Knight´s Cross "4"

[VIPER]

Jimmy, buy a good camera so we can see what you are talking about. It gets frustrating trying to view pics you post.

Any suggestions as too good macro camera. Mine is geared for telephoto. And if I go up in resolution the files are too big too post here. It is also frustrating trying too take them. But no matter about the dimples, they are not there.....J

[Robert T.]

Is this "pickled" or "painted" frosting?

I would say that it has the chemically applied frosting (being called here "pickled") on the beading area. In his book, Gordon Williamson refers to it as a "white" oxidized silver effect.

The PAINTED frosting is like icing on a cake, a white substance applied on top of the beading and the small ridge (see post #161). I do not see that on your cross.
_______________
Robert

[Dietrich Maerz]

There is a big difference in the two processes. (see Frank Heukemes excellent book on the General Assault Badge for a detailed description of the difference)

Excuse me for using the wrong English word - but I can assure you I know what I meant and I know what it is.

Anyhow, the beading was not buffed, there was no need to. However, if the American buffing wheel you tested (and you assume was also used 70 years ago in Lüdenscheid in the same size and shape) could reach that area I'm sure they could and would also cleaned away the knee flaw. Maybe they did at the 800-4 ...

[Sal Williams]

Any suggestions as too good macro camera. Mine is geared for telephoto. And if I go up in resolution the files are too big too post here. It is also frustrating trying too take them. But no matter about the dimples, they are not there.....J

This camera will do what you need and its cheap http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....ci_sku=8257726

you need photoshop or some program so you can crop and size your pics. That way you can show only specific areas as well as staying in the size limits here.

[Dietrich Maerz]

There ARE greater differences between those 2 types, however, and crosses made at different times (the "diminished definition" dent row crosses). Whether THOSE particular differences are due only to wear or some other factor is something I don't think we absolutely understand at this point and has no bearing whatsoever on the current discussion. Here, we are talking about the "overnight" transition from one basic type of material to a different basic type of material, not stages in between.

However, the transition form one 'basic' type of material to a different basic type of material is so minute that it is absolutely inconsequential - it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is basically the same material. Believe it or not.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I would say that it has the chemically applied frosting (being called here "pickled") on the beading area. In his book, Gordon Williamson refers to it as a "white" oxidized silver effect.

The PAINTED frosting is like icing on a cake, a white substance applied on top of the beading and the small ridge (see post #161). I do not see that on your cross.
_______________
Robert

Robert,

with all due respect, I honestly don't think that one can determine the type of frosting from such a picture - especially if the cross is heavily tarnished. If anything at all, one could say it is of the painted type due to the black colorization which is a trade mark of the painted frosting - it tends to turn into that black which is sometimes mistaken as 'repaint'.

Dietrich

[DavidM]

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).

Hello

I have examined my two S&L 57 RKs using a 10x and a 20x loup in daylight and under a spotlight and can find no trace on either of them of the 'dimple' or 'slash'.

Regards
David

[VIPER]

Excuse me for using the wrong English word - but I can assure you I know what I meant and I know what it is.

Anyhow, the beading was not buffed, there was no need to. However, if the American buffing wheel you tested (and you assume was also used 70 years ago in Lüdenscheid in the same size and shape) could reach that area I'm sure they could and would also cleaned away the knee flaw. Maybe they did at the 800-4 ...

Dietrich my friend they did buff the beading, I saw the buff lines at 1000 power mag. And they have had jewelers wheels for several hundred years virtually unchanged accept for the power method, whereas they use to be foot powered. You do not think they did not polish the fittings for the Hope Diamond for Marie Antoinette do you........Jimmy

[Dietrich Maerz]

It is interesting that you bring up the "Hope" diamond ...

I bow to your expertise to recognize buffing under 1000x magnification and to your in depth knowledge of several hundred years of buffing wheels ...

So they buffed away part the knee flaw at your cross?

I have attached a meager 150x magnification picture of the beading of an S&L cross. I can't see any buffing (I see some scratches, though...) but I can still see imperfections in the valley and even on top of the beading. But maybe the Electron Microscope is not accurate enough and one really needs a 1000x magnification.

Or... maybe your crosses was "buffed" sometimes in the last 50 years?

[VIPER]

The buffing marks may be under the frosting on the picture you display. They look alot like crossgrain on an SS dagger running vertical but there are some running horizontal as well. Remember it is buffed then frosted. I had already anticipated that response about modern vs old technology so I asked someone who should know. The wheel at the school my friend trained at 30 years ago was over 50 years old then so that would today bring that wheel to 80+ years. Well encompasing the era we are studying but I do feel we are getting a bit far afield. The point is the part that actually does the contacting/polishing is the same as they have been for a hundred years or more.

[Leroy]

However, the transition form one 'basic' type of material to a different basic type of material is so minute that it is absolutely inconsequential - it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is basically the same material. Believe it or not.

Dietrich,
If you truly believe this (and I'm sure you do), there is no further point to this part of the discussion. Others, more qualified than me, in the fields of both engineering and tool and die making, have told me to the contrary. Jimmy's friend, the jeweler, who I do not know, has told him that anyone who does not think the difference between 935 and 800 can affect the appearance of a stamping (especially when there is a flaw or debris in the die) is "nuts". Now, I would not go that far, as we are all probably a little bit nuts here, but I WILL take this to mean that we cannot ever resolve this issue on this forum with the participants we have so far (including you and me!). No offense intended to anyone, but I know a brick wall when I see one. This is like discussing religion...there is never any resolution and eventually blood pressure rises and people just get mad.

