Cased 800 4 Knights Cross grouping!

[Rich G]

I don't think there was a crack in the 'knee flaw' area at all. It must have been an actual void that could produce varying results depending on how well or not the die was cleaned between pressings.

[Sal Williams]

In my view, the two flaws have different causes...the knee flaw looks as though it is created by molten metal being extruded through crack in the die..(this would raise the question as to wheather the frames were in fact cast through centrifuge action) whereas the dent row is caused by an excess material in the die preventing complete formation of the beading on the metal sheet. Food for thought!

Harry, this is the first I have heard anyone mention a new way of making frames. Is there any evidence to support this? I thought we knew how they made the crosses. Why are you entertaining this idea?

[Leroy]

I don't think there was a crack in the 'knee flaw' area at all. It must have been an actual void that could produce varying results depending on how well or not the die was cleaned between pressings.

Richard,
Basing my comments ONLY upon the 800-4 and 935-4 crosses which have actually been observed so far, the worst degree of 6-9 flawing found on the 800-4 crosses matches the least degree of flawing found on the 935-4 crosses. When "known" postwar crosses are added into the observation, the worst degree of 6-9 flawing on the 935-4 crosses matches the constant level of 6-9 flawing seen on all such "known" postwar crosses so far observed, which appear to have remained the same in the level of their 6-9 flawing over many years. If cleaning of the die would have alleviated this situation, or at least caused significant variablity in the size of the flawing, shouldn't we see postwar crosses with smaller flaws than on the "best" 935-4 crosses? Again, based solely on observation of crosses seen so far (and we certainly have not seen them all!), this does not appear to be the case. Out of curiousity, I went back and looked at four "known" postwar crosses I have, obtained at different times over a span of many years. On two, the 6-9 flaw was exactly as illustrated on page 125 of Dietrich's book. On the remaining two, the "base" flaw appeared to have been of the same size, but had been removed by pretty obvious hand work.

These are great discussions and I hope the ideas keep coming!
Best,
Leroy

[Leroy]

I'm a bit surprised that after a day and half, there have been no further comments or attempts to clarify or explain the real physical evidence that the 800-4 may precede the 935-4 in sequence.

The proponents of the 800-4 were told to "put up or shut up".

Who has "shut up" now?

[Robert T.]

I'm a bit surprised that after a day and half, there have been no further comments or attempts to clarify or explain the real physical evidence that the 800-4 may precede the 935-4 in sequence.

The proponents of the 800-4 were told to "put up or shut up".

Who has "shut up" now?

03-19-2008


We don't need to fight anymore here about whether the 800-4 came before the 935-4 or whether the order was reversed. In the end, it doesn't really matter. What does seem clear is that the date of manufacture of the frames of a particular "A" cross cannot be determined with exactitude (except that "more beading flaws = later stamping than fewer beading flaws") and that the frames of a cross awarded in 1945 may have been stamped in 1942 and the cross assembled and shipped to the government in 1943. With flaws being definitely linked to a cross awarded in 1943, S&L had ample time to notice the problem and either repair the "A" die or make a new one and begin producing and shipping "B" types before war's end. The TRUTH is that we have NO IDEA how many crosses S&L made in 1944 or 1945. Maybe K&Q made the most crosses during that time.The provenance for 935-4's, 800-4's and other "B" types (like Bob's) may not be acceptable to some, but it is certainly acceptable to others. In the end, it all boils down, for the award date of ANY cross, to who you are willing to believe regarding provenance. There is, however, no longer any physical or time barrier to the manufacture and award, during the war, of "B" type crosses.

Best,
Leroy

Leroy,

Didn't you answer your own question, less than 3 months ago?

Regards,
______________
Robert

[Leroy]

No, Robert, I didn't, since the point I tried to make in that post was totally ignored and the detractors of the 800-4 went right back to work, as evidenced in this current thread.

If someone can logically explain the 6-9 flaw differential, as based on the examination of 800-4, 935-4 and postwar crosses actually observed, I would like to hear it.
Leroy

[Brian S]

You did a great job Leroy.

[Darrell]

How about we create a POLL thread. All those who believe these are Pre-May 45 vote YES, all those who don't Vote NO.

Whichever side gets the most votes wins. We then let the vote decide originality ...

Sound fair? I'm all for it

[Brian S]

How about we create a POLL thread. All those who believe these are Pre-May 45 vote YES, all those who don't Vote NO.

Whichever side gets the most votes wins. We then let the vote decide originality ...

Sound fair? I'm all for it

It would be interesting but it doesn't "decide originality".

[Sal Williams]

It would be interesting but it doesn't "decide originality".

Sounds more fair than you declaring "nice Original cross". Not that I am for a vote but a vote of one seems to be something you are a proponent of.

[Brian S]

Sounds more fair than you declaring "nice Original cross". Not that I am for a vote but a vote of one seems to be something you are a proponent of.

Sal you capable of anything other than trying to create a fight and trouble?

[Sal Williams]

Sal you capable of anything other than trying to create a fight and trouble?

Pot...Kettle...Black???

Look I (and most everyone else on this thread) has said it is POSSIBLE the 800/4 is wartime, but without evidence it can not be DECLARED wartime. What more do you want? Do you think it is possible that it is not wartime?

[Brian S]

Pot...Kettle...Black???

Look I (and most everyone else on this thread) has said it is POSSIBLE the 800/4 is wartime, but without evidence it can not be DECLARED wartime. What more do you want? Do you think it is possible that it is not wartime?

I don't want anything from you Sal other than to quit making smart A$$ remarks in my direction. "Declare it wartime".

You must be kidding. I've only been asking questions and looking for evidence. I would no more believe in the cross or against the cross by any "declartion". That is absurd. Declarations and votes do NOT make any piece of metal "genuine".

[Sal Williams]

No, Robert, I didn't, since the point I tried to make in that post was totally ignored and the detractors of the 800-4 went right back to work, as evidenced in this current thread.

If someone can logically explain the 6-9 flaw differential, as based on the examination of 800-4, 935-4 and postwar crosses actually observed, I would like to hear it.
Leroy

I would like that as well, but I would ALSO like to hear a logical explanation of The dent row discrepancy from the 800/4 supporters.

[George Stimson]

Steady as she goes, gentlemen....