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

[Leroy]

One of the things that is always tossed out is that there are not any "B" crosses which were used as actual award pieces. The argument is made:
no award = no wartime one existed. Is that really the correct measure?

In truth, if the "B" was not meant for award, but for private purchase, we shouldn't be worried about the apparent lack of award pieces at all. In truth (also!) we cannot say, with absolute certainty, whether a few may have been awarded or not. We simply have not seen all awarded crosses. That is fact,
and statistics, no matter how persuasive, are not the final answer until we have seen them all (and we never will).

Many years ago, Vern Bowen wrote, after years of research and "face time" with actual RK recipients and manufacturers (including S&L) the first real study in English which dealt with the RK. I re-read it in the last few days. There are certainly some mistakes in it (as there are in any book) but he was not the buffoon he has been painted as being, nor was he a person who dealt in fake COA's or shilled for dealers.

In his compilations of RK data from original recipients who possessed their wartime crosses (whether as award pieces or otherwise), he reported not only the 935-4 and 800-4, but, as expected, large numbers of "L/12" pieces and other "800" marked pieces. He also reported (in a separately charted "sampling" of 40 original pieces), 2 pieces marked simply 935 on the cross itself, with no marking on the suspension loop.

The S&L 935 shown in Dietrich's book as postwar, has no loop marking. SEM testing showed it to have carbon black paint consistant with wartime paint.

Perhaps Bowen was wrong, or lying, or stupid, or was fooled all those years ago by RK recipients who wrongly remembered what crosses they had during the war. Or perhaps, all those years ago, he was right and they were right, and they weren't thinking about what we would think or what theories we would have in the 21st century. His research was done when the "live" research could still be done. Perhaps we should remember that and give it credit.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

it is neither proven nor unproven whether the B-Type was awarded or not. That is true. But to dismiss that current fact (which might change) as false just because one doesn't like it or because there are reports by Bowen, is not right. He certainly was not stupid and he certainly reported what he saw. But if we would just take what we saw and heard from veterans of all nationality we would have about 50 RK maker. All good and all with dead nuts provenance!

Bowen's book is extremely helpful but one cannot and should no pick and chose where was right and where he was wrong. I don't do that. One should take it as one should take every book: as an honest snapshot of what was going on at that point in time. Just because he found 935 and 800-4 with veterans does not mean they are genuine or where awarded. By far not! (Niemann told us that two were awarded in June 1944. he could never prove it. I tell you what I think: he listed them in his catalog as good and tried later to make up a provenance for them. Some even believed it!)

Bowen lists :

RK 935 (now fake)
EL no stamp (now fake)
EL 935 (now fake)
EL L12 only (now fake)
EL 900 only (now fake)
EL m12 900 (??? fake)

He shows a lot of fakes in the Diamonds section. He shows wrong dies. So today we are allowed to pick an choose and say" Oh, he was right with the 800-4, but he was wrong with the ELs and the 935" That is not right. One has has to take it as it is - a compilation what he saw and encountered during his research. Which is and was very helpful!

In truth, if the "B" was not meant for award, but for private purchase, we shouldn't be worried about the apparent lack of award pieces at all.

For that to work several things have to happen:

- the PKZ-numbers needed to be in existence before October 1941
- the mother to create the multiple dies needed to have a dent row
- somebody changed the C-Type die (which is now the first one regarding this theory) to the non-dipping ring AFTER the daughter was pressed from the mother
- when S&L created the A-Type, they got rid of the dent row from the mother
- if they were around for private sales before Oct. 41, they were going to the PKZ (like the L/52 and the L/12) and would have been awarded. At least one or two.

I don't want to sound stubborn or that, but the core question for us "Third Reich" guys is: was the 800-4 and the 935-4 made during the war and were they meant to be awarded (meaning was there an order from the PKZ to S&L). Only that is important for the average collector who wants to know whether his 800-4 is w/o any doubt at all a pre 8 May 1945 piece. And he wants to know because of the risk and monetary value - not because of esoteric reasons. That the guys who own one always will they "They are good as rain" is understandable but not helpful.

And at this point in time nobody can tell anybody with good reasoning and good conscience to buy a 800-4. The only thing that can be said is " I think they are ok " And that is not good and not sufficient advice for a 8-10k investment.

We had the same scenario with the Rounder. I always said "Don't buy one. It is risky". Other said "They are good, buy it". I am happy I stood with the facts (which were, by the way, "no awardees").

So let us concentrate on really finding out where the 800-4 stands! Rationally.

[Leroy]

We will see who was right and who was wrong.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have never ever said here or somewhere else that I am right or would be right or want to be right. For me this is not a question of "You are wrong and I am right" ( I know it is for a lot of people). For me it is ONLY, ONLY about the truth. And the truth is always tied to facts and facts are all I have ever written or said. If the C-Type is the first die and if the 800-4 is pre May 1945 there is absolutely nothing I postulated neither here nor anywhere else that I have to take back.

I always said and say it again: I DO NOT KNOW! I have opinions and I take the freedom to express them. But I never ever said or will say that I am right. And I like to quote myself:

There is something going on with the models of S&L and I clearly admit that I don't have an answer. But I know that every answer needs to fit the reality of things ...

But together we will find out! I am all for it!

[ChrisJ]

As an engineer and as a normal thinking individual I certainly can believe that. Since there are more details to it which you conveniently "forgot' to mention (since it is a kind of a monkey wrench). I think if one wants to propose a theory the theory should encompass all facts. Some of these are:

Dietrich, we all love you for what you have done to this end of the hobby...however, the point of forum is to bounce ideas back and forth. So I will continue to bounce...as I'm sure that (1) its healthy for the hobby, and (2) it keeps us all interested. We cant just stop speculating..or else I'll take up golf or doing the garden.

Now...to encompass all the facts is of course something we all need to do.
To ignore the fact that the B die failed in differnt locations to the A is a fact. Please explain how that is likely to happen on a repaired die. As an engineer you will know that repaired areas almost always fail first. We dont see this.


- most of the companies we have catalogs of have photographs or artistic renderings of 'their' products which do not match reality. It is a know fact and WAF is full of it. Do you think that anybody cared? I propose the shop producing the catalog used a unknown product or even a cross form Sedlatzek. And nobody can disprove that theory since nobody knows whether the RK portrayed in the catalog is a S&L. Going by the statistic by using other catalogs: it is NOT.


OK...lets put that issue to one side. Of course all sorts of artists impressions were printed. The dipped ring RK might have been a one off...or Hoffman's studio prop....could have been anyone of these. It might also have been a protrayal of S&L's first 1939 RK...it might not. So the jury is out on that one, and both arguements are equally valid, and unproven.


- the "weld splatter" (or whatever it might be) is by far not an "inexplicable oversight". That sounds like there would be a hole in the frame. This "inexplicable oversight" is so minute that it took over 60 years to come to the attention of collectors. Just because it is always shown in a size filling the scree it doesn't matter it is that big.

I'm well aware of the features of the dent row. There is a very nice B cross on my desk at this moment. But let us look more closely at what could have caused it. Please forget about weld spatter. That is nonsense.

To understand what it really could have been one is absolutely critical, as from that the clues as to what was going on can be traced. I find it increasingly difficult to believe that somehow metal or other debris got into the die and fused into the vallies of the female in a nice straight line. But if for just one moment we postulate that a hub process was used, then impact damage across the raised protions of the hub would cause the features we see in the B frame.


- there is evidence of a dipping ring and there is a contemporary model made by Sedlatzek which was most likley used by photographers as a temporary replacement for awardess who wanted the picture taken and had no cross yet. That is known. You make it sound as if the dipping ring is proven to be an S&L model. It is not and it can't be just by a picture in a catalog (from mid 1941!!! At a time were S&L gave out the A-Type).

I agree. But is it impossible? no it isnt.

- I am sure that you as an project manager know how to exploid certain avenues and I am sure you made yourself knowledgeable about mother die and daughter die procedures. All the hot butter steel pressing, pantograph and all that. If you did, you need to explain all the (26 ...) minute flaws that can be seen on all types. Flaws which are well under 0.05 mm in size. I cannot reconcile that and will not go for the "we press a mother in hot steel and voila! - a perfect copy! But with a dent row ...."

Yes...and no. We will never have a perfect copy, we both know that. However, its quite reasonable to expect that minute features on the hub/mother will be transmitted to the daughter, and even those of 0.05mm. Others that were removed in the finishing of one particular die might be retained on another clone. We would have dies that are related, but not the same. Isn't this what we are seeing ? The collecting community seems to be scared of even considering this possibility...which is utterly stupid, as each die set will be unique..

