Originally posted by Chris Jenkins
View Post
The splatter spilled from the die repair, my theory, was entirely ignored by the die repair engineer because it is entirely not really visible to the eye. The result on the cross is entirely unnoticeable. It's very very small. After all the years of collecting Dietrich was the first person to notice it in 2005 (not Dr. Tom...)
To the point of the discovery in 2005, there was NO A type or B type in all the HUNDREDS of SL crosses sold by dealers over the years to say here's a B type to a recipient. There was no A/B distinction. Come on Dietrich, saying no B type was ever recorded by a recipient is a weak argument.
Now consider how small these holes with a raised crater really are and imagine some buffing of the frame and the crater edges can easily be buffed away or made less severe.
In the SL factory itself I would EXPECT some finishing of the frame and be suspect of unfinished frames except for those frames with period produced acid finishing or frosting.
This discussion is I think beyond us as the facts don't support either side. I only jumped in because the 'evidence' being presented bothered me as to the rush to judgement on supposition and innuendo. As it is, I'll now be accused of trying to prop up the multi-million dollar B type market. But whatever, the gutter forum will take any conversation here out of context as they already have.
We have NO good evidence of a B type to an awardee. Duh... What some of you purchasers of crosses from Detlev, et al, need to do is check your crosses. Did the provenance come with the cross? Not too often, eh? So that's a tough one, believe what you will, bye...
Comment