Knight´s Cross "4"

[ChrisJ]

More

During the first debates I too thought that there might have been more than one die, however, I am now firmly of the opinion that there was only one.

I will point out that I do not own a "B" type cross, or a 935/4. I do own a micro 800 (awarded 1943 with 100% firm provenance) and also a standard 800 with oakleaves. Both of these crosses are of early high definition, with no failure flaws other than the 12/9 o' clock knee. There is no real trace of anthing untoward in the 9/6 o'clock area. There is, however, a clear die feature in the 3/6 o'clock knee that is clearly evident in the shots that Brian posted, and in all "B" crosses (as far as I am aware) and a picture of this is shown....maybe study of this will be helpfull, as it does appear to vary over time.

As a further observation, I will add that the 935/4 crosses are superb, with very clearly defined features comparable to the early 800 examples.

Frankly, I can think of no reason why a "B" type cross should have a less well defined dent row, other than due to wear in the die, or due to finishing. S&L frames were subject to a lot of hand finishing, perhaps more than frames from other manufacturers. However, some of the pictures of the later "B" frames that I have seen show a dramatic reduction in the features that cannot be attributed to finishing alone. That having been said, the 800/4 and the 935/4 would appear to be very close in the time frame..even if the 800/4's came after the 935/4 there is nothing to say that they are not pre May 1945 as PKZ numbering on Oakleavs (and Swords) were in use second half of 1943, so I for one, will keep an open mind !

[Dave Tourle]

What a great thread !

Refering to Chris's earlier comments, I just wanted to show the composite pic of the three O'clock flaws again and suggest the possibilty that an old, left over 'A' frame was re-pressed in the reworked B die, at a lower pressure, in an attempt to eliminate the obvious flaws ? That would possibly explain the mixture of A type flaws and faint dent row ? It would also explain the strange 'squashed' appearance of the flaws ( that I assumed had been filed down )

Apologies to all if this is slightly off topic !

Dave Tourle

[Bill W.]

Bill,
The flaw (line) you posted in Post #110 does not appear on my cross.

All,
The "dimple" on the 3 o'clock arm, 3rd full bead out from the 6 o'clock arm, also does not show up on my cross at all on the obverse side. On the reverse side, on that same bead and about half-way up, there is a clear "slash", running from left to right.

It looks like the same flaw here. It is is just a little obscured by the frosting. Is this seen to this extent on the 800 4 pieces as well?

[Leroy]

Dave,
You are right on topic! Yours is a VERY interesting cross.

I believe we are seeing crosses in evolution, with the 800-4 and 935-4 types having such close features that, without the stamps, one could be mistaken for the other. Both are beautiful crosses! That said, however, I am at a loss to see how an 800-4 could have a more distinct feature (the "slash" on the 3rd bead out) than a 935-4 and not be earlier in time.

The cross posted by Andy Hopkins is of great interest, too, as it seems to match (except for type of mark used) Bob Hritz's Kitzingen cross illustrated in Dietrich's book, which has great direct vet provenance, but which Dietrich felt was postwar. The fact that it used the same incuse stamp as found on the 800-4 and had "pickled" frosting is also of interest and, again (IMHO) points to "B" crosses in general having an earlier timeline than previously believed.

I would still like to see the 6-9 "bridge" flaw on the reverse of the 935-4 cross posted by Dave Kane. Jimmy's jeweler friend had interesting insight, as well, into the differences between the silver types and the effects that would have on the "dent row" and the 6-9 flaw.

Keep it coming, gentlemen. We're learning more every day!

Best,
Leroy

[Brian S]

Frankly, I can think of no reason why a "B" type cross should have a less well defined dent row, other than due to wear in the die, or due to finishing. S&L frames were subject to a lot of hand finishing, perhaps more than frames from other manufacturers.

I did some research a few years ago on this, the history of repairing dies. In the 1950's a die repair welding material was invented that sat firmly and nearly permanently on dies in welding cracks and defects. Prior to the 50's die weld material did NOT persist. It fell out, wore out, broke down. Every spec of weld, probably not...

But the dent row, if all crosses were created equally and finished equally, I believe, would show a pattern of the dent row wearing down just as Dietrich explains.

I think however, that MOST crosses have dent row areas that are untouched, unfinished that will show the dent row as it was the day it came from the die.

Certainly that little dimple Dietrich found would not be subject to any finishing. It wasn't on mine.

Here's a link to a page from my web site, this page requires no logon, large clear photos of frame and core:

http://www.vonetzel.com/impweb/photoexample.aspx


Please click on the above, the more high def photos we see the better. Cheers to all who have contributed photos.

[Brian S]

It looks like the same flaw here. It is is just a little obscured by the frosting. Is this seen to this extent on the 800 4 pieces as well?

Bill what B type cross is this? How is it marked? You have the same dimples shown by Dietrich in http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...9&postcount=29

Very well defined from the look of it.

[Bill W.]

It is the 935 4 piece posted earlier in this thread. It appears to have the same flaw. If I had a 800 4 piece, I would take a close look at this area.

[Erickn]

It is the 935 4 piece posted earlier in this thread. It appears to have the same flaw. If I had a 800 4 piece, I would take a close look at this area.

Hi Bill,
This is the 800-4. About as good as my old digi can do.

BTW-Excellent images Brian!

[Brian S]

It is the 935 4 piece posted earlier in this thread. It appears to have the same flaw. If I had a 800 4 piece, I would take a close look at this area.

Thanks Bill. I am beginning to wonder if the timeline suggested before may not be as defined by the stampings;

935-4
800-4
800
935
1957


As it may be defined by the die characteristics.

[Erickn]

1957

appears different than the 800-4

[Brian S]

It's not my place to tell you where to go next but for me Dietrich's dimple discovery must be a flaw that cannot be disturbed by finishing and wear.

It is terribly difficult to get a good clear photo, I hope to do better when my macro lens arrives, but here's Dietrich's photo.

I personally believe this may be the Rosetta stone to a timeline.

[Leroy]

I have looked at the 800-4 under high magnification in bright sunlight. Although I cannot photograph what I see, I am positive that it does not have the flaw you have been discussing in the last couple of posts, either on the obverse or reverse. This photograph and the one I posted earlier, although certainly not of the best quality, does accurately show what's there. The "slash", as I am calling it, is on the reverse only. This being the case, the 800-4 clearly precedes the 935-4.

[Erickn]

One more attempt

[Luftm40]

Thanks Bill. I am beginning to wonder if the timeline suggested before may not be as defined by the stampings;

935-4
800-4
800
935
1957


As it may be defined by the die characteristics.

I don't own a "B" type so have no dog in the fight, but I think the pickled beading finish on the one I posted may also help w/ the timeline. If earlier SLs were indeed finished in this way, that MAY make the "B" timeline:

800 (pre PkZ # system?)
800 4 (if in fact 800 4 crosses have the pickled finish)
935 4 (I believe these all have the later painted finish)
935
1957

[Erickn]

800-4

Gotta no slash