Knight´s Cross "4"

[Dietrich Maerz]

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

Then how could you see the buffing marks under the intact frosting? Something you just said was the case with the Electron Microscope picture (to explain the missing marks...) I just posted - but clearly isn't.
I just want to learn and understand!
Could the 1000 power jeweler's scope look through the frosting? And remember- we are talking the beading area in the knee - not the flanges. Those were clearly polished.

[VIPER]

We were zeroed in on one of the high points where the frosting was worn off too the bear metal. It did not take a very big spot at 1000 power...J

[Sal Williams]

One thing that strikes me about the 800 vs. 935 silver affetcting the stamping debate it this. If the dies close (which if they don't would be big problems that you would see easily with the naked eye!) then the die shape will be transfered to the metal. The dent row would have to be the same. The only effect difference should be how the metal was pushed into shape (if that) I suppose on a microscopic level the way the metal conformed to the die shape might be ever so slightly different, but the metal will be pushed into the shape of the die no matter what (excluding what would be an unusable cross if it didn't) . It seems the silver content debate centers around how well the dent row is defined. I think this is silly because if you believe (the fact that both types of silver can make the beading etc on the cross, the effort for it to conform to the shape of the dent row is way less. Think about it, both metals can get in to form the beading, but not the dent row?

Best, Sal

[Sal Williams]

Also using the harder silver theory you could say that the knee flaw is filled easier with the softer silver and therefore more pronounced. Meaning that the 935/4 could be earlier and yet more pronounced than the 800/4 because of that. Not my belief about the silver content making that difference, but you can't have it both ways.

Best, Sal

[Dietrich Maerz]

We were zeroed in on one of the high points where the frosting was worn off too the bear metal. It did not take a very big spot at 1000 power...J

So what tells you (or the jeweler) that those were traces of 50 plus year old buffing and not some random scratches that were inflicted to the cross in the last 50 plus years?

This must be a damned good jeweler if he can detect that! And he's even better (or braver) to extrapolate this finding (on a very tiny spot - as you say) to the whole of the cross and therfore proclaim that the dents and the dimple (of which he had no knowldege of, I'm sure) were also buffed away.

At any rate, the crosses I have microscopic pictures of don't show any signs of buffing at the beading and we should note that the only 'evidence' of that being the case is a tiny spot under 1000 mag. of a cross that could as well have been made by 'whatever' in the last 50 plus years.

So, if the cross was not buffed, the missing dimple is a sign for "later" than the picture I showed. How much later, no one knows. More steps needed.

However, if the buffing was done, 'they' could have buffed away the knee flaw in some instances, too. Therefore the knee-flaw size is no solid evidence at all.

So which one is the better theory? Or are both BS and a new one needs to be theorized?

[VIPER]

Also using the harder silver theory you could say that the knee flaw is filled easier with the softer silver and therefore more pronounced. Meaning that the 935/4 could be earlier and yet more pronounced than the 800/4 because of that. Not my belief about the silver content making that difference, but you can't have it both ways.

Best, Sal

The 6/9 flaw is progressive because the die itself is changing over a period of time in the life of the die. It is not having it both ways. Your argument would only hold true if the fault in the die was static (unchanging). Then the silver content would be the only factor at work here..........J

[VIPER]

So what tells you (or the jeweler) that those were traces of 50 plus year old buffing and not some random scratches that were inflicted to the cross in the last 50 plus years?

This must be a damned good jeweler if he can detect that! And he's even better (or braver) to extrapolate this finding (on a very tiny spot - as you say) to the whole of the cross and therfore proclaim that the dents and the dimple (of which he had no knowldege of, I'm sure) were also buffed away.

At any rate, the crosses I have microscopic pictures of don't show any signs of buffing at the beading and we should note that the only 'evidence' of that being the case is a tiny spot under 1000 mag. of a cross that could as well have been made by 'whatever' in the last 50 plus years.

So, if the cross was not buffed, the missing dimple is a sign for "later" than the picture I showed. How much later, no one knows. More steps needed.

