One (repaired) S&l Rk Die!

[Brian S]

What I do find amusing is that you find a bump or a dent in an RK, come up with several possible explanations, look for consensus on the explanation that you all think best fits the bump or dent, and voila, by consensus you all have defined reality. Sorry boys, doesn't work that way. It's theory, not reality, and until you get some guys who were there it's all just conjecture and all the consensus in the WA.com universe won't make it reality. You can come to some very logical conclusions but the meanderings go way beyond what is, what might have been and what really was. Bottom line, you do NOT know which of ALL SL the crosses were postwar. Personalize and attack and build a war of words against anyone who thinks otherwise and at the end of the day, you have only a theory and bullied your way into a consensus. For that Dave, you have what you think is some kind of victory, but tomorrow, new blood, new theories, new consensus, and your theories and harsh words, all just forgotten...

[Dave Kane]

And this has what to do with the subject at hand Officer Kane from Milwaukee.

Brian, you are indeed a classic!

You too may get in line to have a gander at the frame...it might help you realize that your constant defense of the worn down dent / pock marks on the 3oc arm is a little weak!

Send Chris your address and I'm fine with (he) sending it to you after he has a look see!

[Brian S]

Dave, the frame was a good find. I always believed in the single die. But if you think this thread is getting tired and you want to turn it nasty and vindictive, you'll have to have a hate fest with yourself. But you have no idea why and when the pock marks got worn down. Inbetween runs yes, but the runs made when, you haven't a clue. The degree of wear on the pock marks clearly identifies the runs, but when, the question with an answer that your consensus group can only guess at with no sense of finality.

[DavidM]

What I do find amusing is that you find a bump or a dent in an RK, come up with several possible explanations, look for consensus on the explanation that you all think best fits the bump or dent, and voila, by consensus you all have defined reality. Sorry boys, doesn't work that way. It's theory, not reality, and until you get some guys who were there it's all just conjecture and all the consensus in the WA.com universe won't make it reality. You can come to some very logical conclusions but the meanderings go way beyond what is, what might have been and what really was. Bottom line, you do NOT know which of ALL SL the crosses were postwar. ...

Hello

I have to say that Brian makes a perfectly valid point in that regardless of what, if any, conclusion is reached here we will never know for certain if it is correct. That said, using logical deduction based on sound knowledge of production techniques, the way dies react and wear in use, and so forth is the only way that anyone now can make comment on this subject. This is a problem that haunts many historical investigation where there is no proper contemporary documented evidence or narrative. There may some evidence available which points towards certain conclusions, but at the end of day we rely on historians analysis and persperctive to arrive at the result - which may or may not be correct. Often this then becomes the accepted fact, to the extent that books are written which in turn can become part of a curriculum in schools and universities. And that, I believe, is all that anyone here is trying to do.

To quote from the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes:

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Regards
David

[ChrisJ]

nasty & vindictive ? .....only you Brian.

Forum members might be interested in the sort of private messages that Brian subjects people to who have a different view to his ...

here I quote :

"What you Chris, 14 years old? You lack any kind of spatial mental capacity. Your posts are juvenile."

unquote.

(I got this unsolicited private message during the course of this thread).

David...no need to defend Brian...he has his own agendum, it appears



The point of a forum is for a free and fair exchange of opinion...for the collective wisdom of the group....and is why I love this forum....lets keep at it boys !

[Brian S]

Chris now you're goading me in public. I sent you that PM because I did not appreciate your previous baiting by calling my post "irrelevant". Chris, you don't get to judge what is and is not relevant. And are you 14? You've had it explained numerous, numerous, numerous times that your "theory" about the male die causing the pock marks on the OTHER SIDE OF THE METAL being impossible by not just me but everyone yet you persist. So have you call my questions irrelevant is nothing less than amazing coming from someone who obviously lacks any ability to spatially analyze the obvious.

