Ek "4"
hi everybody,
i usually do SS stuff, but here's my EK "4'
enjoy
hi everybody,
i usually do SS stuff, but here's my EK "4'
enjoy
-
-
-
no problem
that's a beauty isn't?Comment
-
Another area that jumps in the face of BUFFING is the flat surface on the outside around the entire Cross. While looking for a nice clean solder joining we also look to see if the 'file marks' are present on the flats and in to the corners indeed so we don't buy a refurbished, cleaned or polished Cross.
Regards,
DaveComment
-
-
You can roll eyes till you roll over
.... but I think that is true. Furthermore, I was also asked to do that.
I asked for clarification, I contributed physical/mechanical facts and un-doctored pictures. And I'm glad we could clarify the buffing thing...
However, we still don't know why that knee-flaw is sometimes like this and sometimes like that.
But I think we can all agree that any possible explanatory theory should incorporate all the other phenomena of the S&L B-Type, such as the dimple, the frosting and the dent row and whatever else there might be.
DietrichComment
-
Considering the pics and assertions put forth, I wonder where this Cross would fit in the 'time line'!Regards,
DaveComment
-
I don't know if there were others but I , for one, did ask Dietrich to clear up what the debate actually is point for point . I asked that you fellows who believe in the 800/4 to clarify the points you were making in some kind of order, but that went unanswered. So I can see no good reason to get on Dietrichs case for trying to clear it up for me. If you guys won't even sum up your points and provide decent pics then I think it is logical to defer to Dietrichs well researched, concise and clear findings. This has become so confusing and unprofessional that I don't know how you expect your case to be taken seriously. As far as I can tell the silver content, buffing and flaw features and a myriad of other things all work on some things and not others. coincidentally those things all support the 800/4 being pre 935/4. I think if the 800/4 proponents can't even lay out their case in a clear summed up manner then they should go be happy with their crosses and not screech and yell about the injustices of the theory Dietrich has laid out with great care. If you guys are right, you will never prove it in this slipshod manner. Come back with some theory that is laid out and explains all features found in some order with good pix or quit. This is rediculous.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View PostYou can roll eyes till you roll over .... but I think that is true. Furthermore, I was also asked to do that.
I asked for clarification, I contributed physical/mechanical facts and un-doctored pictures. And I'm glad we could clarify the buffing thing...
However, we still don't know why that knee-flaw is sometimes like this and sometimes like that.
But I think we can all agree that any possible explanatory theory should incorporate all the other phenomena of the S&L B-Type, such as the dimple, the frosting and the dent row and whatever else there might be.
Dietrich
I noticed other input was requested but almost all of the "non usual players" were ignored after their contributions.
Sheeiyt or get off the pot.Comment
-
I, for one, am HOPING that Dave Kane's most recent "teaser" post is showing an 800-4 with a full flaw at 6-9, although for the life of me, if he has had this
available during this discussion, I can't figure out why he would be waiting until now to show it. Come on, now, Dave, show us the back!
I have posted the few, and admittedly not very good, photos I can take. I still believe that my photos, however poor, still showed what I was trying to illustrate.
I am very grateful to the "non-regulars" who posted here with their photos. They all help and I would personally like to see all the photos of different crosses that we can!
Dietrich's role as a moderator has been stretched to the point where he is defending his "unproven theories" by simply declaring any alternate theories, such as the difference between types of silver, to be meaningless and wrong. I have based my comments on what I have been told by others, competent in their fields (and, to a minor extent, on things I personally observed many years ago during materials testing). It is not good enough for an interested party (either of us) to simply say that information is wrong. We need third party experts, unbiased, to contribute, but so far there have not been any, with the possible exception of Jimmy's jeweler friend.
I had vowed to myself that I would not continue to post here, because I viewed the atmosphere to be almost toxic; however, I will stay in the fight if only to defend the honor of the American vets who brought these crosses home. I personally don't give a rat's ass what my particular cross is worth, as I won't be selling it during my lifetime and it was never an "investment" to begin with.
