Dipping ring S&L Knight's Cross

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here is the dent row of the above cross. After all these years of stamping and abuse one can still see at least 8 of the original 13 dents of the dent row. The dents are always sitting on top of the beading and have very distinct shapes.

At the time we discussed this cross, the general time frame of manufacture was set at late 70, maybe early 80's (now that could be completely wrong since nobody really knows for sure)

It can very well be that the cross Dave is showing here is the next stage of the repair - I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that. Furthermore, the "Dave-split" is further testemony to the originality of the die.

However, what Dave shows as the dent row is not the dent row. It would be illogical anyway since a repair took obviously all the beading flaws out and it can be assumed that they also took care of the remnants of the dent row. It could be, however, traces of the dent row removal action.

If that is so then two things come to mind:

- the non-iron, non-magnetic cross shown here is older and predates the 57 cross Dave just showed
- the die never went to England

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

....we all need a legasy!!! The 'Dave-split' is a good fingerprint to look for!

Here's a nice early Cross with the 3oc dents and dipped ring! It belongs to a member.

[Dave Kane]

...and one without the ring!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Any chance of seeing in close up what you call the 3 o'clock dents?

[Dave Kane]

Unfortunately, no! These are from a few years ago...

[George Stimson]

Has anyone counted all of the beads on these various S&L frames to make sure they all have the exact same number?

[Dave Kane]

Here's a couple of shots of the remains of the dent row on the obverse of the 'later' made Cross under different lighting...

[Dave Kane]

Brighter and a different angle...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

you can call me dogmatic, blind, over using microscope or whatever else might cross your mind - this is NOT the B-Type dent row nor remnants of it. No matter how often you call it that.

There is something, yes - but not what you call it or think what it is.

(And again, I do not care wheter it is the dent row or a dent row or not. I only care about the very small time frame that defines pre- or post- May 1945.)

But for the sake of finding out what really happened later on don't start the chase already with the wrong determination!!

[Dave Kane]

....how about we call it a deficit in the die in or about the 3oc arm resembling that of the war time die that likely was worked, re-worked and worked again.

I don't care what it's called but the fact of the matter is that it indeed IS there and REMNANT as it may be, one can't deny it.

Coupled with other minor fingerprints found on all (period and post war) S&L Crosses one has to accept that these frames are made from the same general die as that of war time Crosses.

That said however, we are moving away from the intent of the original post and that is the 'dipped' ring.

I find NO reason whatsoever for the varience in finish to the base of the ring other than 'different hands' working the finish...it does NOT reflect the stamping of the die...

How this 'finishing' was done....THAT really is the question!

[Dietrich Maerz]

There is a huge difference between calling it the dent row (which is the B-Type) or something else (which could be a C-Type or whatever). It's a huge difference!

I agree, there is something on that particular cross. Now you need to find more crosses that show the same feature. Then yopu have ruled out the possibility that this is just a scratch on this particular cross. To call it a die feature base on one example is maybe premature.

But it is unimportant. The original topic was the dipping ring. So, just to confirm what you are saying:

The picture below shows 8 different S&L crosses spanning about 30 years of manufacturing time and ALL of them had originally a frame like the one in the middle? They were somehow "machined, finished, had-finished, pressed, changed, transformed" from that "dipping ring
"' to the shape they now show?

Right?

[Dave Kane]

Alright, I'll play!

""The picture below shows 8 different S&L crosses spanning about 30 years of manufacturing time and ALL of them had originally a frame like the one in the middle? They were somehow "machined, finished, had-finished, pressed, changed, transformed" from that "dipping ring
"' to the shape they now show?""

Show me why they are all so different in the finish below the ring...

[Dietrich Maerz]

I don't think they are different.

I think - as Chris also said - it is a distinct feature of the S&L die and can always help to determine a genuine S&L cross.

You said it's filed from a dipping ring - prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

[Dave Kane]

I don't think they are different.

I think - as Chris also said - it is a distinct feature of the S&L die and can always help to determine a genuine S&L cross.

You said it's filed from a dipping ring - prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Now I understand your assertion of "I just can't see it".....too many hours hovered over the microscope

Define DIFFERENT....with S&L Crosses the base of the ring is different with every one!!

...and Chris surely didn't imply, state or even hint at the manner of how you interpreted his post as he clearly wrote:


""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 !""

..and that to me at least affirms that the base of the ring was worked and something to look for to confirm (among the 25 other fingerprints) that a Cross is made from the S&L die!! <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

[Dietrich Maerz]

Nice convincing argument! It is so because it is so! I guess it was so then!