As for "theories", yes, observe and make the obvious conclusions that truly match the evidence. What baffles me here is how people, including Dietrich, see the obvious and make the next leap of faith by putting a time and date to the evidence. Yes the pock marks become less pronounced so it's truly obvious the more definitive the marks the closer to the die repair the strikes are. That much is obvious and true. But, the complete discounting of other theories such as the cleaning of dies between runs and its effect on the die repair material is just a way to shoot the messenger and avoid the discussion to leave your own theory intact and and unblemished. End a thread with personal attacks, kill the thread by turning it into personal vindictiveness and restate your "conclusions" rather than addressing all the possibilities. That's what happens in these Dave Kane and friends threads consistently. When the Dave Kane theory is challenged it gets personal. It turns into talk about trying to "turn your postwar cross into something else." As if...

As if any of you know what happened. What you do know is there was one die.

What you do know is that the die showed wear on the repair material inbetween runs. If it was NOT inbetween runs you would see obvious differences between the crosses WITHIN THE RUN. But you don't. You see a consistent pock mark look UNTIL the run changes.

Now why is that?

Because it was wartime and a guy was the master die repairman. Rather than head out to the Eastern Front and defend Berlin he was making himself VERY busy by burnishing the die itself inbetween runs. Why? Because in 1944 and 1945 there were a very heavy proportion of RKs awarded and Juncker was blown out of the picture by allied bombings leaving SL as the main supplier of RKs.

But, hey, don't get back to the guts of the thread, turn this into a personal attack because maybe there's more than one possiblity here.

[Brian S]

Theory lacking evidence?

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.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Since there is no recipient for all of the crosses you named and only the 935-4 has been alledgedly found in Klessheim (and Vet buys for the 800-4) all is purely academical.

There cannot and will not be (at least in my mind) a 'pre-45' by popular vote.

If somebody wants to own a 100% real pre-45 made S&L and doesn't like to have an object that might be up for discussion he should not buy any B-type. It's that simple.

[Brian S]

Since there is no recipient for all of the crosses you named and only the 935-4 has been alledgedly found in Klessheim (and Vet buys for the 800-4) all is purely academical.

There cannot and will not be (at least in my mind) a 'pre-45' by popular vote.

If somebody wants to own a 100% real pre-45 made S&L and doesn't like to have an object that might be up for discussion he should not buy any B-type. It's that simple.

Might be up for discussion? You could say that about just about ANY Nazi item except Juncker items.

So you avoid the question like your friends Dave and Chris... Such an engineer, you have to put everything into a tidy little theory, wrap it in a few obvious clues, and that's where you leave it.

[Brian S]

My sincere apologies Dietrich, as you say, "the chapter on S&L is written." There can be no more questions, no possiblities of theories with unanswered questions...

"the chapter is written"

[Dietrich Maerz]

My sincere apologies Dietrich, as you say, "the chapter on S&L is written." There can be no more questions, no possiblities of theories with unanswered questions...

"the chapter is written"

Brian,

don't start with me! When I said the chapter is written it does not mean what you now so diligently implies.

You don't know what I wrote and what it finally will be. But no matter what it will be, it is only my opinion. You are more than welcome to critique that, but I kindly ask you to do it in a mature and intelligent way.

Ranting and raving doesn't produce anything.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Might be up for discussion? You could say that about just about ANY Nazi item except Juncker items.

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!

[Dietrich Maerz]

I had to edit a little bit and took the libery to delete some postings.

If the gentlemen want to continue the ecxchange they can do that in private via PM.

[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.

Unlike what you say about a "Popular vote", of which I could care less, I care only about the facts Dietrich.

This is the question above pure and simple. Requires no nasty comments from Chris and Dave. Looking for the proof of the theory, pure and simple. I haven't seen it. Therefore based on what I do see which is consistent marks from the die from the splatter I postulate the die was worn in the period BETWEEN the runs. Show me wear on the die during the same run and I'll believe the splatter wear from die use, otherwise, that dog don't hunt.

[Sal Williams]

Brian , how do you suggest the wear between the runs occured?

best, Sal