1957 1st Pattern Ritterkreuz

[streptile]

If the "C" is a repaired "B", that would eliminate the possibility of the "worn out" B dies being sold to an English dealer, as claimed in the past.

Right. I just read about this theory last night for the first time. I think it's very clear that the C-type frames were made from a repaired B-type die. I'll post the info that persuaded me when I'm home from work .

[-=Re-Sa=-]

How can be frame repaired? That is impossibile in medalistic! When you remove model from pantgraph you can not repair the frame anymore.
It is possible to made modification on frame, but that is very visible and looks very bad.

[Leroy]

The idea of S&L having only 1 die, which was repaired repeatedly, has been the subject of very serious and heated debate for several years. Some have said that there was one "mother die" from which all subsequent dies were made. Others insisted that there was only a single die. The idea of only one die is an important part of the S&L "timeline" theory.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Only possibility is that they have a big model of die in scale 6:1 or 10:1, and then they can made new die with pantograph, diferences are small, but they are visible. Second possibility is that he have made a positive die from the first/big model and then stamped the negative die. After the die once harden then is impossible anything to repair.
One die can do limited stamps, even apart with ekscentric press.
That "timeline" theory is wrong.

regards
Sasha

Sorry for my english

[Dietrich Maerz]

Sahsa,

it is not quite that easy. First of all, in the every long debates we had, we also found several facilities which did die repairs. This was nothing new and is nothing new. Everything can be repaired, hardened or not.

But that is not point which points to one repaired die. One has to look very close to the details of the first die and record them. One will see the same details (less than 0.5 mm) in the second die. All of them! There is no pantograph, no model press, no copy milling machine nor any other mechanical device available in the 1940s to duplicate these very fine details. And another stunning thing points to the theory being right: it fits perfectly into what is happening in the real world.

Do yourself a favor and search the old threads and you will see for yourself. This has all been discussed for pages and pages and pages. However, you are not alone with your "That theory is wrong" statement.

Dietrich

[streptile]

I read through this entire thread last night:

One (repaired) S&l Rk Die!

Yes, it was a very heated debate. But one need only skim it to see that there is overwhelming evidence to show that the C-type frames were made with a repaired B-type die. The dent row on the 4 o'clock arm, and the split-bead on the 6 o'clock arm are only the two best examples of this evidence; they exist on both B-type frames and C-type frames.

The C-type frame Dave Kane shows in the first few posts is exactly like the one on my RK shown here in this thread. The beads are sharply defined where the old B-type flaws were, showing evidence of repair. Where there were no flaws on the B-type, and the die was unrepaired, the beading on the C-type is very flat, indicating die wear over a long period of time... more than 2 decades by 1959.

The debate was fascinating, and went into other things (dipping rings, for one), but the meat of the conclusion regarding the C-type frame is in the first 10 posts or so.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Hello Dietrich, with all respect, I am one of those that don't believe into tool repairs.
In my oppinion it goes for completely new tools. Acording to that that they were stamping with excentric presses, we know that the tools didn't last a lot of stamps. I would dare to guess between 2000-5000 pieces with one tool. Out of that I can take a guess, that the tools have a positiv die with witch they made negatives suitable for stamping. Out of that reason we can see minimal tolerance in the stamps, we also must not ignore that by the stamping many times bends the tool-die.
Deformations like dent-row can occur because of a fling which eats itself into the tool, or other possibilty that was deformation on positive tool.
I saw already repairs on modern tool-dies, and they looks realy bad.

So we won't be off topic I have to say that Trevor, you has a nice cross.

regards
Sasha

[streptile]

Hi guys,

I regret to say that this Knight's Cross was lost and presumed stolen in the mail. It was sold, and sent from NYC to the western USA two months ago. A postal inquiry has failed to turn up the parcel, and I am pursuing other channels. In the meantime, please be on the lookout for it on eBay or craigslist, or any other venue.

Here are the photos from the first post:

[Mike Yokum]

Sorry to hear of the trouble Trevor. That's awful news. You can bet I'll keep my eyes peeled on your behalf!

[streptile]

Sorry to hear of the trouble Trevor. That's awful news. You can bet I'll keep my eyes peeled on your behalf!

Thanks, Mike. It's a real shame.

[Matthieu]

Sorry to hear of the trouble Trevor. That's awful news. You can bet I'll keep my eyes peeled on your behalf!

Same here .... I'm always on the lookout for these ... if it turns up somewhere, I'll let you know ASAP.

[Peter Wiking]

Sorry to read the bad news. I will let you know if i see it.

Peter

[streptile]

Thank you all. I will update the thread if I have any news. Best, Trevor.

[streptile]

A bump up.

If anyone sees this cross, please let me know.

Thanks in advance.