Knight´s Cross "4"

[Brian S]

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

Andy, interesting to see how other people agree to your listing. What are your thoughts on this dimple Dietrich discovered? Would you agree it's pretty much impervious to wear and finishing?

[Luftm40]

Andy, interesting to see how other people agree to your listing. What are your thoughts on this dimple Dietrich discovered? Would you agree it's pretty much impervious to wear and finishing?

Brian, I really don't know!...my point was that perhaps we need to step back from the electron microscopes for a moment and explore the more obvious characteristics of these crosses (like the beading finish method). The micro study of die charcateristics is interesting, but IMHO inconclusive because A) We really don't know for certain what the exact production methods were for the dies (sorry, but that is the truth) and B) the number of crosses examined in relationship to the total production is statistically insignificant. I know that goes against the grain here, but so be it. Also, I think the style of stamp used (incuse vs non incuse) is completely irrelevant to a timeline. Why did they use different stamps? Who will ever know. Why are there multiple Juncker stamps and two different sizes of SL non incuse silver stamps? It would have made no difference at the time, as long as the silver content and PkZ # were reflected correctly. Also of note regarding SL...those of you who have handled other SL products (EKs, wound badges etc) will know that incuse PkZ numbers were used extensively by this firm in their production of medals and badges. Not surprising at all that incuse marks would be found on some SL RKs

[Brian S]

You're probably right, but I think these all need to be segregated for a methodical presentation. Every one of these threads is all over the board. I think we need a thread on the 'dimple', the finish on the beads, the knee flaw, etc. Not polluted by diverse gashes and other flaws. Each thread needs its focus? Thoughts? And to keep it focused people need to identify what their cross is every time they post a photo; 935-4, 800-4, etc., or we get confused as to what's posted.

As to finish on mine, I don't know if it was finished or if it was how? My juncker L/12 looks the same to me on the beading. Looks like nothing. Just the beading pure and simple.

[Leroy]

As I said earlier, I stupidly can't tell if my 800-4 has pickled or painted frosting, perhaps because of the heavy tarnish. It LOOKS like the pickled finish. Can someone tell me exactly how they would determine this?
Thanks!
Leroy

P.S. Brian, I think looking at each segment, as you indicated, is very important.
The only problem I see is that we have such a small pool of crosses to draw from. I know the 800-4's are very hard to find and the 935-4's only slightly less so. I think we may have seen already here most of the known 800-4's (not all, certainly, but no one is coming forward with more!).

[Dietrich Maerz]

Because Brian asked me, here is the area of the dimple(s) for both 935-4 and 800-4.

Both crosses have nearly pristine painted frosting (as have all the 800-4 and 935-4's I have seen and where something was left.) and the pictures are unaltered.

Pickled frosting can be detected by a step at the rim - unfortunately one needs a very good loupe to see it - but sometimes one can feel it, too.

Do a search here in the forum - there are pictures ....

[VIPER]

I have looked under a loop and do not see the dimple flaw on either side of my 800/4. Mine also has no 6/9 flaw on the reverse and only the barest trace of 6/9 on the obverse. It was my jeweler friends opinion that the only explanation for all the varing flaw patterns were that the 800/4 and 935/4 frames were made in alternating sequence ie. 800/4 then 935/4 then another run of 800/4 then finishing with another batch of 935/4s. This patern was done at least ounce and possible more. The only possibile conclusion was that the frames were made at the same time in the life of the die. This is the only way that I see to account for some flaws being present or more prominant or not present at all. Only to show up again when they should not or not be there at all when they should if all the 800 sheets and all 935 sheets were run in seperate consequtive runs rather than alternating batch runs...Regards Jimmy

[ChrisJ]

Ehhh ?

I'm getting confused. ...the "dimple" is a crater, right ? (if so, its a raised feature on the die, which might merely be due to debris...but does it persist up to the '57 ? ). The "slash" feature is raised on the frame, and therefore sunken in the die...this would be a defect in the die appearing...ergo: no slash earlier frame).

[Dave Kane]

I'm getting confused. ...the "dimple" is a crater, right ? (if so, its a raised feature on the die, which might merely be due to debris...but does it persist up to the '57 ? ). The "slash" feature is raised on the frame, and therefore sunken in the die...this would be a defect in the die appearing...ergo: no slash earlier frame).

Slash, gash and bash!!!


935/4 under micro.....NO slash on either side!

[Leroy]

Chris,
The "slash" is just that, a "cut" into the frame, caused by debris (or something) on the die. It is NOT "raised" on the frame. Look again at Post #118.
Best,
Leroy

P.S. Dave- afraid not Oh, yes, where is the photo of the 6-9 flaw on the reverse of that cross you posted earlier here?

