HOW to determine pre/post S&L!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Any swasi crosses to appear with the 'step' are postwar.

I don't hink you will ever find one of those! The heavily flawed unmagnetic cross with the flaws at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock and the dent row have no step. And this was the end stage of that die or die repair state.

The step so far is only on the 57's 1st model. Not on any other cross!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

I don't hink you will ever find one of those! The heavily flawed unmagnetic cross with the flaws at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock and the dent row have no step. And this was the end stage of that die or die repair state.

The step so far is only on the 57's 1st model. Not on any other cross!

Dietrich

Yes, BUT, we would need to see a cross like the one Gordon said his friend was offered in lieu of a '57 type. That's why I suggest they may exist.

If '57 crosses have the step, wouldn't a cross w/swasi have the step if put together at the same time...

[Dietrich Maerz]

The problem with this is that then all the heavily B-Type flawed crosses, unmagnetic and unmarked are before 57, i.e. before the die was repaired again, but with the oversight of the dent row.

This puts the majority of the B-Type between 45 and 57, judging by the use of the die. To me, the majority of the B-Types are post war anyway, but they don't end in 57. No way!

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

If '57 crosses have the step, wouldn't a cross w/swasi have the step if put together at the same time...

Yes, going by the unprooven assumption that S&L had only one die. I don't believe that...

Dietrich

[Brian S]

This puts the majority of the B-Type between 45 and 57, judging by the use of the die. To me, the majority of the B-Types are post war anyway, but they don't end in 57. No way!

Dietrich

I think this is an irresponsible comment Dietrich...

We're friends but I disagree with this statement without qualification. And qualification is everything here!

Flaws, etc.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

why do you get upset? I said "to me", which clearly indicates my position based on what I think I know and deduct from the research I have done. I do not critizise your opinion that the '800' B-Type come before the 935-4, nor the assumption that post war S&L must have the step.

I base my ASSUMPTION on the following:

- the 935-4 is the first B-Type (judging by the flaws)
- it was clearly introduced after mid 1944 (after flawed A-Types)
- marking with "4" was mandatory, S&L did this!
- they also marked the 800-4 as mandated

Then come the "935", "800", and all kinds of unmarked and unmagnetic, all B-Types up to the heavily flawed unmagnetic, unmarked B-Type. All without any provenance!

Why would S&L revert back to the "800" only, the "935" only or to unmarked in the last month or weeks of the war?

And the time frame between 45 and 57 is only valid if one believes in repaired dies. If not, thoses B-Types could wll have been produced on that die till the mid 80's.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

First, don't think I'm upset. I am quite calm. I just find the author stating these conclusions on what I consider to be not quite all the facts to be irresponsible.

And, I don't agree that they 'reverted back'. Why couldn't S&L have the B Type BEFORE the 4 was mandated and thusly only 800 marked crosses.

Again, I believe irresponsible that you conclude without the facts.

I have absolutely no idea how you can date this cross as post 935-4's and all the rest???

[George Stimson]

"Opinion" might be a better word than "assumption" here. (And it would certainly be better than "conclusion.")

[Dietrich Maerz]

First, don't think I'm upset. I am quite calm. I just find the author stating these conclusions on what I consider to be not quite all the facts to be irresponsible.

And, I don't agree that they 'reverted back'. Why couldn't S&L have the B Type BEFORE the 4 was mandated and thusly only 800 marked crosses.

Again, I believe irresponsible that you conclude without the facts.

I have absolutely no idea how you can date this cross as post 935-4's and all the rest???

Brian,

I'm not stating facts! I laid out my assumption, i.e. my opinion. And it would be irresponsible to conclude without facts, I agree. But I don't do that, i.e. concluding.

The reason I'm coming to the conclusion of the 935-4 being the first B-Type is that Daves cross has the "weld" splatter on the obverse and no longer on the reverse. The same 'time difference' can be seen with the knee flaw. This makes me conclude that the 935-4 was the frist model, based on visible indications. There is a progression in the knee flaw and a degression on the 'weld splatter'. That's for me a kind of time line.

Now has the cross you show us the weld splatter on the top of the 3 o'clock arm on any side? I thought we concluded that this was a sign of the repair and something that went away very fast (obverse to reverse).

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my conclusion.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Post war....

[Brian S]

I really don't give a damn what you call it it's the same effect. This site has published his work and his "OPINION" is being taken as the "TRUTH". That DOES get me upset and I'm out of here. We're spinning in circles again, same old process. Lack of data and OPINIONS being dogma. Show me a logical proof that this cross is later than the 935's, show me a logical proof it is postwar. If you can't state anything more than your OPINION I find it irresponsible and I won't be a part of this nonsense.

Dent row clean and crisp BOTH sides.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

does the cross have the 'weld splatter' on top of the 3 o'clock arm?

To quote Dave:

It has been asserted that this 'row' is indicative of a new die and this 'row' of dimples is a flaw in the die. It couldn't be...no way and no how!!

The obverse of the cross has the 'row' on the lower 3oc arm but DOES NOT show any indication whatsoever of the craters that appear on the front of the cross.

These craters couldn't possibly be die flaws but rather and logically so....debris of some sort. I lean toward weld.

Unquote

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Come on boys! I really got tired of going in circles about die A thru Z....Every thing that I looked at and photographed suggested to me only ONE die brought back to life several times. I found that I was writing the same thing over and over in different ways so I thought a Post like this would just cut to the chase...


As Dietrich said, the entire discussion is aimed at determining post war made crosses where FACTS can be introduced and maybe a consensus may be achieved involving opinion.

FACT....post war plated and very worn down die!!

[Brian S]

Brian,

does the cross have the 'weld splatter' on top of the 3 o'clock arm?

To quote Dave:

It has been asserted that this 'row' is indicative of a new die and this 'row' of dimples is a flaw in the die. It couldn't be...no way and no how!!

The obverse of the cross has the 'row' on the lower 3oc arm but DOES NOT show any indication whatsoever of the craters that appear on the front of the cross.

These craters couldn't possibly be die flaws but rather and logically so....debris of some sort. I lean toward weld.

Unquote

Dietrich

Nothing like this at all.

[Brian S]

Come on boys! I really got tired of going in circles about die A thru Z....Every thing that I looked at and photographed suggested to me only ONE die brought back to life several times. I found that I was writing the same thing over and over in different ways so I thought a Post like this would just cut to the chase...


As Dietrich said, the entire discussion is aimed at determining post war made crosses where FACTS can be introduced and maybe a consensus may be achieved involving opinion.

FACT....post war plated and very worn down die!!

And, YES, Dave, a CRISP cross on a worn out die.