S&L RK "B" Type "Dent Row"

[ChrisJ]

Gentles All

There have been various theories concenring the cause of the dent row in "B" type S&L RK's.

Please consider the following:

S&L appears to have approached the production of medals in a progressive fashion, and probably produced most fo the awared RK's (next to Junckers). Junckers relied on traditional methods of cutting out the inside of the RK frame stamping (very time consuming and labour intensive). If you look at Junker RK's and the varying "inside cuts" some are very accurate and some are downright poor resulting in large gaps between frame and core....probably its this "hand made" feature that attracts us subconciously us to Junckers RK's ?

Anyway...if you take S&L there is a uniform feature about the frame....the inside dimensions are the same (across the frame measured from the inside rim) on all my crosses, and this suggests that they used a cutting die to remove the inside of the formed blank. In fact vertical die cutting lines are often evident.

Process: The forming die set produces the frame stamping, and the cutting die removes the inside...

Now, the cutting dies are not detailed..their purpose is to remove the internal excess...can I postulate that the dent row was caused by a raised surface in the female of the cutting die, and not in any way related to the forming die set.

As one who spends a lot of his professional life assessing welding standards, I can assure you that the dent row is not weld splatter. Imagine dripping a little water into a very hot frying pan of oil....the resulting spots that would appear on your kitchen work surface is what splater looks like !...its not a uniform line.

OK...the "A" dies required rework, and the craftsman took great care to fill and rework the cracks that appears in the female half of the forming die and then left a streak of weld only in the valleys of the female die rib patern in the lower 3 o'clock arm, but only removed the welding from the peaks???...nope, no way !

I believe that the forming dies were repaired to a high degree, but that the dent row was introduced later in the process of stamping the frames. ..ergo: a cutting die defect and not one in the formiing dies.

If the dent row was a feature of the forming die (but only on the female) then the tendency would be to creating a thinning and possiible hole in the beading. This is not the case.

So I postulate that there was a raised surface (debris) in the cutting die that actually "dented" the frames during the cutting process.

So what does that give us ????

[ChrisJ]

To answer the question: Not much

The cutting die was matched to the forming die set, and when finally the later became unusable would have been abandoned along with them.

Alignment and setting up of dies is critical..get it wrong and the dies can be destroyed. If you had a forming set that were "on the way out" (as S&L's clearly were) in late 1944 wouldn't you get one long run out of them to at least be sure of a stockpile of usable frames ?

[Leroy]

If you had a forming set that were "on the way out" (as S&L's clearly were) in late 1944 wouldn't you get one long run out of them to at least be sure of a stockpile of usable frames ?

Yes, you would, and that explains why S&L had leftover stocks of frames which they were able to use through the production of the very first 1957 version RK's.

[Dietrich Maerz]

To answer the question: Not much

That's about it. IMHO it is not so much important to know how it happened but rather when. And this seems to be settled (apart form some people who think that the 935-4 was a very early model, 1939 or so...).

Dietrich

[Leroy]

There does seem to be a legitimate question of when S&L took steps to correct
the problem which was causing the raised beading flaws in the arms to occur. In turn, this is probably linked to whenever someone, either at the PKZ or at S&L, raised the issue. It is hard to conceive that this problem would have been ignored for very long.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I fully agree. And as Chris said, iw seems to be around mid to end of 44. But this can only be judged by awards of flawed crosses. And there was for sure a time difference between manufacturing and awarding. How much. We will never ever know.

I am constantly searching, puzzling pieces together and trying to find new little pieces of evidence. You know that. It is not that I am satisfied with what we have right now. However, I am VERY satisfied about he big hole that was shot in a lot of advertisement, false statements, crazy theories and what else was going on for decades!

Dietrich

[Leroy]

There seems to be no question but that a serious problem developed with the "A" type die used to make the frames for award pieces and that S&L was either forced to take, or on its own took, steps to correct the problem. The correction was the employment of the "B" die to produce new frames for award pieces. For whatever reason, the "B" has its own set of flaws (surprising for something intended as a repair) just not as immediately visible (unless you know where to look for them, which apparently no one did until just a few years ago), especially after the application of frosting, as the raised beading flaws would clearly have been on the "A". Chris' idea for the mechanism which created the "dent row" seems perfectly logical. If the "dent row" was indeed caused by a flaw on the "cutter", why didn't that flaw show up on at least a few "A" frames? Or did S&L also do something to the "cutter" when the "B" began to be used in place of the "A"?