[Dietrich Maerz]

... if so, its a raised feature on the die, which might merely be due to debris...but does it persist up to the '57 ?

Chris IMHO this feature is made by the same 'weld splatter' (or whatever it might have been) as was the dent row. The difference is the area. It was alleged that the dent row is subject to hand finishing (which was not done in this area IMHO) and maybe even subject to be eaten away by the acid of the painted frosting (which I also doubt ...).

So here we have a feature in a corner that is a lot less likely subject to such disturbing and destroying forces. Luckily, we have two crosses of each type with nearly 100% intact frosting in this area and one could think that under the frosting the status of the frame was preserved.

That this feature - as it is the case with the dent row - gets less pronounced over the cycles of stampings due to wear, tear and friction is clear to me. However, this could be in 100, 1000 cycles or in 10.000!

Judging by the 'persistence' of the original dent row I rather tend to think it took quite some time.

[Dave Kane]

Chris,
The "slash" is just that, a "cut" into the frame, caused by debris (or something) on the die. It is NOT "raised" on the frame. Look again at Post #118.
Best,
Leroy

P.S. Dave- afraid not Oh, yes, where is the photo of the 6-9 flaw on the reverse of that cross you posted earlier here?

Leroy, you are joking, right! Any way to point out this 'flaw' as my screen just wont pick it up!

[Leroy]

Dietrich,
Thanks for the photos and the tip to determine 'painted' vs. 'pickled' frosting.

All,
I have again gone back and with my cross held in front of the computer screen, looked at my cross under a loupe in the indicated area and compared it, back and forth and back and forth, to what appears on the screen, keeping my cross at the same angle position as in the photos. Again, on the reverse of my cross, these "blips" DO NOT appear (only the "slash" I previously reported and photographed, which is an actual cut into the metal of the frame beading). On the obverse side, I DO now see two small "blips" in the same area as the ones in the photos posted by Dietrich, but they look sharper than those which appear on the 935-4 and 800-4 shown in the photos and have what I would describe as a "halo" effect around them of sheared metal. There is no frosting left covering or disguising them and the beading in that area is not "worn down". I did not see them before because I was looking at the cross from the wrong angle. So...there are "blips" there, but they are not the same in appearance as those in the photos. What does this mean? Two smaller and sharper "blips" on the obverse, no "blips" (only a "slash") on the reverse? I truly don't know, but once again, how could the 935-4 be earlier than the 800-4 if these "blips" are not present at all on the reverse of my cross? There is something happening to these frames and I think Andy Hopkins has had the right idea all along. Please see his posts.

I have now looked at the frosting on my cross, after Dietrich's tips, looking at other threads here and, yes, consulting Dietrich's book again. All the "painted" examples look just like that (painting or "film") and they always have a very slight "sheen" to the area which has been "painted". In those areas where my cross retains frosting, it does not look like that. I BELIEVE it is "pickled" frosting, although I am not 100% sure. Certainly not sure enough to use that as a sound argument for early manufacture.

Best,
Leroy

Oh, and Dave -- Yes, I was trying to be a bit humorous in my comment to you. I do understand that your photo of the obverse side shows only a small flaw (not fully involved) at the 6-9 area. Out of curiosity and to understand entirely what each cross shows, I was curious if the REVERSE side of that same cross shows a fully involved flaw at 6-9 or only the small flaw seen on the obverse. That's all.


On the photo you re-posted of my reverse side (my original Post 118, I believe), count out to the 3rd full bead (on the 3 o'clock arm) from the intersection corner of the 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock arms. Surely you can see the "slash" or "cut" in that bead. If not, I will be glad to go to WalMart and buy you some really good glasses.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The most crosses on the scene and also the closest looked at are the Juncker. One die over the complete lifetime and a multitude of minor flaws evolving completely in congruence with he timeline of recipients - from Neusiber to Lazy 2.

Tiny minute flaws growing over the life of the die - unfortunately (or fortunately) one has to use a very good loupe to see them ... and they are documented and there for everybody to see.

I personally think that the same is the case with ALL other manufacturers, dies and die-products (not only RK's...) and personally I also think that I have a pretty good idea how the stamping was done. But that is just my personal opinion.

Every mechanical production machine ages and that aging shows in the produced part. There is nothing philosophical or ethereal about it.

[Dave Kane]

Leroy, here you are!

[Brian S]

I'm getting confused. ...the "dimple" is a crater, right ? (if so, its a raised feature on the die, which might merely be due to debris...but does it persist up to the '57 ? ). The "slash" feature is raised on the frame, and therefore sunken in the die...this would be a defect in the die appearing...ergo: no slash earlier frame).

The dimple seems to disappear by the '57.

Leroy, if you have the dimples as in 140 putting them on a photo would help.