S&L RK.....help please!

[Mike P.]

Once the existence of 2 different S&L frames is accepted by all (and timeline on markings), ...it will be a whole new job to document and identify how many core dies were used ( and when) . I think the thin numbers on my S&L Type A proves that soon we'll have to start looking at the cores as well ...I guess that will be the next level.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andy,

I agree, there's a difference between hard facts and nebulous statements and "heard thru the grapevine" or "morphing". This was never my intention!

So to stay with that reasoning, i.e. the factual: the only safe B-Type is a 935-4 due to Klessheim provenance!

Everything else is up for graps at this time, or, better, is pure opinions without solid basis.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

I have no doubt that the type A frames are the earlier, and by assumption wartime versions.

With the B types however, how do we know for sure which are wartime and which are not? I have heard the 935 4 crosses referred to as wartime type Bs while other types (non silver/non ferrous) are labelled restrikes. I am also aware of the die flaw progression and construction facets of the argument, but how do we know exactly where the production of type B crosses was when the war ended? It seems to me that we have traded one gray area for another. The old die flaw progression argument was difficult to pin down on a definitive timeline, and so is the newer theory. What is keeping us from making the perhaps more logical assumption that all type B RKs are postwar, to include the 935 4s? I have heard the argument that an oddity such as a non ferrous core would not have existed late in the war, but 935 frames are an oddity as well yet these seem to be accepted as wartime. I don't have a dog in this fight as my one and only SL RK is a type A. I guess it concerns me that we are now labelling Dietrich's theory as fact. IMO there are VERY few facts in this hobby because we lack the primary source documentation...ie production specs, figures etc

And in a nutshell, this is exactly my thoughts.

[Brian S]

Once the existence of 2 different S&L frames is accepted by all (and timeline on markings), ...it will be a whole new job to document and identify how many core dies were used ( and when) . I think the thin numbers on my S&L Type A proves that soon we'll have to start looking at the cores as well ...I guess that will be the next level.

I've been saying that also for months but to no avail. Some folks like the theory at its conclusion right where it is, so it they stay away from the continuation of study. It's so much easier to be comfortable, put your feet and relax as long as it fits your pieces.

[tom hansen]

I think that Dietrich's timeline is accurate and seems to be supported by the pieces available. I agree also that it is not accurately known which of the "B" type crosses post date 1945 and further information may be required to make that determination more definitive. I have read the posts regarding this issue and really do not know what to think, unless there is a "B" type cross that is heavily flawed and or has a non-magnetic core. The rest of the "B" type issue seems a little fuzzy to me.