Whenever the "B" was first employed during the war, the frames produced from it were clearly the great bulk of the frames which S&L had leftover when the war ended. It is safe to say that, at least up to 1957, "B" frames were used to assemble S&L postwar RK's. Were any crosses assembled postwar using flawed "A" frames which may have been leftover as well? Or were any stocks of flawed "A" frames just discarded when the changeover to "B" occurred? A question which seems not to have been asked very much and, to which, the answer is not known.

[ChrisJ]

There seems to be no question but that a serious problem developed with the "A" type die used to make the frames for award pieces and that S&L was either forced to take, or on its own took, steps to correct the problem. The correction was the employment of the "B" die to produce new frames for award pieces. For whatever reason, the "B" has its own set of flaws (surprising for something intended as a repair) just not as immediately visible (unless you know where to look for them, which apparently no one did until just a few years ago), especially after the application of frosting, as the raised beading flaws would clearly have been on the "A". Chris' idea for the mechanism which created the "dent row" seems perfectly logical. If the "dent row" was indeed caused by a flaw on the "cutter", why didn't that flaw show up on at least a few "A" frames? Or did S&L also do something to the "cutter" when the "B" began to be used in place of the "A"?


Whenever the "B" was first employed during the war, the frames produced from it were clearly the great bulk of the frames which S&L had leftover when the war ended. It is safe to say that, at least up to 1957, "B" frames were used to assemble S&L postwar RK's. Were any crosses assembled postwar using flawed "A" frames which may have been leftover as well? Or were any stocks of flawed "A" frames just discarded when the changeover to "B" occurred? A question which seems not to have been asked very much and, to which, the answer is not known.

Well, it could be that all of the "B" frames were produced in the same run and hence the cutting die feature just happened to be there at that time.

Actually, I think we are over estimating the production number of "B" frames. The vast majority would have gone directly into the collecting circuit and therefore would still be circulating. Would anyone venture a guess at how many there are ?......(50 perhaps ?) when one thinks of the numbers of "A" frames produced (thousands ?) one can only conclude that it was only a minor process by comparison.

Considering that there is at least one very heavily flawed "A" types with provenance dating from the late war period, and the fact that 935/4's were found in "the Schloss" I am very comfortable with practically all "A" crosses......

[ChrisJ]

I fully agree. And as Chris said, iw seems to be around mid to end of 44. But this can only be judged by awards of flawed crosses. And there was for sure a time difference between manufacturing and awarding. How much. We will never ever know.

I am constantly searching, puzzling pieces together and trying to find new little pieces of evidence. You know that. It is not that I am satisfied with what we have right now. However, I am VERY satisfied about he big hole that was shot in a lot of advertisement, false statements, crazy theories and what else was going on for decades!

Dietrich

Oh yes !....I'm absolutely delighted about that too....and your work has been very instrumental in this, Dietrich. The fact that RK's and above continue to rise in price even in these difficult economic times is a clear idication that the much of the uncertainty has been removed for those who are prepared to do a little homework, and that novices can buy with a degree of confidence.

[Leroy]

Well, it could be that all of the "B" frames were produced in the same run and hence the cutting die feature just happened to be there at that time.

Actually, I think we are over estimating the production number of "B" frames. The vast majority would have gone directly into the collecting circuit and therefore would still be circulating. Would anyone venture a guess at how many there are ?......(50 perhaps ?) when one thinks of the numbers of "A" frames produced (thousands ?) one can only conclude that it was only a minor process by comparison.
......

When you consider the very limited number of 935-4's, and the even more limited number of 800-4's, available today, one must surely wonder.....


According to Dietrich, the PKZ mandated that RK's be marked with the manufacturer's assigned PKZ number (S&L's was "4") by, at the latest, February-March, 1944. There is, however, not a single "A" type cross marked "4". Not one..........


The inescapable conclusion to be reached is that S&L halted production of the "A" type cross no later than February-March, 1944. The production may even have been terminated before that.


