S&L RK Post War puzzle

[Franco]

dent row

[Franco]

one more

[Leroy]

That's a nice looking cross, Franco. No flaws, nicely finished ring (at least what I can see). It demonstrates very well a hard choice for a collector.

Here is a photo showing one of the boards assembled postwar by employees of various Ludenscheid manufacturers for barter and trade immediately after the war, using leftover stock. Of the three RK's, the plain RK and the one with Oaks and Swords have "A" frames. The one with Oaks, which is still viewable on the "emedals" site, appears (from everything I can see) to have a "B" frame, with a magnetic core and an "800" stamp on the cross itself. It does not have the "4" mark. If the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses are indeed the only wartime "B" types, why is this cross here? Some deride this board, and the others found with it, as put-togethers meant to fool collectors, but that argument is tenuous at best, in my opinion.

Dietrich has said that S&L never manufactured, during the war, crosses with zinc, or other non-magnetic cores. Further, an unmarked S&L cross, especially a "B" type such as yours, should also not exist and should be considered postwar. Concerning the zinc core, both Bob Hritz and Pieter Verbruggen disagree. They also disagree about the existence of other wartime "B" crosses. As to the marked/unmarked statement, I do not know their position.

Is it possible to see a close-up of the suspension ring on your cross?

[Leroy]

Just for the fun of it, here's another mint 800-4. As Franco hinted, the manner of finishing, which was highly individualized, can make crosses look as though they could not be the same. The paint type and thickness can distort swastikas and dates and frosting application can be thick or thin. It is a real art to see "what lies beneath" sometimes.

[streptile]

it is very interesting to note that the earliest of the 1st pattern core 1957 models are found with frames with no beading flaws...

Could you expand on this statement a bit? I was under the impression that the earliest 57 RKs were made with B-type frames, which have the dent row and substantial flaws in the beading rim, and that the unflawed so-called C-type frames were introduced right around the transition time to the 2nd pattern core (1960-ish).

[Leroy]

Trevor,
The very earliest 1957 RK's ARE made with "B" frames, with the dent row and the 6-9 bridge flaw, but without the very evident raised beading flaws in the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock arms. Not very long at all into that production, the raised beading flaws begin to appear and by the time of the introduction of the "2nd pattern" core by S&L (the one with the acorns much closer to the main body of oakleaves) the beading flaws are very evident. The earliest 1957 RK's are very close to wartime pieces, with frosting and with the lower part of the eyelet (which is always an integral part of the frame) always filed or buffed away so that the eyelet (as in wartime pieces) appears to sit on top of the frame. Nevertheless, even the earliest 1957 crosses do not "make it all the way" when being compared to wartime pieces. Although they are very nice in appearance, the finishing, frosting, etc., is just not the same. As time went oin, the filing away of the lower part of the eyelet seems almost to have become an afterthought, with some having it done and others not. By the time the (very ugly) "C" frame was introduced by S&L for its last production of the 1957 pattern, the eyelet was never finished and always intruded into the frame.
Many have also commented on the finishing of the interior of the eyelet as an indicator of production time. Although it is certainly true that most wartime crosses tend to have this area nicely "cleaned out" and finished, there ARE wartime crosses on which this area is NOT finished. On some 1957 crosses, the interior is nicely done, on others it is not.
There is a definite "quality timeline" in the production of S&L crosses and this timeline would be very evident if someone were to publish (or, even better, post here) a "running" series of "full-frontal" photographs showing the advance of beading flaws and other characteristics. There have been some threads here, and on other forums, where some effort (but not much) has been expended on this. On the ones on this forum, for some reason, many of the photos have been deleted, which is very frustrating. On a personal note, I am convinced that the appearance of raised beading flaws on "B" type frames developed AFTER the introduction of the 1957 pattern cross.
Regards,
Leroy

[Franco]

cross loop

[Leroy]

Thanks, Franco! A nicely finished ring!

As a point of interest, you will see that whenever Detlev Niemann or Helmut Weitze offer, as postwar, nice S&L swastika cored crosses, they always have nicely finished eyelets and do not have raised flaws in the beading. I believe that they, too, must regard "B" framed crosses with raised beading flaws as post-1957 (although I have not spoken to them about this).

[Franco]

Leroy,
On the subject of eyelets,you will see just below mine an elongated dark patch.This is due to the finisher not quite completing his job.
Thus enabling me to see under magnification how they removed the dipping portion.
It was crushed,using a cogged wheel,its left behind,what looks like the impression of a mini tank track this woud have then been filed and buffed.A smooth wheel runs the risk of it slipping and damaging the beading.
Cheers

[Leroy]

I think that is correct. In essence, that area was compressed by force, then smoothly finished. It's very nice that on yours you can see the actual details of the work!

[Leroy]

Here is (poor) photo I just took of a 1957 RK, with second pattern core (magnetic) in a neusilber frame with extensive flawing on the arms. The eyelet is well-finished and there is some slight attempt at frosting. Next to it is a swastika cross by S&L with identical frame. The core is also magnetic. (An interesting point on the swastika cross - the core, which is rusted and somewhat pitted, is thought to be a first pattern Schickle core. It is possible that after Schickle went out of business in 1941, S&L acquired some of its remaining stock, and still had some lying around in the late 50's or early 60's when this cross was assembled). Both crosses are undoubtedly post-1957.

[kraut72]

Leroy,very-very correct comment!

[George L]

Leroy, I'd beg to differ on the early 57 jobs not being up to par with the WW2's; only part they lacked was more hand-finishing to the edges of the arms.

Here's a gem with nice cream colored frosting, chrome-like finishing to the burnished flanges, and a nicely finished eyelet to illustrate. Yes, it does have flaws to the beading as the "B" types do.

[streptile]

Trevor, The very earliest 1957 RK's ARE made with "B" frames, with the dent row and the 6-9 bridge flaw, but without the very evident raised beading flaws in the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock arms. Not very long at all into that production, the raised beading flaws begin to appear and by the time of the introduction of the "2nd pattern" core by S&L (the one with the acorns much closer to the main body of oakleaves) the beading flaws are very evident... By the time the (very ugly) "C" frame was introduced by S&L for its last production of the 1957 pattern, the eyelet was never finished and always intruded into the frame.

Hi Leroy,

Thanks for this very thorough explanation. It's news to me that the earliest B-type frames were without the beading flaws, but I'm still learning. I've always assumed that the unflawed 57 RKs with the dent row were, by definition, C-types (repaired B-types).

I have a nicely (but not quite wartime nice) finished, frosted, 1st pattern core, '800' marked 57 RK with a wartime loop that confuses me a bit. Could you venture a guess as to which frame this one might have?





Öse:



Loop:



Frosting:





Your help is very appreciated!

[Leroy]

That's a very nicely finished piece, George! Certainly a very early model when quality still meant something (even without the extra hand-work on the edges). As you point out, it has nice painted frosting and burnished rims and would be a highlight in anyone's collection! A very similar piece (with slightly worn frosting) appears on page 281 of Geissler's RK book, but without the raised beading flaws. Again, I think this bolsters the idea that the raised beading flaws began to appear very shortly after the initial commencement of manufacture of the 1957 form.