock position or the shape of the second leaf. The discussion piece is sort of a smooth bump whereas his example has a more ‘indented’ leaf.

        Were one to look at this thread (http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...87125#poststop) the example presented appears configured more like the discussion piece at the ten o’clock - second leaf - position as does the example from yet another thread, posted by WC Stump. Where Douglas’ example appears different than the two below (which are accepted as authentic) I first reflect that we should be comparing similarly ‘configured’ OL which Douglas’ seems not to be. I then ponder Sly’s observation: “What is interesting is that the 900 on this piece looks very much more like a 1st Type OL stamp. Maybe it's a 1st type stamp on a 2nd Type?” which brings up some questions I hope folks might address in the interest of expanding my knowledge base:

        1.] Were the number stamps/punches, used by the jewelers, individual punches for each numeral, ie ‘2’ and ‘1’ or were the punches were the complete number, ie ‘21’ which might warrant the belief that the numerals need to be a specific configuration for a specific ‘type’ of OL or even a specific numeral to be considered an authentic ‘mark’.

        2.] Might not jewelers working on these awards, sitting across from each other at the Godet facility, on occasion, use the whichever punch was within easy reach thus accounting for both types 1 & 2 being marked with similar punches now and then?

        To the neophyte, looking at Stump’s photo, specifically the 21 - the numeral ‘1’ appears (to me) to be a darn close match - with almost upward tilt to the base of the one - to the one reflected on the discussion piece. Again, I’m hoping to put into perspective the acceptance of specific configurations of accepted numerals so my head is on straight in the future.

        Thanx, Rick
        Attached Files

        Comment


          #19
          Rick,

          I would love to be able to answer your questions, since I have for some months been asking myself and others (much to their annoyance, I think) the same. I have learned that the reality with these pieces is that it is virtually impossible to determine from pictures alone whether they are good, bad or ugly.

          To your specific questions (1) haven't a clue : ) (2) that would seem feasible. But did it happen? No idea.

          We can all speculate and study different angles, shadings, resolution and composition and 'umm and ahh' over these things, but without them in hand and under the scope, it's a bit of a crap shoot. The obvious fakes are clear to see. But the good ones, and variants of the really good ones or real ones seem a bit of a challenge.

          All I can say is get them in the hands of an 'expert' for a physical inspection.

          Cheers

          S

          Comment


            #20
            Thanx for the response Sly. I just ordered a Veho VMS-004 Microscope with x400 Magnification that ties to my MAC just for ****s & grins. I think you're right though - let someone with a clue look at the OLs and see what can be figured out. Maybe Leroy can be conned into looking at them.

            As to the caliper, I tested it against the US Mint's measurements of a nickel and it was off 0.01 (I think). That was the suggestion of one of the engineers I work for now & then at Starrett who made the caliper. I guess that means the reading I got were more or less accurate & this bauble is a tad smaller than the accepted norm.

            Comment


              #21
              Rick,

              this thread - as interesting as it is - can go on litterally forever without any result. Judging Oakleaves and/or Oakleaves with Swords with pictures only is IMHO only possible up to the level of saying "They might be good."

              As has been said, it is fairly easy to detect an obvious and blatant fake, but as soon as the criteria of a genuine Type 1 or Type 2 Oakleaves set are visible (and there are quite a few), it could also be a very good casting. And that needs closer inspection to be determined.

              In this case the set "looks good" but the dimensions are off by nearly a full [mm]. That is outside the range by far (and I have quite an extensive amount of data), but could also be a result of a very bad measurement or a bad caliper (I have seen people using calipers as a hammer ...).When dimensions are as critical as they are with the oaks, one needs to have a measuring device which is calibrated and accurate to at least +/- 0.05 mm.

              If you really want to know for sure you have to show the set to somebody who can make a very educated judgement based on a solid knowledge of the topic.

              All you reasonably can get here is a "They look good but the measurments (as presented) are off considerably." Shrinking in size is normally a sign of casting.

              Dietrich
              Last edited by Dietrich Maerz; 04-25-2012, 01:16 PM.
              B&D PUBLISHING
              Premium Books from Collectors for Collectors

              Comment


                #22
                Just wondering - would anyone have a suggestion as to who might be able to do a hands-on look at these (within the US) who's knowledgable about this maker's work?

                Had asked Leroy but this maker isn't his strong suit. Asked Dietrich but never heard back.

                Suggestions?

                (a couple more photos for fun...)
                Attached Files

                Comment


                  #23
                  .
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Do you go to MAX in October?
                    Best regards,
                    Streptile

                    Looking for ROUND BUTTON 1939 EK1 Spange cases (LDO or PKZ)

                    Comment


                      #25
                      No. My willpower is limited, thus I would return with maxed credit cards and my wife would lynch me.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Fair enough.
                        Best regards,
                        Streptile

                        Looking for ROUND BUTTON 1939 EK1 Spange cases (LDO or PKZ)

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
                          Rick,

                          this thread - as interesting as it is - can go on litterally forever without any result. Judging Oakleaves and/or Oakleaves with Swords with pictures only is IMHO only possible up to the level of saying "They might be good."

                          As has been said, it is fairly easy to detect an obvious and blatant fake, but as soon as the criteria of a genuine Type 1 or Type 2 Oakleaves set are visible (and there are quite a few), it could also be a very good casting. And that needs closer inspection to be determined.

                          In this case the set "looks good" but the dimensions are off by nearly a full [mm]. That is outside the range by far (and I have quite an extensive amount of data), but could also be a result of a very bad measurement or a bad caliper (I have seen people using calipers as a hammer ...).When dimensions are as critical as they are with the oaks, one needs to have a measuring device which is calibrated and accurate to at least +/- 0.05 mm.

                          If you really want to know for sure you have to show the set to somebody who can make a very educated judgement based on a solid knowledge of the topic.

                          All you reasonably can get here is a "They look good but the measurments (as presented) are off considerably." Shrinking in size is normally a sign of casting.

                          Dietrich
                          I was surprised to see the dimensions of these oaks being outside your range. Attached is a cert from you in February of 2016 with what I see as a rather large variation in size and weight difference to what I’ve seen posted and published for other type 2 oaks. Is there new information on a variant?
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                            #28
                            I had this set at my home and measured it. The main criteria for originality are, of course, the typical fingerprints of the die and not the dimensions. Maybe this one was finished a little more aggresive. There is always a certain tolerance to reckon with, same with the weight. The listing of weight and dimension is more to list the feature of the item than a solid factor for originality. Lots of fakes have “correct” dimensions, but wrong fingerprints.
                            B&D PUBLISHING
                            Premium Books from Collectors for Collectors

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Hello,
                              good to know. I thought that weight an this mm are not possible for genuine oaks!
                              Hein

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Hein View Post
                                Hello,
                                good to know. I thought that weight an this mm are not possible for genuine oaks!
                                Hein
                                Now we have two documented sets of original Godet oaks with the exact same height measurement of 18.3 mm. The only other oaks I’ve seen mentioned of similar size are the Kemnade oaks, very close iirc.

                                Comment

                                Users Viewing this Thread

                                Collapse

                                There is currently 1 user online. 0 members and 1 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 4,375 at 11:03 PM on 01-16-2020.

                                Working...
                                X