Now, back to the field. First, Dave, show us everything you have and don't hold back. Second, has anyone ever seen the unique features of the 800-4 and 935-4 on any other cross? That's a start..............Comment
-
A better start is a clear explaination of your theory and the reasons for it, meaning your explainations of what features on what crosses mean what. It seems like a scattering of ideas that change and contradict. Can you clarify what you mean?Comment
-
Yes, I do that! Not because of my theories nor because I'm evil but because I have two German Master degrees, one in Mechanical Engineering and another one in Production Engineering - and I worked in that technical field for over 25 years - that's why. I think that this gives me the permission to make a very educated statement in that respect. What is meaningless and wrong needs to be called just that ... and we went through that already 4 years ago.Originally posted by Leroy View PostComment
-
Sal,
All I have, and all Dietrich has, at this point, are "unproven" opinions.
I BELIEVE that both 800-4 and 935-4 crosses were brought back by American veterans at the end of the war, reportedly taken from German prisoners and other sources, including storage areas. The oral vet history of this not accepted by some. It is accepted by others, including me. It is also my understanding that, in Europe, both collectors and dealers report finds of both types of these crosses directly from German veterans, as their awarded crosses. In the absence of "documented" crosses (i.e. crosses having their actual and contemporary- to- the- period accompanying written description of features, including markings, etc.) that is ALL we have for ANY cross, regardless of whether it was made by Juncker, K&Q, S&L or other maker. What other "provenance" exists to connect a particular cross to a particular awardee other than the statement of that awardee (or in the case or death or capture, the statement of the "next-in-
line" possessor of that cross)? None, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I understand that certain types of crosses were recovered from Schloss Klessheim, but this is,
again, only the oral "provenance" from veterans. I am unaware of any cross having a direct and contemporary written description of its features. There are, of course, certain basic cross types which are identifiable in contemporary photos by prominent obverse features. So, let's understand all this as a premise.
The 800-4 and 935-4 crosses (among S&L crosses) appear to be unique in their use of the "4" stamp. This marking was mandated by the government at some point in time. It MAY have been in use prior to 1944, as it shows up on other badges and decorations by this same maker BELIEVED to pre-date that year. Similarly, numbers assigned to other manufacturers of the RK also show up on badges and decorations made by those other manufacturers also believed to pre-date 1944. I do not pretend to know the date these numbers actually showed up on RK's by the different manufacturers and that discussion is still very active. It would be NICE to know, and important to know this date with precision. One of our members (Ludwig) has reported a 935-4 cross actually awarded to a recipient in 1943. His is, however, and again, the oral provenance from that German awardee and/or his family.
