One (repaired) S&l Rk Die!

[ChrisJ]

Dent Row

Weld spatter (spurious metal particles left after welding, which do not form part of the weld) does not form a straight line....they are rather spurious adhesions around a weld...rather like spitting fat in a hot frying pan. So this is not "weld spatter."

For the dent row to have been formed by a female die feature then the beading "valley" of the die would have to be filled by some material...and in a straight liine across several valleys. I cant see what that could have been caused through....unless there was an erroneous weld strike across peaks and valleys in the female, but the peaks were cleaned off, and the valley left. Thats just possible, I'll concede, but unlikely in my opinion)..

From Dave's picture it appears that the dent row feature is also visible as a sunken feature on the underside of the frame (maybe DM can confirm this when he fets the frame)...If this is correct, then it means that the weld strike theory on the female must be brought into question. How can the male and the female have exactly the same weld defect in the same place (but in negative).

We know that "draft angles" in a die (the angle of a sunken feature) are important ; if the angle is too severe then the forging will stick in the die....is it possible that this occured and the buckling is as a result of the release process ?.....OK.. maybe stretching a point, but not impossible, but unlikely I'll agree.

I'm sorry to keep thrashing this point, but if the male die was the "hub" and the hub was repressed into the die to reform the female during the repair process that produced the "B" type female, then features in the male will logically re-appear in the modified female. Any impact damage on the male would appear as indentations on the beading peaks, creating raised features in the valleys of the female, and therefore indentations on the beading peaks of the forged frame...as in the dent row.

(its hard to visualise this, I know...).

What does all this add up to in the context of this thread ?....quite honestly, I dont know. however the feature was caused, I expect that it would wear in the same way that the rest of the die would wear. It would also reflect the overall crispness of the cold forged frame. Where the dent row is poorly defined the overall frame crispness seems to also be less well defined....overall die wear, or merely less stamping pressure ?

But taking up Dietrich's point...who knows what the timeline is....Detlev clearly believes that 3R period 800/4's marked RK's of the "B" type exist. We have convincing evidence (for me and many others) of 935/4's being period...beyond that at the moment we dont know.

Yes...dies would have been polished and cleaned prior to each run....but then why would the frame that Dave posted show a well defined dent row, and lots of other problems (correct me if I'm wrong Dave/Dietrich) ?

Sorry...I've got no answers. But I wouldnt buy a "B" type except the 935/4. But if I already had one, I might just choose to hang on to it and await developments ! as Skip did with his flawed "A" type that many discounted as a post war copy....who knows the missing link just might appear !

But arent we getting rather off track here....Dave postulated that the ring on the frames were reworked to eliminate the dipping effect....what is the concensus on that theory ?

[DavidM]

......But arent we getting rather off track here....Dave postulated that the ring on the frames were reworked to eliminate the dipping effect....what is the concensus on that theory ?

Hello

Until this thread started I had always understood that the 'dipping eye' on the S&L crosses was a feature of their product, and the flattening of the eye - removal of the dipping portion - was a product of the hand finishing and burnishing that was applied to all their RKs.

Having read through the many posts in this thread, (some of which I can follow and some I'm not to clear about), my own personal opinion, (and that is all it is, an opinion), is still that the S&L RK die produced rims with a dipping eye. Whether or not they had to adjust the finishing process to accomadate some strict quality controls I have no idea. Maybe. But I feel that the dipping eye is, so far as quality control goes, irrelevant. S&L made their RKs in this manner, and, given the amount of hand finishing that clearly went into these awards, removed the lower part of the dipping ring during the final process. So I would agree that the dipping eye effect was removed during the manufacturing / production process and is not the result of a new or re-worked die.

While on the topic of why did this happen, the only other remote possibility that I can think of is, despite the size difference, that S&L were told not to leave the dipping eye on their RKs in case they were confussed as being Grand Crosses. In other words, the quite clear dipping eye would distinguish the Grand Cross in photos and real life from the RKs. Goering was certainly vain and powerful enough in the early part of the war to get something like that pushed through. As I say, just a thought, a remote pssoibility that occured to me.

Regards
David

[ChrisJ]

Gc

Yes...that all sounds possible...I must admit I hadnt thought about the similarlity to the GC in these terms.
Thanks David.

[Brian S]

That is not true and you know it.

What do you want me (or others to say)? That it is perfectly ok to by a B-Type cross and hope it comes with an expertise? Come on, Brian, get real!

No. I don't know why you are saying this? I am looking for an answer to my question inbetween Chris' constant return to the male die characteristics which is so very interesting I admit but...

Maybe a third time is the charm:

Originally Posted by Brian S
935-4
800-4
800
935
1957

Above, Dietrich's theory of die run progression. Seems perfectly fine to me as the die don't lie I don't argue with that. All is fine with me.

Here's where I have a problem. 935-4 to 800-4. You see a definitive difference in the details to the pock marking. Yes. I do too. Hence the obvious progression of die runs.

But there's a problem I have...

The very first cross in the 935-4 run should have an absolutely crisp and detailed pock mark trail on the cross. Yes? But what about the last cross struck on that run? Shouldn't THAT last 935-4 cross look exactly, near exactly like the FIRST cross of the 800-4 run? And so on... Shouldn't the last cross struck on the 800-4 run look nearly excactly like the first cross of the 800 run?

It should if you subscribe to the theory that the die was WORN by manufacture! That being your theory you should be able to show an absolute progression of wear from various examples of each cross.

The last 800 struck should look like the first 935. The last 935 like the first '57.

Let's see a progression of die run wear or I substitute the theory that the die was worked between runs and that is what you are seeing, is wear on the die splatter repair material inbetween runs.

Sal, it appears to me that the pock marks are not markedly different on any of the above SL RKs. Therefore, why are the pock marks "worn" as though the die splatter was worn down during the run but AFTER the run of frames.

The point here is was the die "worn" in the creation of the frames or inbetween runs on the die repair. It makes a big difference in the way the "conclusions" are being drawn. Dietrich is framing B Types as in a grey area, why? Because of wear on the die that takes time as in stamping frames or wear on a die inbetween runs which can be in several minutes of polishing the female die half.

[Dave Kane]

Brian, you continue to deny and attempt to 'talk around' the obvious!

Here is a picture of an OBVIOUS post war made S&L Cross and the dents / pocks in the 3oc arm. Certainly not anywhere near as sharp as the 935/4 but still very obvious.....

The ridge and valley areas are still pretty defined as well!

[Dave Kane]

Then we have YOUR Cross....

The dent / pock area OBVIOUSLY softened and flat along with the ridge and valley areas!

How does WEAR go BACKWARD?? Why or better yet HOW do you argue that your Cross pre-dates the accepted post war S&L?

Please, no hate mail or PM's..thanks

[Brian S]

You're not answering the question with anything. You're just being nasty by trying to turn my cross into a postwar fake. It's not about the hobby, it's not about trying to find realities, it's about personal vendetta.

Are you or are you NOT capable of understanding the question?

Dave, if you are unable to answer the question why must you try to put motive into the question? It's a question. If you don't like it, ignore it, if you can't answer it, why try to put diatribe in place of an answer. That's rhetorical, of course I know why you answer with diatribe.

[Dave Kane]

Where would you place this....before, during or AFTER the sharper '57?