S&L RK Die Repairs

[Brian S]

I came to the original conclusion a couple of years ago that this was a spill from a die repair. Looking up die repair materials the materials themselves can be extremely strong and tolerant. Never as durable as the original die but durable. I just don't see an evidential dent row progression amongst the crosses to suggest one is postwar one is not. Nor do I think I am delusional because I 'cling' to the possibility that these crosses are wartime and the postwar SL crosses are so entirely evidential by their lack of fit and finish.

[Dietrich Maerz]

My view is that the dent row is in fact flaws to the male die. It has every characteristic of so being.

A flaw on the male die would create something on the inside of the frame:

- a spill on the male would create holes in the inside surface
- cavities in the male would create the usual flaws (humps) in the inside

In either case, I think it would not be visible.

[VIPER]

S@l 800/4

I do not see a CONSISTANT progression either. They are not even consistant from front too back. I sure wish I could do macro better with my camera so I could show what I mean. The dents on mine are much sharper and similar too the 935/4 Dietrich illustrated than the 800/4 illustrated. The paint also has that eggshell sheen on the core although this texture is not readily apparent on the pictures. Also according to my research a number of 800/4s surfaced in motel buys from veterens in the Chicago area a few still in the cellophane. Not that it means much or is proveable...............Jimmy

[Peter Wiking]

Here is a small gallery of some markings found on Knight Crosses (S&L) with a swastika, regardless of flaws, dent rows or zink/iron cores.

Cheers.
Peter

[ChrisJ]

Gentlemen Please

Gentlemen...please read my post 75.

The "dent" is a flaw or damaged to the MALE die....it has every characteristic of so being.

so ??????

(Think about this please)

[ChrisJ]

A flaw on the male die would create something on the inside of the frame:

- a spill on the male would create holes in the inside surface
- cavities in the male would create the usual flaws (humps) in the inside

In either case, I think it would not be visible.

Its not spill on the male Dietrich....they would probably create indents in the frame even possibly holes

Cavities in the male would create the same in the frame...which is what we are seeing.

[ChrisJ]

wear

Cavities in the male would exhibit wear to the rims as the die was used, and would exhibit the same degree of definitiion as the rest of the cross...thus badly defined crosses will have badly defined dent rows. Crisp and like the 935/4 will have crisp dent row.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Chris,

please indicate which one is the male and which one is the female die.

[ChrisJ]

Chris,

please indicate which one is the male and which one is the female die.

The "male" is the upper die part in your presentation.

[Dietrich Maerz]

And how can any cefect in this male die effect the outside of the cross?

[Brian S]

I don't think so Chris. These are holes. The SL die needed repair. Repairs were done with a molten material that splashed in a line along the die. Not a flaw to the die which are more in terms of lines from cracks, not holes from extra material splashed on. This is the single original die which had no holes. Repair the die and spill a little material, voila, holes.

[VIPER]

S@l

Would not this extra material cause indentations in the surface of the silver sheet.....Jimmy

[ChrisJ]

And how can any cefect in this male die effect the outside of the cross?

Imagine pushing your finger into an inflated balloon...the balloon material will naturally resist and will take up the shape of your finger and the gap between your nail and finger. Looking from the inside of the balloon you would see a negative of your finger impression that appears on the outside.

...same with the silver, it will naturally resist being pushed (and stretched) into the female and will take up an impression of the male to a degree, and will tend to fill any indentations in the male. The extent that this occurs will depend upon the pressure of the stamping.

I hope I am making myself clear.

[ChrisJ]

I don't think so Chris. These are holes. The SL die needed repair. Repairs were done with a molten material that splashed in a line along the die. .

You have a good point, Brian, ....and we certainly cannot discount this. But then we have the scenario where the engineers at S&L filled the female cavities very expertly indeed in the other arms, and then ignored a "splodge" of repair material over the raised portion of the beading in the dent row location that would be relatively easy to remove. Sorry, doesnt add up to me.

To my mind, it looks like we have either impact damage to the male, or material loss to the male. I tend towards the former as the position of the feature doesnt seem to be the main stress point (the middle of the beading), and doesnt decend into valleys ( valley on the male remember), coupled with the fact that S&L dont appear to be concerned about it growing. Impact damage to the male would be evident in the peaks to the male beading impression, and would not decent into the valley unless it was extreme. Surely this is what we are seeing (??)

How else would damage to the male appear (?)

Remember that these features are displaced from the centre of the beading, and so a cavity in the male die in this location would tend to drag material into the cavity as it was brought down to compress the flat sheet of silver

I believe that S&L were concerned about the total breakdown of the dies, which we know eventually did occur. I also believe once the dies started to deteriorate the process was rapid. I also believe that there was a further die repair performed prior to the 57 version, why else would we have heavily flawed "B" types without the extra feature that appeared on the 57 9 o'clock arm (?)....the female flaw problem was again only addressed, but for the "male dent" row it was considered unthreatening and once again was ignored.

I cant prove any of this...but I think its a theory that everyone might like to consider, and see how it fits in with the evidence we have before us....and what it would mean ! The spatter idea does hold merit, and makes the explanation easy....but it might not be the whole story.

[ChrisJ]

What it Would Mean ?

Here are some possibilities to ponder if what we are seeing in the lower 3 o'clock arm is in fact a feature of the male die :

1.
If the dent feature is a flaw as opposed to impact damage, then the flaw would in all probability grow until it stablised at some point. Therefore, well struck crosses of the "B" type with a poorly defined dent row just "might" be pre 935/4 (moral...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater)

2.
If the dent feature was due to impact damage, then the flaw would stay pretty much the same, and its definition would reflect the overall striking of the frame, and S&L would not be overly concerned about it.

(I've already said where my opinion lies between these two)

Moving on.

During this thread we have seen a lot of great postings from DM showing that there was a keen market in 3R material post war, that was matched by enterprising individuals in Germany & the US.

But if as late as the 1980's S&L could have successfully made money by selling those terrible restrikes it should give us pause for thought. The collecting community then was not as well informed as today, and why should a faker waste time and effort producing the "definitive fake" when something from the bottom of a Corn Flakes packet would find a ready market.

Certain dealers in London and the US would not get away with that sort of nonsense today. Then (?) well it was all too easy....(I know I was a victim ripped off in the early 80's in this fashion).

I fear that the current collecting community is panic striken whenever the hint of "as good as original" repros from the 60's and 70's is muted. The hard evidence is that most of the copies that were being sold in the 60's, 70' and the 80's would not stand up to serious analysis today.

The most dangerous area for us is the immediate/medium post war era where the same craftsmen & firms (such as S&L) were in all probability producing 1939 examples for replacements for veterans with a degree of professional pride & expertise....and flogging a few off to a growing and unsuspecting market overseas.

As far as S&L is concerned the definitive crosses must the "A" type and the 935/4 thanks to the great work done by members of this forum.

OK...thats me off my "soap box",...tonight I leave the floor to you all, and retire to my bunker with a bottle of Chianti