Great stuff guys!!! The frame should have lots of 'frequent flier' miles on it over the next couple of weeks and I hope it provides some insight that will be articulated here!
-
Regards,
Dave -
-
Yep
Thanks a lot Sal for the obverse shot...to me this look pretty conclusive....punch strikes to me, plain and clear.Originally posted by Sal Williams View Post
Chris
(looking for early K & Q RK)Comment
-
You've just it all figured out don't you Chris.
How do you know the marks weren't stamped after the cross was joined and finished...Comment
-
HelloOriginally posted by Brian S View Post
I'm no engineer, but I would have thought that if the '800' or whatever mark was stamped or punched onto the RK after it had been assembled that some distortion of the upper arm would occur. I don't know if I am right with this, (and hopefully the engineers among you can comment on this), but I was under the impression that to stamp or punch a mark on soft metals such as silver, you needed a solid base or back support under where you are applying the mark. In this case the rear half of the frame would need something solid under the upper arm, or possibly the under the whole of the frame, to allow the impression to made without distorting the metal.
Regards
DavidComment
-
If the 'theory' of flattening the dipping ring holds true (which I doubt...) then the "800" was stamped after assembly as can be seen with this picture. Otherwise the '800' would be flattened, too. Or not?
If the 'punching' of the dipping ring was done before assembly, the "solder fills it" theory is out of the window, too. Or not?
As an engineer I could live with a scenario where the cross is stamped after assembly if the reverse sits firmly on a hard surface. A not to deep punch will not penetrate 1.2 mm of silver. Sure is that the stamping was done after the 'finish' was applied since there's normally residue of 'finish' that inside the numbers.
I wonder why i have never ever seen any such traces of a "punch" on any of the S&L's? This is an absolute first and how sure is everybody that this is definite proof that S&L was the supplier of the dipping ring? The puncher was a fairly good guy, always coming up with the same ring shape....
Could it not be that the minor variations of the lower ring portions are done with the burnishing tool? And that the tool for the ring was like it is?
I still would need to see a company which would say: Okay, lets spend the extra 10 minutes per cross over the next 6 years to 'punch' this ugly ring away. Let's NOT change the die in a matter of several days...and make this 'rework' go away.
The others certainly did so...
DietrichComment
-
What have disturbed the surface here on the same cross?
PeterComment
-
Actually to me it looks like some sort of punching/burnishing hand work was done on mine after the 800 was applied . Maybe before too but seems like after something was done.Comment
-
And on the pic Chris posted it looks almost as if the thing was filled with solder and then filed and broke thruough to the silver solder in some areas. Different techniques for different workers?Comment
-
-
Sorry, I Dont agree Dietrich.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
In my opinon both flattening and marking would be done before assembly.
As you will be aware, a sign of a faked MM on RK's is evidence of distortion that can occurs to the obverse side of the frame. The completed frame is quite delicate you know, and especially in this area, and I'm sure no one would want to hit the completed RK with a hammer and punch.
Regarding the solder fill...if you look at S&L RK's inside the ring, where the ring has been opened out, you will very often see a wafer of solder....a common feature in my experience....surey you are not suggesting this was applied after assembly and opening up of the ring hole ? Nope...doesnt follow.
I think that we have three questions here....(1) was the ring flattened at the bottom...in my opinion yes, (2) was the ring filled with solder, again the I would say often it was, and (3) are the dipped ring RK's really unaltered S&L RK's....quite possibly.
Lastly..assembly and finishing of these crosses involve a lot of "hand-on" craftsmanship. So yes...they were prepared spend a little time to get it looking "right." Its why the post war copies are so rough...no one really cared.
The fact is that we haved indications that the standardisation and qulaity of the RK was of concern....so we have the controls that were introduced to ensure this....so we lose the half rings, the brass/zinc cores, and I cant see why logically we didnt also lose the dipped ring.
Just my opinion, and for me fits the evidence and probabilities as well as any thing else I've heard.
I wonder how many dipped ring S&L crosses have been discarded as fakes ?.....
Chris
(looking for early K & Q RK)Comment
-
Dietrich, I'm thinking burnishing tool also. Then stamping post assembly. As said, the surface under the cross need only be flat and secure the cross. The guy doing the stamping would have had ample experience so as not to crush or distort the cross. It's silver, a simple hit with a consistent hand would have done the job.
My question still remains in my mind as to how the cross halves were held together or placed together during the soldering process. With what kind of tool?Comment
-
No one cared! They didn't finish the inner ring but flattened nicely the dipping part ....???Originally posted by Chris Jenkins View Post
... but kept the dipping ring with the Grand Cross? And the flat ring with the Schickle who got even a L-number?The fact is that we haved indications that the standardisation and qulaity of the RK was of concern....so we have the controls that were introduced to ensure this....so we lose the half rings, the brass/zinc cores, and I cant see why logically we didnt also lose the dipped ring.
Rest asured! None!I wonder how many dipped ring S&L crosses have been discarded as fakes ?.....Comment
-
So somebody (S&L or maybe already the "English) used the die, which was completely flawed all over the place to produce this cross long after 1957 (maybe and most likely already after the 2nd dipping ring model), used non silver and shaby workmanship, BUT did 'puinch' away the dipping ring???
I just cannot believe that. I'm sorry.Comment
-
No inner ring finish but getting rid of the ugly dipping ring?Comment
Comment