The dent row is very easy to explain as impact damage to the raised protions of the mother....and I'm sure that you have considered this before.

I am not suggesting anything in relation to the catalog picture for the above mentioned reasons. It is you who suggests a multiple die theory based on a catalog picture - and contrary to the reality. Here is what IS known about the A-Type:

OK. But I am not suggesting that there were more than one set of dies based only on a catalogue picture.

- it was produced, it created frames over time period of five years and the product was awarded. It has clear distinct features and flaws and even a progression of some beading flaws which can be observed and even roughly put in a time line.

Agreed almost 100%. I'd say 4 years. I believe it came to the end of its days around mid 1943 possibly coincidental with K&Q's increased production.


- creating a new die based on a catalog picture (from a time, i.e. mid 1941, where it is KNOWN that S&K produced and sold the A-Type to the PKZ) is not what I would do.

OK...lets say that it is possible....whether we disagree about whether it was likely or not is another issue. What I can say is that if one considers that a mother process was used, then dies might well have been developed in a differing sequence from A to B to C. Is this totally impossible and unreasonable ?

We discussed this years ago and the discussion was in the beginning very painful since every owner of a post war RK (Neusilber, 800, 935, unmarked, flawed, unflawed) wanted his place in the time line and space became very limited in the very beginning. All the crosses were "pre-LDO", prototypes, jewellers copies, one of a kind, special production for high level awardees (935 silver is sooooo rare!) and all that. And all that in complete defiance of reality. The reality was: no awardee! Now that is inconvenient.

...and others who had heavily flawed A crosses and who had been called liars/fools were suddenly exonerated. So it was two sided.

So the explanation is this?:

- there is a catalog picture
- it has a dipping ring
- the C-Model of S&L (1957!!) also has a dipping ring
- therefore it was the first die of S&L, pictured in the catalog, never used until 1957




Now this theory requires a mother die (due to the multiple minor flaws). Was that mother die a dipping ring? Or was it a regular ring? Either way, the question comes up: why was the ring changed and did not stay like the "mother" prescribed? There was no regulation regarding "no dipping ring" - the Grand Cross had one.


Yeeees. But equally I could say, why was the ring changed from the B to the C in a repaired die scenario. An equally valid point surely...and just saying "I dont know" does not prove the mandate

And what does support that theory? A catalog picture for the C-Type (which - by the way - has a dent row. At least mine has one!) Nothing for the B-Type other than the nice feeling that the B-Type could have been the first RK from S&L and wasn't? Why would S&L produce two prototypes just to make another one (all from the same mother - rmember the flaws....) but now changed the ring and repaired the dent row. And used that die (A-Type) till it became extremely ugly? I don't think so.

There was a development process. It might reasonably be expected that it took some time and more than one atttempt to get it right.

With all due respect, and you know that I have the respect for you and all the others participating in this esoteric subject, there is no logic in your reasoning. There is a catalog picture and a far fetched theory to explain that picture with some examples from the same company which surfaced nearly 20 years later ....



Here is another question for you:

One can read very often (even in contemporary literature and magazines) that Mr. Escher was the creator of the original die for the EK and the RK. One can read that S&L produced all the dies for all the other companies. Apart form the fact that this is clearly NOT true, let's just assume for a second it would have been so. Now why are ALL dies different? The RK dies, the EK1 dies, the EK2 dies, ALL of them. Whereas - believing the "hot butter steel press mother daughter"-theory S&L would just have made a nice hot fire and stamp the mother into the red-hot pieces of tools steel and everybody would have had their die and all would be the same and we would have no problem.

But that did not happen. It happens only when needed .....

I agree..that was not what happened based on the evidence we have. But I dont think that I ever said that, did I ? Bowen believd it..and he was wrong.


I am not against any ideas at all, but it has to fit with the physical realities of things. Meaning the pieces itself and the awarded products. It is very easy to create a lot of theoretical dies and say "But they were not used for the next 20 years, but they are early!" This reminds me very strongly of some of the German COAs with very long reasoning why the Neusilber/Zinc core S&L are extremely early and were awarded to the very first recipients. There is only one mistake in that statement: it is complete BS. And also nobody of the S&L awardees got a a B-Type nor a C-Type, not in September 1939 nor in June 1944 (as Mr. Niemann tried to make us believe. I wonder why?)