The award of an "A" type with raised beading flaws, assuming such a thing did in fact take place late in the war (and there is no reason to think otherwise) says nothing about when that cross was manufactured. Instead, it only speaks to the shelf storage system of the PKZ. Even "L/12" marked crosses were being awarded late in the war, and there was no reason for them to have been produced after October, 1941. There is even a report of a 3/4 ring cross being awarded in 1943........


One thing needs to be stated and made clear because, quite bluntly, most collectors still do not appreciate its significance: The "B" frame used by S&L, which almost certainly came into use by sometime in 1944, to produce the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses, and perhaps others (whether or not awarded) also developed raised beading flaws, very similar to the raised flaws which led to the demise of the "A" frame. These flaws, however, did not develop until the early production cycle for the first 1957 version RK's. This is why you see the earliest 1957 crosses with "B" frames with no raised flaws, but with the "dent row" and "6-9 bridge flaw" which are characteristics of the "B" frame. Very shortly into that cycle, however, the raised flaws began to appear and you begin to see, for the first time, 1957 crosses with those flaws. S&L's solution (developed very quickly) was to put the "C" frame into production. The "C" frame eliminated the raised beading flaws which had developed on the "B" frames. The "dent row", however, remained. The "6-9 bridge flaw" was filed away on the "C" frames and this filing is clearly observable on the "C" frames.


The vast bulk of postwar swastika-cored RK's from S&L have frames which are either of the "B" type with raised beading flaws, or of the "C" type, with those flaws eliminated. In other words, the great bulk of postwar swastika-cored RK's from S&L were produced after 1957 and used frames which were not the same as the "B" frames seen on the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses.


The very likely reality is that postwar swastika-cored crosses assembled by S&L before 1957 used leftover wartime frames and those same leftover frames were used on the first 1957 version RK's until the supply simply ran out. At that point, S&L began using the wartime die to strike new frames and it failed. Whether it failed because of poor storage, or because of possible repairs to it during the war, or for some other reason, we don't know. But fail it did and the result was a "B" frame with raised beading flaws. S&L's response to the failure was the rapid creation of the "C" frame, which first appeared early in 1957 production when the so-called "first pattern 57 core" was still in use. The "C" is still in use today (although crudely finished and without frosting or other niceties which can be seen on early 57 crosses) whenever S&L makes 1957 crosses for the collector market (which it
still does, according to German sources, when a sufficient number of orders are received). One must wonder if S&L's rapid response time to the die's failure in 1957 bears any comparison to what that response time would have been in 1944 or 1943.


Chris' points that "we are over estimating the production number of "B" frames" and that it could be that "all of the "B" frames were produced in one run" are perfectly valid, but only if we also understand that the "B" frame used to produce the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses is not the frame used by S&L to produce the vast bulk of its postwar swastika-cored RK's.


The supply of postwar assembled swastika-cored crosses usng the original "B" frame has always been finite and that is because the stock of leftover original "B" frames was finite. They lasted until 1957 (as did the leftover stock of very many companies other than S&L) because, quite frankly, there was not nearly the demand for these things prior to that time period that we think today that there was. (In the mid-1960's, Christies sold Helmut Lent's original Brilliants award and other decorations for £500.)(The buyer was Adolf Galland, acting on behalf of a German museum.) It is quite true that many dealers, until Dietrich's work, sold these crosses as wartime pieces. Now, thanks to him, that practice has been greatly curtailed (although some still try). If you find one of these crosses today(being sold as postwar) they will still, however, cost you in the range of 900-1200 Euros from most dealers. That is because there were never that many to begin with and most were completed with fine finishing technique, proper frosting, wartime paint, etc. The later (post-57) produced swastika pieces are not so well done at all and, in fact, track exactly the dimunition in quality which can be seen over time in the 57 version RK's.

The existence of "A" and "B" types poses many interesting questions. Before we can truly comprehend the nature of those questions and begin to address them, however, we must first understand the realities of what we are dealing with. There are dangerous misconceptions which must be cleared away. The myth of a single type of frame existing postwar is one of those misconceptions.

