One (repaired) S&l Rk Die!

[ChrisJ]

Chris, looking at the 'reverse' of the frame it would appear that the (male) was severely flawed as well. Several splits and many dents/pocks appear on the underside NOT evident however on the top (face) of the frame and the flaws appearing on the frame top do not appear on the underside.

...ha.....see what you mean.

[Sonderkommando]

Originally Posted by Dave Kane
Chris, looking at the 'reverse' of the frame it would appear that the (male) was severely flawed as well. Several splits and many dents/pocks appear on the underside NOT evident however on the top (face) of the frame and the flaws appearing on the frame top do not appear on the underside.

Dave,
I take it that you have split the frames of this cross to be able to know that the male part of the die was severly flawed as well?

[Dave Kane]

I Brett I only have the 1 side....but the underneath/insde where the iron stamping would be held and the solder flows to hold both halves together is different in the amount and type of flaws to that of the top/face pictured here.

The underneath has its own set of flaws, pocks, dents and splits...suggesting to me that the base or 'male' portion of the die too was in poor shape.

[Dave Kane]

Interesting!

I have spent some hours with the frame and am comfortable as I'm sure others are that it represents the product of the last 'years' or (life) of the ORIGINAL / REPAIRED die!

The 'fingerprints and landmarks' are present although mooted but we trust in these identifiers

I suggested some years ago that the ring of S&L Crosses likely was 'skived' or 'taken down' to create the nice straight line between the base of the ring and the upper arm of the Cross as each Cross I have looked at is OBVIOUSLY different in that area and not as result of the die, or stamped planchet but rather FINISHING. Some of this finishing was great and some barely at all. Could this suggest a 'dipping ring' Knight's Cross as seen in some photos?

The 'dipping ring' Knight's Crosses we have seen surely aren't period BUT I wonder if the images could be (unfinished) S&L Crosses?

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[ChrisJ]

Absolutely yes !

Many of those appearing are certainly these.

The 'dipping ring' Knight's Crosses we have seen surely aren't period BUT I wonder if the images could be (unfinished) S&L Crosses?

[Dave Kane]

Thanks Chris! I really doubt that (the) 'dipping ring' Knight's Cross was the product of a particular maker in and of itself, as asserted by various authors for the last quarter century but merely an oversight by S&L. The 'vet' stories associated with these fall short as well.

I wonder though how the 'skiving / flatening' might have been accomplished to produce the straight line under the ring when the planchet thickness was about .60mm!

[Sonderkommando]

Hi Dave,
What I don't understand is if every S&L KC had the bottom of the ring "filed" to create the straight line, why didn't S&L just alter the die and stamp it like that in the first place and save many hours of hand labour?

As it seems fairly easy to repair/modify these dies then that would make sense to me?

I have always believed that there are original dipping ring KC's and awhile ago I posted a pre '45 pic of what I thought was one, but it was judged as a K&Q on a tilted angle. (I personally still have my doubts).

I want to make it clear that I have NEVER seen a dipping ring KC that I thought was pre '45 in real life!



Brett

[Leroy]

I have been under the impression that there are photos, acknowledged in the collecting community to be original wartime, which show "dipping ring" (or in Dave's observation, "unfinished")
crosses. Is this wrong? If not, doesn't this refute the idea that government quality control on this ultimate award was always high and that such crosses would never have passed inspection? I'm not arguing in favor of these crosses, but only trying to determine, for once and for all, if these alleged photos are just another collector "myth".
On another note, it would seem that with all the examples of die flaw change now being shown, someone could put together a SINGLE thread showing, in chronologically identified order, illustrations of flawed crosses. If there was only one die, repaired in different ways over time, can the repairs be approximately identified by year, beginning with wartime S&L crosses and continuing up through the '80's. Such a thread would be invaluable to those of us who do not own or have the opportunity to personally inspect multiple crosses.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I wonder though how the 'skiving / flatening' might have been accomplished to produce the straight line under the ring when the planchet thickness was about .60mm!

I have a very hard time to believe that S&L did a fairly consistent 'flatening' job over all these years...

[George Stimson]

Why would a dipping ring be undesirable enough to be filed away? After all, the Grand Cross had a dipping ring.
Dave, can you post obverse and reverse pics of your frame that show the whole thing?

[Harry]

how do the outer diameters of the rings compare????

[Robert T.]

Why would a dipping ring be undesirable enough to be filed away? After all, the Grand Cross had a dipping ring.
Dave, can you post obverse and reverse pics of your frame that show the whole thing?

Maybe it was written somewhere in the S&L specs that the " 800" had to be just below the eye . They might have created the " micro 800 " stamp to fit below a dipping ring and still was not good enough .
_______________
Robert