Of course there have been a lot of theories over the years.

But I've not heard that many totaly convincing theories to explain why a repaired die failed in different areas, and why a die in its third revision suddenly acquired a dipping ring...or how weld splatter lodged in a frame die. Furthermore no one has an idea what S&L were up to for more than a year after the A die failed as far as RK's are concerned...Did they really just pop up with a few 935/4 crosses in the very last weeks of WW2 ?




There is something going on with the models of S&L and I clearly admit that I don't have an answer. But I know that every answer needs to fit the reality of things ...
Indeed it does !

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Chris,

sure is it correct to bounce ideas back and forth and that is one of the main focus' here. But I think I am also correct when I say it should be with some basis and not just for the fun of it - that is what I meant that every idea that wants to be taken serious needs to take known facts into account.

To ignore the fact that the B die failed in differnt locations to the A is a fact. Please explain how that is likely to happen on a repaired die As an engineer you will know that repaired areas almost always fail first. We dont see this.

Who is ignoring it? Certainly not me. There is even a very detailed analysis in my book about that. Explain why a repair fails after years of use? And yes, I know the repaired area fails most likely first and that is exactly what happened. The 3 o'clock arm gave way first and again in the same area.

OK...lets put that issue to one side. Of course all sorts of artists impressions were printed. The dipped ring RK might have been a one off...or Hoffman's studio prop....could have been anyone of these. It might also have been a protrayal of S&L's first 1939 RK...it might not. So the jury is out on that one, and both arguements are equally valid, and unproven.

So if we take that catalog picture aside for a moment then we also have no basis whatsoever to suggest that the C-Type was the first one. Case (would be) closed. All I was saying is this: "one needs to know for sure (like in 100%) that the portrayed RK in the catalog is a C-Type. If that is clear then you can build on it. If not, well ....
The more so that the complete lack of any awardees of the B- and C-Type speaks against it.

Yes...and no. We will never have a perfect copy, we both know that. However, its quite reasonable to expect that minute features on the hub/mother will be transmitted to the daughter, and even those of 0.05mm.

With all due respect, this is not reasonable. Especially not when you look at the area were some of the 26 minute flaws are located, meaning at the side of the beading. I am sorry, but just saying it is reasonable to expect it doesn't make it so.

Others that were removed in the finishing of one particular die might be retained on another clone. We would have dies that are related, but not the same. Isn't this what we are seeing ?

The debate here was going in the direction of S&L having a mother die (again ...) and that the B- and C-Type are the first models. If that is so, the mother die needs not only to duplicate all the minute flaws but this mother either had a dipping ring or not. Somebody needs to make a decision about that. And the mother die had the dent row since both C and B Type have those. Furthermore, somebody needs to explain why this mother die dent row got weaker on the die while not being used for years. And why the A-Type coming from that mother had no dent row ... and no dipping ring (in case the mother had one...)
And to answer you question: What I see is clearly a progression of one die.

The collecting community seems to be scared of even considering this possibility...which is utterly stupid, as each die set will be unique..

There are multiple examples of related dies in the world of the badges and the badges designs. There are exact obverse and different reverse. It is also known that one company made dies for several other companies. Nobody is scared about that. It is a known fact. But here it does not fit.

The dent row is very easy to explain as impact damage to the raised protions of the mother....and I'm sure that you have considered this before.

Sure. But if the mother has it, all the daughters need to have it too. And they don't. And the two (out of three) have it in different wear stages.

What I can say is that if one considers that a mother process was used, then dies might well have been developed in a differing sequence from A to B to C. Is this totally impossible and unreasonable ?

No, it is not in general. Only in this case. Using a mother die implies from the very beginning that the daughters are the same. That is the reason of a mother die. Of all three daughters start out differently, how can you say they came form a mother die?

A- Type: no dent row, no dipping ring
B-Type: dent row, no dipping ring
C-Type: dent row, dipping ring

By a strange coincidence this is also the timeline they appeared in the open: A B C

..and others who had heavily flawed A crosses and who had been called liars/fools were suddenly exonerated. So it was two sided.

That was not my point. My point was and still is that everybody with a post war fake wanted to have his fake included in the time line. Since the middle and the end was pretty much known and since nobody wanted to be at the end - they all declared their goodies "pre-LDO" .... The motto is: If it is unknown, it is early. In the earlier days it was the opposite: If it is a Zinc core or Neusilber, it is late. The Germans had no more iron ....

But I've not heard that many totaly convincing theories to explain why a repaired die failed in different areas, and why a die in its third revision suddenly acquired a dipping ring...or how weld splatter lodged in a frame die.

The die failed in the same area and whether it is weld splatter or chicken drops doesn't really matter. It is there and we roughly know when it came up.

Furthermore no one has an idea what S&L were up to for more than a year after the A die failed as far as RK's are concerned...

I don't know where you get the "more than a year" from. There are awards of the heavily flawed crosses in late 1944. That is all we know. We don't know how fast they produced and shipped. Could be 1 month, could be two, could be six. Or even less since they had them on stock already. Who knows? Maybe Dr. Doehle told them end of 1944 that he will no longer accept this flawed type. Maybe he never saw it.
Maybe he had a ton of K&Q on hand (like some dealer always had ...), maybe he liked to award the Lazy 2.

Did they really just pop up with a few 935/4 crosses in the very last weeks of WW2 ?

That is what the current evidence shows. It clearly does not show any wild idea (not from you!), that the 935-4 was a special model, produced early, for special people.... And that question is a question worthwhile investigating. The evidence line drops with the 935-4 and 800-4. That is where we have to pick it up again.

[Leroy]

I love seeing engineers debate, but it is very frustrating when they live in time zones which are so far apart.

Just a reminder: No crosses of any type from S&L marked "L/16" (March, 1941 to October, 1941), no "A"s marked "4" (required by February/March 1944), only two models of "B" with the "4".

The "award" of a particular cross by the government during wartime is not the determining factor of whether a particular cross was manufactured during the war (although I fully comprehend and appreciate that some may not regard a particular cross as "original" or "real" unless it was actually "awarded", or manufactured in response to a direct order from the government for a cross intended for award).

I'm looking forward to more comments from "our engineers" and others!

[ChrisJ]

quote : With all due respect, this is not reasonable. Especially not when you look at the area were some of the 26 minute flaws are located, meaning at the side of the beading. I am sorry, but just saying it is reasonable to expect it doesn't make it so. unquote:

Dietrich...accepting your hypothesis if one looks at a heavily flawed A in comparison to an unflawed B, rather than two prestine crosses) then it is clear that there should be fewer similaities (minute die features) between the A and B due to the major work that had to be done to repair the die....filling, filing, cleaning and polishing. We are not talking about comuter aided micro welding processes here. You have thought about this I am sure, as in the above sentence you stress "some of the minute flaws at the sides."..there were some in other areas though werent there that one would have expected to be removed in the extensive rework (but they weren't) ?.....This repair process was a pretty brutal activity and would those minute features be left undisturbed in producing the exquistite standard achieved in the 935/4 crosses when the extensive damage was being repaired ? I think not....micro weding techniques are a modern science as you well know.

Sorry but you seem to be locked into the timing of when the dies were used, (if in fact there were several versions), rather than when they were produced. The working die set would wear, but not the mother....so yes the dent feature will differ from frame to frame as the working dies were used.

The A & B did not fail in exactly the same positions...you even show A and B frames together that clearly shows this in you book....this coupled with the fact that there are minute die similarlies tends to support different dies rather than running against this possibility.


Yes..I am interested in the possibility of several dies...and yes I have modifed my beliefs, and I most probably I will modifiy them several times in the future ! If one can accept as a possibility that there was more than one set of dies, then it opens up other possibilities that cannot be ignored.

Lets be clear...I have no agenda here...the activities of the fakers, cheats and criminals are beyond comtempt, and I've no wish to ecncourage the dark side. Even if there were several dies I do not consider this a threat to the collecting community.

Oh well...thats it from me....have a great weekend all, free from flaws !

[Dietrich Maerz]

Chris,

if this is all about several dies with implies one mother die then I want to have a reasonable theory or explanation why there are three different daughters. That all.

I find it extremely unlikely and unbelievable if one creates a daughter and then adds a dipping ring. or one creates a daughter which has a dent row (which in this case the mother also has) or one has a daughter without a dent row (which in that case the mother doesn't have).

Somehow it does not work for me ....

Yes..I am interested in the possibility of several dies...and yes I have modifed my beliefs, and I most probably I will modifiy them several times in the future ! If one can accept as a possibility that there was more than one set of dies, then it opens up other possibilities that cannot be ignored.

