Announcement

**Harry** · 10-09-2009, 02:53 PM

I think it has been accepted that S&L made 1939 and 1957 pattern RKs along side each other, well after 1957......

**Leroy** · 10-09-2009, 03:14 PM

How about a "full front" photo of the cross?

**Franco** · 10-09-2009, 04:06 PM

Harry,
Do you mean they used the same frame dies for both types?

**George L** · 10-09-2009, 07:12 PM

The frames were the same for the 1st pattern 57 RK, and the post war 49 style RK's.

Originally posted by Franco View Post

Harry,
Do you mean they used the same frame dies for both types?

**Leroy** · 10-09-2009, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by George L View Post

The frames were the same for the 1st pattern 57 RK, and the post war 49 style RK's.

What are "post war 49 style RK's"?

**George L** · 10-09-2009, 10:08 PM

Sorry, typo, I meant post-45

**Leroy** · 10-10-2009, 12:18 AM

Whew! For a minute, I thought I had missed something really big!

Thanks, George, for the correction.

In all seriousness, it is very interesting to note that the earliest of the 1st pattern core 1957 models are found with frames with no beading flaws, while slightly later first pattern crosses are starting to show flaws and by the time of the introduction of the 2nd pattern 57 core (thought to have occurred around 1960) frames with terrible beading flaws routinely show up. This leads me to think that when the die failed, it failed in a fairly short time span. In turn, it seems reasonable to ask: were the very first 57's made from possibly leftover wartime stock frames and when these ran out and stamping using the wartime die had to be renewed, the old die just broke down?

**Leroy** · 10-10-2009, 07:40 AM

Another point (which I should have included in my last post). The frames for the 57 crosses were, indeed, the same used by S&L for its postwar swastika crosses. We should, however, probably refer to them as S&L's "post-1943 frames". Although there is some argument over this (with some placing the date as earlier), our friend Dietrich Maerz has indicated that the mandatory use on RK's of the manufacturer's assigned PKZ number was in effect by the first quarter of 1944. Because there are no "A" type frame RK's by S&L marked with their assigned number "4", and instead only "B" type frames with that number, it seems appropriate to believe that only 3 possible scenarios occured:
1. S&L (alone among the manufacturers of Germany's highest award) chose deliberately to ignore the PKZ's mandate; or
2. S&L (at the time of the most awards of the RK) simply stopped, after 1943, making RK's for the remainder of the war; or
3. S&L switched frames in the post-1943 period (perhaps because of very noticeable beading flaws in the "A" frame) and began manufacturing its RK's with the "B" frame dies (the same frames used postwar to make both postwar swastika crosses and the 1957 "new form core" RK's).

Because there are at least two S&L models of swastika RK (the 935-4 and 800-4) bearing the assigned PKZ "4" mark, and employing the "B" type frame, and because both these models are, by any reasonable standard, superior in fit, finishing and frosting (the "three F's") to even the finest of early 1957 core crosses, and have no beading flaws,it certainly seems rational to believe that the first 1957 "new form core" crosses were made using frames from S&L's "post-1943 " dies and not a newly-created "post-1945" frame die.

To me, this would help explain the rapid deterioration, after the introduction of the 57 "new form core", of the dies and the appearance of beading flaws. It's my OPINION that the frame on any "B" type RK with raised beading flaws on the arms was produced post-1957.

**Franco** · 10-10-2009, 01:01 PM

Hi,
I accept all that Leroy says on the matter,but I believe a change occured in the frames,post 45 & pre 57.For this reason.
Post 45 RK frames look like wartime crosses.Thats why a lot of collectors were -- and some still are --fooled into thinking they are genuine.
Regardless of any die flaws and wether or not they are made of silver a 57 S&L RK frame looks like a 57 and not like a wartime one.
Just what the change was I cant say,but its there.Even some one with no interest in them could tell the difference if the centers were covered up and then asked to put six of one style of cross to one side and leave six of another style behind.
cheers

**Seewolf** · 10-10-2009, 02:13 PM

57 S&L RK frame looks like a 57 and not like a wartime one.

Mmmh, really ? For comparison i show you my 57er B-frame S&L

Attached Files

RK2.jpg (190.8 KB, 299 views)

**Leroy** · 10-10-2009, 02:26 PM

Franco,
That is an interesting observation. Visually, the frames on early 57 crosses, even though still (I believe) leftovers, are finished in a different way from wartime crosses. I don't know if rhodium was used, or a different kind of lacquer, or what. I believe Peter Wiking has looked at these and perhaps he could chime in here.
Here is a mint "B" frame (800-4).
Best,
Leroy

Attached Files

P2110517.JPG (74.4 KB, 291 views)

**Leroy** · 10-10-2009, 02:54 PM

And here is a mint "A" type.

If someone with more computer skills than me (which would be just about anyone!

) could line these up in a row, we can see the difference.

Attached Files

post-2708-1185241637.jpg (76.9 KB, 289 views)

**Leroy** · 10-10-2009, 03:04 PM

And another "A".

Attached Files

IMG_5019.jpg (86.3 KB, 289 views)

**Franco** · 10-10-2009, 04:34 PM

Hi,
I should have added --with the exception of some of the earlier 57 crosses.
The beading on that B type certainly looks plump.It must be as you say Leroy,down to the finish.
Anyway here are the pics of the cross that you asked for.

Attached Files

021.JPG (94.8 KB, 271 views)

Announcement

S&L RK Post War puzzle

S&L RK Post War puzzle

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread