Dipping ring S&L Knight's Cross

[Dave Kane]

Different angle...

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm with you on this one Dave.....to me its obvious that the S&L pieces were heavily filed down around the loop ring (in fact for me it was a distinguishing feature). Only one die for me !

Chris,

with all due respect - but the filing was impossible with the cross frame Dave showed here. If one would have done so a hole would have appeared. It was and is purely impossible, by design of the die. I forgot the numbers but it was like the ring needed to be filed down about 0.5 mm whereas the thickness of the sheet was only o.4 mm - creating a whole in the frame.

If you re-read post number 16 you will realize that Dave came to the same conclusion.

I also doubt very much that 'the filing' (if at all possible....) was done with ALL the pre-45 and (necessarily so) with ALL the post-45 crosses. No trace under the microscope visible, ALL crosses look the same and "they" even did it with the heavily flawed, non-silver, unmagnetic types! Down to a tolerance of less than 0.1 mm! No way! But if you think so.

I am not doubting that the frame in question is a S&L frame but I would like to state again ( and again and again) that this frame, which Dave did send to me, had no dent row. I think I am not completely out of touch with reality when I categorically state that I looked at the frame under different angles under the scope and with the bare eye. I am NOT blind!

It could very well be that this die with the "dipping ring" is another repair stage of the original die - I have no evidence that this could not be so.

But one thing is very clear to me: it is neither the A-Type (as Chris seems to imply here) nor is it the B-Type with the dent row. Maybe it is a C-Type.

Dave, have another look at the left side of the 12 o'clock arm. There seems to be a very pronaunced step in the beading which neither the A nor the B type has. Furthermore, neither does this frame have the 9-12 o'clock flaw of the A-Type nor the 6-9 o'clock flaw of the B-Type (and no dent row)

I don't know what 'they' did (if they did something at all) and how 'they' might have done it - but this is NOT a frame that was either made on the A-Type die or on the B-Type die. (which - to calm Chris down - was the same frame, just reworked)

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, yes, we are talking about (this) particular frame and NOT period made frames regarding thickness and finishing method.

Why so dogmatic? This is discussion and a bit of fun

The frame indeed and without doubt is stamped from the ORIGINAL die and shows the fingerprints of A and B. We agree there...

However, after looking at so many S&L Crosses original or otherwise please, explain your view on WHY each and every ring is different where it meets the frame.....oft time the base of the ring is thick, straight, curved, crooked or otherwise. These differences couldn't be from the print of the die but must be a product of hand finishing!

The print of the die remained with the frames....as evidenced here.

I suggest that the dipped ring was merely a chore of finishing and sometimes overlooked and surely disregarded (at some point) post war!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Why so dogmatic? This is discussion and a bit of fun

I'm not dogamtic at all - I'm just aginst any 'modern collector' legends - I had enough of them.

The frame indeed and without doubt is stamped from the ORIGINAL die and shows the fingerprints of A and B. We agree there...

No, we certainly do not. The frame might have one commmon feature, but it certainly has neither the typical A-Type features nor the typical B-Type features. It clearly does NOT show the fingerprints of an A-Type nor a B-Type.

... WHY each and every ring is different where it meets the frame.....oft time the base of the ring is thick, straight, curved, crooked or otherwise. These differences couldn't be from the print of the die but must be a product of hand finishing!

Clearly the differences are not as dramatic as you describe them her and I have not seen anything where the thickness varies (as you indicate) nor have I seen any huge variations in the form of the ring where it sits on top of the frame. But I agree that there seems to be sometimes some hand finishing. Just as some ring insides are finished and some are not!
BUT not what you are after, i.e. a genuinly dipping ring which is ALWAYS filed away in this area - even with the post war models. Obverse and revers always neatly the same.....

The print of the die remained with the frames....as evidenced here.

I don't know what you mean with this sentence.

I suggest that the dipped ring was merely a chore of finishing and sometimes overlooked and surely disregarded (at some point) post war!

So you are suggesting this:

- the honorable Mr. Escher, master engraver of Steinhauer & Lück, created a 5:1 model in plaster which was approved and agreed by everybody (with a dipping ring, mind you - just like the Grand Cross.)

- the shop made the actual die from it, with a dipping ring, as he designed!

- before 'they' even shipped the first cross out of the factory, somebody with some real power came and said: "Stop it boys! I want you to file down every frame we are producing. Obverse and reverse! (Despite the fact that this would create a hole in the frame - just a minor inconvenience) Make it look good and in case we loose the war and we produce until the late 70 and I'm dead - you still will do this! Tell it your sons - it must be done!
- he could have gone to the master engraver and said : fix it so that we do not need to file every cross (and create a hole) and safe a ton of manual labor....

- he could have said: I like the dipping ring! It's like the Grand Cross!

But regarding to your theory he didn't.

They even did it with the first 1957 run! But finally they caved in and the second model had the "original' dipping ring!

Dave, do you believe that?

I know I'm sarkastic and I know I shouldn't be. But there are so many ridiculous myth about the Knights Cross and what 'they' did when and why, I don't think there's the need fo another one. Here's what I am afraid of:

"Dave Kane said that the dipping ring is an early model from S&L, very rare and very valuable!"

By the way, I still would need to see one post-war B-Type with Swastika were they forgot to file the dipping portion away. Just one!