Because the 800-4 and 935-4 crosses appear to be unique in their use of the "4", we should look to other common features of these crosses, as well. Both have silver frames and iron cores, both are extremely well-made and finished and both share some other traits. By example, both show the first beginnings of the 6-9 "knee" flaw and both have very distinct "dent rows" (with Dietrich taking the position of the dent row on the 935-4 being SLIGHTLY more distinct than on the 800-4). As we learned in this thread, however, there are "dimples" appearing on the lower edge of the 935-4's lower 3 o'clock arm which either do not appear on the 800-4 (Jimmy's) or only appear on one side of another 800-4 cross (mine) (and that being of different appearance). Additionally, the 6-9 flaw appears fully developed, on AT LEAST one side, of every 935-4 so far shown. So far, only 800-4 crosses have appeared where that flaw does not ROUTINELY appear, in its fully developed form, on at least one side of the cross. In fact, if Dave's "teaser photo" (as I am calling it) ends up being of an 800-4 cross, it will be the FIRST TIME the fully developed 6-9 flaw has appeared on a 800-4 cross. At this point, there are THEORIES regarding why this might be the case, but not yet any definitive proof, one way or the other. It is THEORIZED, by me, and others, that the differences in the 6-9 flaw and the "dimple" flaws on the 3 o'clock arm, between the 800-4 cross and the 935-4 cross, point to the 800-4 cross as coming before, or at the least being a joint production with, the 935-4 cross. Dietrich has said that this cannot be possible because the "dent row" on the 935-4 is more distinct than on the 800-4. We are saying that 1.) the perception that the row is more distinct on the 935 than the 800 may, in fact , not necessarily be correct, 2.) that the difference , if really any, in that "dent row" may be the result of the use of metals with different hardnesses, 3.) that not enough crosses of either type have so far been examined to be assured that the cross types may not have been the products of "alternating" stampings , 4.) the difference in the "dent row", if really any, may be attributable to factors we do not understand at this point, and that 5.) it is premature to preclude consideration of the development of the 6-9 flaw and the "dimples" as indicators of which cross "came first" by regarding the "dent row" clarity as an absolute barrier
or "threshold" which must first be cleared before such other factors may be considered. Dietrich, I know that you have you master's degrees in the area you mentioned, so you are qualified to render opinions in those areas. I, on the other hand, have my doctorate in law, which means I am used to the idea of "competing experts" , in almost every case of my career. Yours is not the final word, by any means, and I have had others, who are not members here, make statements to me which contradict yours. Are you the ONLY engineer we have on the forum? Maybe.
I have tried, in an effort to keep this discussion going, to summarize above where I think we are. I MAY HAVE LEFT SOMETHING OUT. I am typing this after going to bed at 2 a.m., getting back up at 5 a.m., meeting a doctor for a conference in a case at 6:15 a.m., and taking a video deposition beginning at 7 a.m.. I have just made it back into my office. I have tried to summarize without emotion. If I have, in fact, left out something regarding status, I hope others will step in and (not in an accusatory or condescending way) add to this.
I welcome ALL photos, ALL ideas, ALL real expertise and ALL contributions. I am making this effort because Dietrich, by his book, has left a cloud over these crosses. I am NOT saying that he did this intentionally and I UNDERSTAND that he has cautioned everyone that his are "unproven" opinions. The reality, however, is that most people have taken his statements as a condemnation of these crosses (especially the 800-4) and, now that these statements are in print in a distinguished reference book, it will take years to get everyone to realize that, at this point, there is NO proof that these crosses, or either of them, are postwar, and that there is, rather, substantial proof, AT LEAST THROUGH VETERAN ACCOUNTS, that they are, indeed, wartime. Again, Dietrich appears to be motivated by a desire to insure that no collector gets "burned" by an "unproven" cross. That is laudatory. Unfortunately, the "provenance" standards applied and accepted for other crosses HAVE NOT, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, been applied and accepted for THESE crosses, for whatever reason, and this situation should be corrected. The only way to do this is to examine these crosses and apply to them the same standards used for other crosses. I honestly believe that Dietrich thought he was doing this, but, unfortunately, "perception is reality" and the perception now is NOT that these crosses are unproven (by some standard) but that, rather, that they are BAD.
OK. Somebody else talk now.
Best,
LeroyComment
-
Exactly, there needs to be a new thread dominated first by photos not by theories by everyone explaining their cross. Identify the cross, show the salient features and lay back for the next crosses to pose. Until that happens this is slipshod and leaves only Dietrich's thoughts as organized.Originally posted by Sal Williams View PostComment
-
I just provided the summary. Perhaps Brian didn't have a chance to read it or perhaps it's not enough.
Anyone have any photos which could contribute to this? I'm proposing at this moment that we confine this to the 800-4 and 935-4 and include other "B" crosses only insofar as their features "relate" to these types. But if someone want this discussion to be about all "B" types in general, that's fine with me, too.Last edited by Leroy; 03-11-2008, 09:50 AM.Comment
Comment