S&L 935/4

[George Stimson]

I agree, and let's see if he comes up with some concrete information. If he does, he does. If he doesn't, he doesn't. But I don't want any more of this off-topic and personal back and forth. Please!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

I always appreciate your comments...but one thing is not true: It's no my logic.

Wear will be a factor in taking away some highlights and some rough edges, BUT it will not take away one or more complete dents! Those dents are taken away since the weld splatter (as you call it, most likely even correct) is worn down INSIDE the die and is therefore an imprint done to the cross right at the time of stamping.

The heavily flawed cross has at least 3 dents missing at that is because the splatters in the die disappeared, not because of wear to the cross after the production. Why? Because NONE of the beading flaws are worn, they are sharp and high. So only this area conincidently was worn. No way.

Finishing by S&L? You are trying to tell me that they removed some dents on the flawed cross for reasons of beauty and left ALL beading flaws untouched? For a post war production? I don't buy that.

For me this is a perfectly clear indication of die deterioration and I stick to it. Nobody relly realized this flwas row 8 montyh ago and now I should believe that S&L sometimes cleaned it up?

The three examples are not meaningless (I have more, by the way) and they clearly show what happened to the die over the use of time. Wear cannot fill a hole, it's that simple.

Dietrich

[Jeff Nichols]

Getting back to the flat part of the jump ring, that could be from wearing of the cross itself. I have an "800" S&L A-type and I just noticed the single end the cross hangs from is somewhat flatter than the double end and my cross is a worn cross. I know jump rings can easily be interchanged and has nothing to do with the cross in question, but i figured I would mention mine since there are several posts in reference to the flat part of the jump ring-maybe its an S$L thing...Cheers...Jeff

[Dave Kane]

Hardly 'mint in a box'!! Detlev's take....

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

Nice un-'polished' dent row All ELEVEN in fact!

[Dietrich Maerz]

...

[Dave Kane]

Which Cross are you ref. to Dietrich?

[Dietrich Maerz]

...

[Dave Kane]

What!!! I started w/ a coa from Detlev....showed the same Cross w/ ribbon and then a close shot of its dent row. And, to top it off you photograped and held in hand the same Cross....


The 3 posts are surely self explanatory and a visual response to Brian's preposterous assertion that the Cross is mint!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Sorry, could'n read the COA and mixed that up with another one - my fault!

[Dave Kane]

Whew!

[tom hansen]

Thanks for clarifying the dent row with photographic examples. So I guess if the deterioration of the dent row was due to later strikes, are the pieces with the more deteriorated dent row always associated with more flawing on the beading? I would think that both would occur, as we would expect more flawing with more strikes. This is seen on juncker RKs with more flaws on later strikes, S&L RKs, and even with the comparison of schickle '39 RK with '57 pieces. Are there more beading flaws on those pieces with the deteriorated dent row?

[Brian S]

I see an old ribbon on a cross with silver deterioration. Mixing a new cross with an old ribbon NEVER happens.

Dietrich, I'm talking about running the cross pre cored quickly up and down a buffer wheel. No that would not touch the knee dents. Now add wear to the initial buffing.

Whatever. This cross Dave shows proves nothing but an old ribbon a very new looking cross.

[Brian S]

Nice un-'polished' dent row All ELEVEN in fact!

This your definition of CRISP? (translate: ha ha ha)