However, if the buffing was done, 'they' could have buffed away the knee flaw in some instances, too. Therefore the knee-flaw size is no solid evidence at all.

So which one is the better theory? Or are both BS and a new one needs to be theorized?

There were several exposed areas front and back where you could see the bare metal on the beads high points. And it is not me who is inconsistant, need I remind you of this post and I quote:"The reason I'm coming to the conclusion of the 935-4 being the first B-Type is that Daves cross has the "weld" splatter on the obverse and no longer on the reverse. The same 'time difference' can be seen with the knee flaw. This makes me conclude that the 935-4 was the frist model, based on visible indications. There is a progression in the knee flaw and a degression on the 'weld splatter'. That's for me a kind of time line."----Dietrich

[Sal Williams]

The 6/9 flaw is progressive because the die itself is changing over a period of time in the life of the die. It is not having it both ways. Your argument would only hold true if the fault in the die was static (unchanging). Then the silver content would be the only factor at work here..........J

Well maybe I am not understanding the arguement about the silver content. I gathered that it was being said that the dent row is less defined because 800 silver is harder and therefore didn't conform to the dent row in the die as well. Is that right?

Second, the knee flaw being more defined on the 935 silver is due to a worsening flaw in the die itself correct?

[Sal Williams]

I am confused as to how many 800/4 crosses with the smaller amount of knee flaw have been shown in these threads? Is it possible for Jimmy/Leroy/Brian to put their points in one post sort of summarizing the argument/theory of the earlier than 935/4 crosses? This is getting hard to follow.

Thanks, Sal

[Dave Kane]

Good morning all!

Buffed...no, the frames were 'chased' with a burnishing tool. If one looks at a nice unworn S&L the ridges and valleys and sharp and deep and indeed the ridges are similar to this shape ^ at their peaks.

There are clear striation marks, gouges and cuts where the burnishing tool went too deep, off center or the tech's hands weren't steady.

The tips of the arms/flanges are sharp enough to cut...

Buffing would ROUND off all of these areas!! Look at a Juncker arm tips...buffed or sanded but rounded none the least!

[Brian S]

I'm completely on agreement with Dietrich on these arguments... No buffing, except I believe near the loop, silver content is immaterial to the hardness. Why would the dimple area get buffed even if for some reason which I don't believe they buffed? They would going after the surface of the beading, not the inbetween areas, but they didn't buff... No signs on my Juncker or S&L. Daggers an entirely different thing... The cross graining is material to the look of the dagger.

Some of this now sounds like going off subject to deflect the issues which were central to some of you guys' original premise here - the flaws! Now when you don't see the flaw or the flaw is worn down you don't want to consider the flaw. Unless the flaw suits the arguement. Truely there is no having it both ways. The dent row doesn't show up on top and a dimple hidden down the inside of the beading disappear on both sides due to 'buffing' or silver content.

I score the last 25 posts for Dietrich...

[Dietrich Maerz]

There were several exposed areas front and back where you could see the bare metal on the beads high points.

So, more than one area with clearly distinguishable buffing traces! Ok. So what made you and jeweler think that:

- those are not some traces that were introduced in the last 50 plus years
- and that the same 50 plus years buffing traces are also were the dimple and the dent row was buffed away?

And it is not me who is inconsistent, need I remind you of this post and I quote:"The reason I'm coming to the conclusion of the 935-4 being the first B-Type is that Daves cross has the "weld" splatter on the obverse and no longer on the reverse. The same 'time difference' can be seen with the knee flaw. This makes me conclude that the 935-4 was the frist model, based on visible indications. There is a progression in the knee flaw and a degression on the 'weld splatter'. That's for me a kind of time line."----Dietrich

I did not find that quote in the last two threads but I'm sure that if you post it here that is my wording. However, nothing could be more irrelevant.

We are talking about your reasoning why the 800-4 is earlier than the 935-4 and any perceived inconstancy (my "unproven opinion" is published world wide) in what I said here at this forum at an earlier point in time is not making your argument better. That is just not working.

As I said, I'm not arguing for or against - I just want to understand what you are trying to say or prove. At the moment, you either have a buffed cross then the knee flaw could have been buffed away or you don't have a buffed cross then it must be taken as pristine out of the press and speaks for itself.