I AM curious as to whether anyone has seen an 800-4 with the "fully-devloped" flaw at 6-9 o'clock or, for that matter, a 935-4 on which the "fully-developed" flaw does not appear on at least one side of the cross? Further, has anyone seen a postwar cross on which the "fully-developed" flaw did not exist (whether removed by filing or just plain never there)? Also, I am curious as to whether anyone has seen a cross like Davetourle's with the "B" reverse and the "A" obverse (but with the remains of the 3 o'clock "dent row" on the "A" side)? How about a "B" cross (other than the one shown here) with the so-called "pickled" frosting? How about a "B" cross without the "dimples" found by Dietrich on the lower 3 o'clock arm and discussed here (I know there has been a mention that these weren't present on a '57 cross, in addition, of course to Jimmy's 800-4 cross not having them and they being present on only one side of my 800-4 cross)? How about a postwar cross with a distinct and well-defined "dent row" (not necessarily as distinct as on the 800-4 and 935-4, but still sharp)? How about crosses with anomolies others than the ones we've talked about? Are there any jewelers on this forum or people with other REAL experience in the working of various grades of silver? Anyone else here who has gotten a 935-4 or 800-4, or other "B" type, from a vet? (And no, I don't mean your dealer friends who served during Vietnam.) Anyone else with unusual crosses of any kind or maker, or unknown maker?

There are years of fun left to have here!

Best,
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

The buffing marks may be under the frosting on the picture you display.

No, they aren't. The top surface is clean (no frosting) but still has other features that should be worn away if buffed.

They look alot like crossgrain on an SS dagger running vertical but there are some running horizontal as well. Remember it is buffed then frosted.

Now that is not true. If it was 'pickled' it was for sure not buffed. Why would someone put a very thin etched surface on a cross just to buff it away? For the painted frosting it is true - but Leroy thinks he has a pickled cross...

I had already anticipated that response about modern vs old technology so I asked someone who should know. The wheel at the school my friend trained at 30 years ago was over 50 years old then so that would today bring that wheel to 80+ years.

Anticipation is good ... Tell your friend to take good care of the 80 plus year buffing wheel that fits into the RK corner. A piece of history!

Well encompasing the era we are studying but I do feel we are getting a bit far afield. The point is the part that actually does the contacting/polishing is the same as they have been for a hundred years or more.

No, the point is this: it was either buffed (ALL of them) and then the knee flaw was subject to buffing also (and can be clearly dismissed as a random outcome - same as the dimple), or

they were not buffed (no matter what your jeweler says - they weren't) and then the dimple counts.

You can't have it conveniently the way you choose.

And - by the way - I don't care which one you choose. Just be consistent!

[VIPER]

Also, I do not think it has been buffed post war. There would be no frosting....Regards Jimmy

[Robert T.]

Robert,

with all due respect, I honestly don't think that one can determine the type of frosting from such a picture - especially if the cross is heavily tarnished. If anything at all, one could say it is of the painted type due to the black colorization which is a trade mark of the painted frosting - it tends to turn into that black which is sometimes mistaken as 'repaint'.

Dietrich

Dietrich,

IMO, the "black" shown here on BOB's cross is due to the improper application of the PAINTED frosting . The incomplete process has tarnished part of the beading.
___________
Robert

[Dietrich Maerz]

Others, more qualified than me, in the fields of both engineering and tool and die making, have told me to the contrary. Jimmy's friend, the jeweler, who I do not know, has told him that anyone who does not think the difference between 935 and 800 can affect the appearance of a stamping (especially when there is a flaw or debris in the die) is "nuts".

So I am 'nuts' and I'm proud of it. I discuss the matter of the RK and it's production and models with any North Carolina jeweler any time of day and night! And I even would enjoy a training on a 80 plus year old buffing wheel and have a look at the result under 1000x magnification!

Now, I would not go that far, as we are all probably a little bit nuts here, but I WILL take this to mean that we cannot ever resolve this issue on this forum with the participants we have so far (including you and me!). No offense intended to anyone, but I know a brick wall when I see one. This is like discussing religion...there is never any resolution and eventually blood pressure rises and people just get mad.

This is about consistency in discussion. You might have realized that I don't state any opinion anymore. But I just think that one cannot say on one side the dimple and the dent row is insignificant because it was buffed away (maybe it was) but on the other hand not allow the same possibility for the whole or parts of the knee flaw.

One cannot say the features are blurred because of the painted frosting and then say that the cross is pickled (and non-buffed) and maybe early.

One canot jump on one flaw as THE solution and dismiss all others as freak things and random occurrences.

I thought a good solid working theory should encompass as much as possible.

And - let me say it again - I'm not saying one way or the other.

How about a "B" cross without the "dimples" found by Dietrich on the lower 3 o'clock arm and discussed here (I know there has been a mention that these weren't present on a '57 cross, in addition, of course to Jimmy's 800-4 cross not having them and they being present on only one side of my 800-4 cross)?

That is easy! Regarding to Jimmy they are buffed away. He saw the marks!