But you are right: this is fun and I wait for the first genuine dipping ring from S&L with provenance to be sold on E-Bay!

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, I understand sarcasm and indeed utilize the method of communication frequently...it's effective when utilized at certain times.

This isn't one of them...

"
No, we certainly do not. The frame might have one commmon feature, but it certainly has neither the typical A-Type features nor the typical B-Type features. It clearly does NOT show the fingerprints of an A-Type nor a B-Type."

Wrong! It surely does...how many fingerprints are necessary?

"
- before 'they' even shipped the first cross out of the factory, somebody with some real power came and said: "Stop it boys! I want you to file down every frame we are producing. Obverse and reverse! (Despite the fact that this would create a hole in the frame - just a minor inconvenience) Make it look good and in case we loose the war and we produce until the late 70 and I'm dead - you still will do this! Tell it your sons - it must be done!
- he could have gone to the master engraver and said : fix it so that we do not need to file every cross (and create a hole) and safe a ton of manual labor...."

This sort of assertion is just dancing around the obvious...


Have you measured the thickness of a PERIOD planchet? Have you determined the material in the (subject) frame? Have you considered the wear and tear on the 40+ yr old die? No, I suspect!

"They even did it with the first 1957 run! But finally they caved in and the second model had the "original' dipping ring!"

Again, no! It appears to be a production matter...who needs perfection, quality and a lovely finish after '57-'67!

Now, I'll offer more logic....do you really think that after (some time and who really knows) someone RE-DID the frame die and along with repair created a rounded/dipped area? If so why?

We look for 'landmarks' and 'fingerprints' in these things and rely on them...show us a CONSTANT in the ring base of S&L Crosses! You can't!

Additionally, please don't cite the microscope...it's over done and especially if you couldn't angle it to locate the common 6oc flaw!!! How's that for a bit of sarcasm!!

[Harry]

Here is an offering from a dealer's site, aparently a good RK by S&L, and a complete 'eye'..........

[Harry]

......

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here is the crux of the matter. The ring in the center is from the frame in question (which neither had the A-Type identifier not the B-Type dent row). Around this picture are 8 S&L rings ranging from 1940 to most likely late 70'.

- the lower portion, whereas slightly different between the models (spanning about 30 years of production), is pretty much the same.

Going with the theory Dave brought forward we need to believe that the center ring is the original state the frame came out of the die and that this dipping ring was always hand finished to the shape we can see with the other ring examples.

I just cannot see it. Nor does the thickness of the planchet allow for that (Yes, I have measured as much as I could and the thickness is between 0.7 mm (early) to 0.5 mm (late post war))

[Dietrich Maerz]

....do you really think that after (some time and who really knows) someone RE-DID the frame die and along with repair created a rounded/dipped area? If so why?

This is not what I think. As I said already several times, this is a S&L frame and I don't know how 'they' did it and when they did it. But what I strongly believe (and can prove) is this:

- no A-Type S&L frame was made with the die from which this dipping ring frame came from

- no B-Type S&L frame was made with the die this dipping ring frame came from

I remember the discussions when the theory of two dies/one repaired die was discussed. This was the time, when the 935-4 was the first delux model from S&L and the flawed A-Types were all post war. We all agreed more or less that there is only one die and that there is a sequence in time.

This frame is interesting, but it is NOT a pre-45 one and it is not any proof that S&L had a dipping ring design from the very start.

For most of the community it seems clear now that the original die was repaired, reworked, refurbished or whatever to prolong it's life. So 'they' did it once - why not twice? I would not know why not.

And the introduction of a dipping ring into a possibly refurbished die makes (at least for me) more sense than to have it at the original die stage and file it away over a period of 30 plus years.

But I do not know so I can only go with what I see - and I personally just cannot see it at all. Now you can call me dogmatic and sarcastic or whatever.

But to make your day, here is a picture form an original S&L catalog from mid 1941 - a dipping ring!

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, thanks for the montage as it bolsters my suspicions!

"This frame is interesting, but it is NOT a pre-45 one and it is not any proof that S&L had a dipping ring design from the very start."

Of course it's not a pre '45, heck it's not even a pre '65 for that matter...no one ever asserted anything close. It's a contemporary stamping

While I agree with you regarding ONE die and years of re-furbishing during which ANYTHING could happen to change the original die characteristics I don't understand why S&L (PERIOD) Crosses exhibit very different finishing below the ring.

Do you recall (in the early years ) 'the die don't lie'!!!

Call it grinding, scraping, skiving, hammering, finishing anything you want but some sort of mechanical change was made to the base of the war time S&L ring and likely disregarding decades later.

[Harry]

S&L reworked their RK die at least twice.

[Dave Kane]

S&L reworked their RK die at least twice.

Harry, I think at LEAST twice

Here's another S&L frame (much later than the 1st one shown) however, not as late as the half frame. It too shows the dent/pock row in the 3oc arm and of course the split bead in the 6oc arm.

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is the latest (real) B-Type I could find over the last 3 years or so. It has a lot of beading flaws on the 3 o'clock arm and the 6 o'clock arm and even on the 9 o'clock arm. The frame is non-silver (most likley Neusilber) and the core is not-magnetic.

This cross was heavily discussed some time back and at that point in time the consensus was that this was the latest stage of the die before it was destroyed, reworked again or - as has been alledged by one - sold to England for sinister motives.

B-Type frame, no dipping ring, original core.