A discussion for the New Year

[Robert T.]

Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether this cross is a "B", or combination "A"/"B", cross?

All I can see is tarnished silver or discolored frosting, how can you honestly say without a doubt that there is a dent row?

Robert

[Leroy]

Robert,
Thanks for posting the comparison! The top photo is the obverse of the cross(where I think the dent row APPEARS to be), the middle photo is the reverse, where there is no dent row that I can perceive, and the bottom, of course, is a very clear shot (Dietrich's) of a dent row (although it needs to be over a bit to the right for a really good comparison). I DO NOT KNOW for sure that this is a dent row on the obverse of this cross, nor did I say for sure that it was,which is why I asked for opinions.
I would also appreciate your thoughts on the possible "6-9 bridge flaw", also only on the obverse.
Best,
Leroy

[Leroy]

Here's a shot of the bridge flaw from another cross. On some crosses it extends down on the right into the next bead.

[Robert T.]

Here's a shot of the bridge flaw from another cross. On some crosses it extends down on the right into the next bead.

On the eMedals cross, there is also a well defined "knee flaw", which is a known characteristic of the "A" TYPE...

__________
Robert

[Leroy]

I agree that it appears to be a knee flaw! But what about the "bridge flaw"?
Is it not there?

P.S. By the way, thanks for these great blow-ups! Saves a lot of trouble.

[Robert T.]

I agree that it appears to be a knee flaw! But what about the "bridge flaw"?
Is it not there?

I agree that it appears to be a bridge flaw!

Robert

[Leroy]

Just out of curiosity....has the bridge flaw ever been observed on an "A" cross before by anyone?

[Leroy]

I agree that it appears to be a bridge flaw!

Robert

Yes, it certainly does!

Oh, well, it's Saturday night, so I shouldn't be surprised that I'm the only one still here......maybe more tomorrow.

[VIPER]

Bridge flaw

Yes..It is. It does appear you have a hybrid. Note the progressive nature of the bridge flaw. On 800/4s it is barely there and on one side of an observed 800/4 cross is not there at all.........HAPPY NEW YEAR JIMMY

[Leroy]

Jimmy is correct.

There has been considerable discussion as to what caused a flaw in this area, with a suggestion that it may even be the sign of a die extraction problem. In any case, the flaw does not appear in its fully developed form on both sides of any 800-4 yet observed, but does appear on the 935-4 and ALL other "B" models observed. The flaw was removed, by filing, when the "C" frame was introduced early in 1957 RK production and that filing is visible if you look closely.

To see a bridge flaw on a possible "A" model is extremely interesting. It can't said that it is unique because we obviously haven't seen all "A" types (and no one has responded to my Post #22 here).

[VIPER]

That would seem too place the 800/4 within or earlier than the 935/4 prodution run.........Jimmy

[Bob Hritz]

That would seem too place the 800/4 within or earlier than the 935/4 prodution run.........Jimmy

It would appear so, but I think it would take a much larger sampling to determine the order of the 800 4 and the 935 4. I personally believe they are comtemporaty and were, perhaps, made at the same time, just changing the silver graded sheets as they took them from inventory.

There is much to learn.

Bob Hritz

[VIPER]

I agree Bob........It is my belief they were made at the same time. Even perhaps intermingeled within the 935/4 run. Probably sheets left over from before the die failed and was repaired/replaced........Jimmy

[VIPER]

[QUOTE=Leroy;3715919]Franco,
The beading on some crosses does appear to be a bit "fatter" than on others, but that is something that varies between crosses and is not consistant even between every "A" and every "B". Leroy, For this too be a fact instead of a possible photographic trick of the light so too speak, there would have too be more than one die. A measurement sampling of crosses is needed of both A and B types by our membership..........Come on guys drag out the calipers and measure those beads...Best Jimmy

[Leroy]

Jimmy,
I am not sure at all, and would not say, that the appearance of the beading ("fat" vs. "thin") is necessarily a reason to think there was more than one die, in and of itself. Part may be due to lighting, tarnish, wear, etc., and as I said, there is not exact consistency even within types. Wear to a die? Something slightly different in pressure? I certainly wouldn't want to go out on that limb at this point, as there is not (as Bob said) a large enough sample to draw conclusions from.
One thing that I do find interesting is the creation of the so-called "C" die. Prosper Keating has claimed for years that he was present in London when the damaged S&L dies (and we assume he meant the "A" dies, which became the "B" dies and then failed again, resulting in raised beading flaws in different locations from those seen on "A" crosses) were offered for sale. If, in fact, some British dealer obtained the dies, HOW was the "C" die created???? The "C" die retains the minute markers common to "A" and "B" pieces. If, in fact, there was a physically separate and distinct "C" die, that would have serious implications.
In any case, I would love to see a larger sampling of crosses, of all 3 types (A,B & C) and perhaps, as we branch out a bit into early 1957 issues, we will see something that triggers a new round of thinking.
Best,
Leroy