So what is it?

[Leroy]

Dietrich,
Have you seen evidence, through your examination of crosses in hand, that the 6-9 knee flaw actually was filed or buffed away on the 800-4 crosses?
Thanks,
Leroy


P.S. I have never said that buffing was the cause of any differential between
the "dent row" on the 800-4 and the 935-4, nor, in all fairness, do I
believe that Jimmy was saying that about those 2 specific types. I believe
(as does Jimmy, I think, but he can speak for himself) that the difference
in the dent row on the 2 types is attributable either to differences in the
type of metal used, or to an alternating stamping process whereby a
sheet of one type of silver was run through, then another type and then
alternating again (i.e. 800,935,800,935, etc.), with none of us having
been able to see, so far, the first or last of either series. You have
rejected the first possibility (and I have declined to further argue the point
with you for the reasons stated in my last post). The second possibility is
one not fully explored at this point because there do not exist enough
samples of either type cross for a meaningful conclusion.

Whether or not the differences between the dent rows of the 800-4 and
935-4 cross types (taken together) and OTHER "B" types is effected by
finishing or buffing is something I do not know. S&L crosses were
certainly subject to a finishing process which varied from cross to cross. I
have no proposed answer to THIS question.

Best,
Leroy

[Brian S]

Well I'm out of this...

Arguing the laws of physics will get us nowhere. I had hoped to get good clear photos of other people's crosses so I could make up my own mind.

This is just another thread getting mired in arguing whether one piece of silver versus another under thousands of pounds of pressure will result in the same cross... We've been there, we've seen the differences in density, it doesn't matter...

What matters is people should see the evidence and make up their own minds. Debating the laws of physics is counterproductive.

We will never get to the evidence with this approach, and the result is, probably not what was intended, Dietrich walks away the as the last man talking because we can't get beyond what is and what is not, arguing physics. arguing reality. Shame. Bye.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Before I answer this I want to make clear that I'm not part of this discussion. I only moderate and I want to make sure that people understand what is posted and that no contradictions in it selves are argued or proposed as solutions/explanations.

Dietrich, have you seen evidence, through your examination of crosses in hand, that the 6-9 knee flaw actually was filed or buffed away on the 800-4 crosses?

No. However, the reason for that is NOT that it might not exist - the reason is that I have not looked at all. But let me say this again - I don't believe in "buffing" at all.

I have never said that buffing was the cause of any differential between the "dent row" on the 800-4 and the 935-4, nor, in all fairness, do I believe that Jimmy was saying that about those 2 specific types.

That might very well be true, however, a lot of members took it like that. But now it seems to be clear: no influence of buffing on the dent row. Ergo: back to the pristine crosses with fully intact pained frosting!

I believe (as does Jimmy, I think, but he can speak for himself) that the difference in the dent row on the 2 types is attributable either to differences in the type of metal used, or to an alternating stamping process whereby a sheet of one type of silver was run through, then another type and then alternating again (i.e. 800,935,800,935, etc.), with none of us having been able to see, so far, the first or last of either series.

I, and others, certainly do not share this, your believe. Now we can drag all kinds of experts from all directions of life into this - for me 10 tons are 10 tons! ( and, as an unrelated side note - I have seen how that works when somebody accidentally leaves his thumb in the die ... only once and no way you could sew that one back on... but that doesn't make me a die expert either)

You have rejected the first possibility (and I have declined to further argue the point with you for the reasons stated in my last post).

But let me add that I do not reject that possibility since I'm genuinely evil or I don't like your cross or just for the fun of it. I reject this notion since I know what the posted silver data mean and what effect (or better non-effect) they have in a die and on the forming process.

S&L crosses were certainly subject to a finishing process which varied from cross to cross.

Sure they were! And it can be seen on every cross as Dave points out. But not the beading! One also should not think that each RK was a jewelers piece which was buffed, polished and finished like the "Hope" diamond. Not for a selling price of about 16 RM or less which was considerably under that of the "Hope" diamond, I guess.