[jujuy]

Dietrich,
I never understood how you could base, and ascertain a theory about manufacturing on awarding date!
You could have early crosses awarded lately and replacement crosses presented as the original ones.
And human memory is very selective and absolutely not reliable.

I fully agree. And as Chris said, iw seems to be around mid to end of 44. But this can only be judged by awards of flawed crosses. And there was for sure a time difference between manufacturing and awarding. How much. We will never ever know.

I am constantly searching, puzzling pieces together and trying to find new little pieces of evidence. You know that. It is not that I am satisfied with what we have right now. However, I am VERY satisfied about he big hole that was shot in a lot of advertisement, false statements, crazy theories and what else was going on for decades!

Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

Hi Leroy...as usual a nicely thought out reply.

There just arent that many B framed crosses around really, and very few without the "raised flaws"....leads one to believe that not many were made.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I friendly disagree with this. There are quite a few S&L B-frames around. I have a lot of COAs from Nimmergut and Geissler and I know of a lot of people in germany which are not to eager to out themselves.

The B-Type die was heavily used - up until the late 70s - early 80s. Thats why it detoriorated to heavily. I have seen very, very flawed examples.

But that really is not the point. Whether there are many or only a few post war fakes made with the B-Type die is academical. They are fakes at any rate.

The only open question is where does the fake start? And it is a never ending shame that Niemann never gave us the names of the two awardees who evidently got the 800-4 in June 1944. I have a suspicuon why he never did .... since there is only one reason NOT to do so.

[Leroy]

The B-Type die was heavily used - up until the late 70s - early 80s. Thats why it detoriorated to heavily. I have seen very, very flawed examples.

Dietrich, my friend.....the "B" type die was replaced by the "C" die very shortly into the production of 1957 version RK's and the "switchover" is very noticeable. The "C" die (still used today) appears on some early 57 versions (1st pattern core) as well as, routinely, with those having "2nd pattern" cores. In its early use, it was nicely finished and had frosting, just like the early "B" frames used for those crosses. It, however, eliminated the raised beading flaws which had showed up on the "B", and also eliminated, by visible filing, the "6-9 bridge flaw". It retained, however, the "dent row" (which, as Chris noted, may have been a problem with the "cutter" and not the striking die). The "C" frame is almost always encountered with the suspension ring still intruding into the frame, as that portion was left unfinished for some reason. Later, the "C" frame developed its own unique flawing ("bleed-over" into the frame of part of the beading on the lower 9 o'clock arm). Early versions of the "C", if the suspension ring has been filed as it enters the frame, are sometimes mistaken for a "B" frame, especially if the frame has a little age to it.

The "B" frames seen with extensive raised beading flaws appeared early in the 1957 production cycle and are seen almost exclusively with the 1st pattern cores of that 1957 production. These "flawed" frames were also used to produce swastika-core crosses at around that same time. In your book, you showed a flawed "B" frame (which you indicate may the the "latest" in time). You were right...it is the latest version of the "B" , but it was the one which arose when the 1957 production process started, and which was remedied by the creation of the "C" frame shortly into that process. After the introduction of the "C" (which was either the repaired "B" OR a new die created from a "mother"), the original "B" die was no more.

As to the 800-4, I am also distressed that Niemann retired before furnishing this information; however, his retirement has nothing to do with the fact that there are no "A" types marked with the required "4" and there are only 2 "B" types, neither with raised flaws and both with "fresh" dent rows, the 935-4 and 800-4, which are marked with the required "4". Both of these are extremely rare. After those 2.....nothing with a "4".

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

I admit that I have not studied the 1957 B-Type nor the C-Type in any depth at all!
However, it is very hard for me to believe that the attached cross is a pre-57. If that is the case, then there are a lot more post war S&L around then we ever can imagine....

I agree of course with what you say regarding the 935-4 and 800-4. What I am saying is that it is and was very bad style to announce something and not provide proof. It leave me with a bad taste and makes me think that he did not have proof. Which again leaves me to believe that he made it up in an attempt to sanctify the non-sanctyfialbe. His problem was - also pushed by the outside for sure - that he never ever could admit of not knowing anything. There are some "advanced' collectors who's arguments are always only "I know it is real", followed by smilies like , or .

Completely unscientific.! But we will find out, I have no doubt!