S&L 935/4

[Dave Kane]

You are right George...shut it down!


Harry, won't benefit. Jeff isn't going to get answers and Tom will not get an explanation!

The entire thread which started out with a reasonable question has been convoluted.

[George Stimson]

At least the reasonable question that started the thread got answered -- in Post # 33.

[Harry]

To answer Jeff's question, the description on relicsofthereich site says the loop is marked 935.......

[Thomas H]

Hi Dave thanks for posting that pic.

Does your cross also have the inside of the suspension loop looks like it has been purposely finished to a flat surface?

The Loop I posted is marked 935 and has it, but it looks not as nicely as the cross in question.

Does someone know what the Silvercontentnumber is of this cross?

Thomas

Hi Harry,

The description on relicsofthereich site doesn't say anything about the loop, so we still don't know what the Silvercontentnumber is.

Maybe Dave can answer this question and the other questions I asked in post 147.

Greetings, Thomas

[Harry]

Sorry Thomas, I was mistaken! I have it on good knowledge though that it is indeed 935 marked...........

[Thomas H]

No problem Harry and thanks.

We now know that more then 1 '935' marked loop on a 935/4 marked cross has the inside of the suspension loop finished to a flat surface. The nicer it looks depend on how you take the picture.

Is this only with '935' loops on the 935/4 marked crosses or also on '800' marked loops on 935/4 marked crosses.

And how does the inside of the loop looks on '935' marked crosses. Do '935' marked crosses have '935' or '800' marked loops.

Thomas

[Harry]

Thomas,

The 935-only marked cross I inspected had a 800 marked ribbon loop. It was quite thick wire (only the single end fit through the 'eye') and not at all like the usual ribbon loops found on S&Ls. It did not have the flattened inner corners.........It is almost certainly a post-war ribbon loop, and are frequently seen on ebay.de

[Harry]

Here is another shot of the whole cross, it has the 'blip' on 9 o'clock frame and is overall not as well finished as the 935-4 crosses......

[Harry]

sloppy soldering, splashing onto the core.........3 o'clock arm, no flaws on the beading

[Harry]

the 935 mark, again......

[Harry]

But it has good crisp details to the beading....and is frosted!

[Brian S]

So for christ sake show everybody else or quit whining!!!!

Look Sal, if I thought Dave had some kind of magic in his ability to "READ" a dent row, I'd rent a billboard. He doesn't. I'm a little disappointed you don't get it. It's NOT in Dave's bag of tricks to see a dent row and through the art of palmistry tell us it's past.

[Brian S]

The 935-4 I have seen have a very pristine dent row. So the only measurement of "time" is the deterioration of this dent row and the subsequent appearance of the beading flaws (on different spots and with a different pattern when compared to the A-Type!)

The next fixed point in time are the early 57 crosses from S&L, sometimes marked 800. Here I think the dent row and it's deterioration over time is the key (apart form regular wear, of course).

Dietrich

Dietrich, you've seen one 935/4, a mint one, and this single observation creates a law for a timeline?

We don't have near the population of crosses to throw in these kind of conclusions. And Sal wonders why I, AND OTHERS, don't rush into the fray with photos to take a pounding from a comparison of a single mint example which for Dietrich is the benchmark...

[Brian S]

Sal, I'm just the only one 'whining', too bad I can't share the emails I get from people who are disgusted by this...

[Brian S]

Thoughts, comments on this one?

Question One: Not proven to be wartime. It's a Type B.