You know me good enough to know that I don't have an agenda either. We have discussed the multiple die scenario time and time again and there is only one reason for me not to entertain it further: it just does not work. As explained above and several hundred times in other threads.

Sure, there would be a ton of possibilities. But for them to be taken serious, the first step needs to be plausible. And it is not. Not by a long stretch.

Have a great weekend!

Dietrich

[ChrisJ]

Chris,

if this is all about several dies with implies one mother die then I want to have a reasonable theory or explanation why there are three different daughters. That all.

I find it extremely unlikely and unbelievable if one creates a daughter and then adds a dipping ring. or one creates a daughter which has a dent row (which in this case the mother also has) or one has a daughter without a dent row (which in that case the mother doesn't have).

Somehow it does not work for me ....



You know me good enough to know that I don't have an agenda either. We have discussed the multiple die scenario time and time again and there is only one reason for me not to entertain it further: it just does not work. As explained above and several hundred times in other threads.

Sure, there would be a ton of possibilities. But for them to be taken serious, the first step needs to be plausible. And it is not. Not by a long stretch.

Have a great weekend!

Dietrich

OK Dietrich...then we will agree to disagree

I think that the matter of "timing" and how/when daughter dies could have been used is clouding the issue for you here. For me it obvious that a mother that was subject to impact damage would transmit a feature that would create the dent row to a daughter. I'm mystified why others cant see that, and consider it much more plausible than other theories put forward up to now. Perhaps the problem is that accepting this opens up a whole new "bag of worms" that collectors just dont want to face (for reasons beyond me).

When a daughter was used for production is an entirely different matter to when in the sequence of events it was created.

But franky, as grown up's we all must make our own calls on these issues..

...and I think thats as far as we are going to get with this for the moment

[Dietrich Maerz]

I don't think that the mother die is clouding the issue for me. What is clouding the issue is that I don't get an explanation how a mother could have been used and three different daughters came out of it. Sure, the mother could have had the dent row. But then the A-Type should have it and it doesn't. Sure, the mother could have had a dipping ring. But then the A and B Type should have it.

The "can of worms" issue comes up all the time. The reason for this is that S&L produced a ton of cross-types over a very long period of time and everybody who has one once it to be real. Yesterday evening I got another e-mail: a nearly pristine "Incuse 800" with a nice, strong dent row and a non-magnetic core. The owner even has a COA ...

I learned one thing in life: simplicity is in most cases the correct explanation.

[Leroy]

Yesterday evening I got another e-mail: a nearly pristine "Incuse 800" with a nice, strong dent row and a non-magnetic core. The owner even has a COA ...

.

Send him to me, please.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I can't. Sorry.

[ChrisJ]

I don't think that the mother die is clouding the issue for me. What is clouding the issue is that I don't get an explanation how a mother could have been used and three different daughters came out of it. Sure, the mother could have had the dent row. But then the A-Type should have it and it doesn't. Sure, the mother could have had a dipping ring. But then the A and B Type should have it.

It's easy to give two possible explanations. (1) the mother was damaged after it produced the A die and before the B and C were formed, or (2) the mother was damaged used for the B and C die production and then repaired prior to the A dies being formed.

But the mother have the dent row would it..it would have a scratch over its surface (over the raised portion of the beading) as its features would be the "negative of the working die" .

The difficulty with any theory is the dipping ring C type with the dent row. I cant give a convincing explanation at present, just as you are unable. It would be a relatively easy job to remove the dipping ring feature from the mother...but a very different matter to remove it from a formed die. I suppose the ring might not have been a fully detailed part of the mother but something introduced at the finishing stage.

Sorry no real answer for the this last question...which holds true whether one accepts the repaired die or the mother daughter scenario.

[Leroy]

May I ask, just as a sidelight, what happened to the 9-12 o'clock flaw on the "A"? And why is does not show up either on the "B" or on Bob's "C" cross with no dent row flaw?

P.S. And for the third time, how a "C" frame with bleedover of beading on the 9 o'clock arm can have a more defined dent row than on a late "B" with raised beading flaws? The "bleedover" is not an isolated phenomenon and has been observed on many "C" frames....and they left the die that way. The dent row difference is not due to poor storage or wear (or, if it is, that explains different dent row definition on all crosses).