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

[Dietrich Maerz]

Good question and (another) extremely strong argument against the mother die theory.

[Leroy]

Good question and (another) extremely strong argument against the mother die theory.

Have an answer (or actually, since I asked more than one question, answers)?

[Dietrich Maerz]

My idea and conviction always was that there was one die. Dies are expensive and dies are cleaned and polished. When they repaired the A to the B, they must have repaired it also. I have no other explanation.

Some features were removed, new were introduced, the minor flaws stayed the same. Absolutely conceivable, logic and - most important - in harmony with the reality of the time line. And in no way, shape or form unusual or impossible. Quite the contrary - repair is and was a normal procedure.

[Dietrich Maerz]

(or, if it is, that explains different dent row definition on all crosses).

It does. How can we ever tell after 65 years or so if we do not use pristine examples? I saw and have pictures of pristine 800-4, 935-4 and 935. That is on what I base my conclusions on.

I can't comment on the C-type too much. Never studied them, as I already said several times.

[Leroy]

I can't comment on the C-type too much. Never studied them, as I already said several times.

I think you should (including Bob's with no dent row and the ones on 1957 version crosses), compare them to late "B"s, and then get back to us.

[ChrisJ]

Hello Dietrich...do you remember this post made by yourself a little while ago:



for me at least diferences between two pieces are explained by the differences they have between them, not by the commonalities. There are a ton of common features between the A- and B-Type, you show one of them.

The difference lies in the differences, however.

This picture is the best example. You cannot have those two flaw pattern with the same die.

Dietrich



<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->


<FIELDSET class=fieldset><LEGEND>Attached Images</LEGEND>



</FIELDSET>

So it was something that you did consider..

[ChrisJ]

...and...

...and please explain how this flaw on the top of the beading could have survived the heavy intervention of a die repair ? (and there are others).

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Dietrich,

i didn't follow the whole thread so far and would like to ad only some details on the questions of "mother" and "working" dies:

1.
The mother die is a one time investment and could be used for years because the only job it had to do was to produce working ("daughter") dies. So the price for it was relative.

2.
According to informations provided by Deumer one and the same mother produced different looking daughters. This was caused by the production process of the daughter. Here they needed several working steps to harden the steel of the daughter. During this hardening there was always the danger that raised details started to vanish or got flaws and than the engraveur had to correct these flaws before the final daugher was ready.

So different looking badges are still the result of one and the same mother ... the differences we can spot is the "handwritting" of the engraveuer who made the daughter.

And some informations from SuL:

Basti and me are quite sure that SuL had a mother on the IC and KC sector because when we asked them about repairing a daughter we got the answer that it was easier for them to make a new daughter instead of trying to repair an existing daughter.

The daugher was at the final step out of hardened steel so that they could use it with a stamping pressure of 60 tons and more and not able to be repaired.

So the lifetime of a daughter had three major steps:

1. working perfect
2. showing wear
3. breaking

Step 2 and 3 could happen without a break because when a daughter had a weak point 60 tons of pressure broke it off.

[ChrisJ]

Thank you, Andreas.

[ChrisJ]

...and as I said, this scenario poses no threat to the collecting community. Each daughtr will be the same, but have minute differences that can be catalogued and understood.

Remember, the B is very different from the A...and the C and the D will be very different from both (but they very well might have the dent row !)

[Leroy]

... this scenario poses no threat to the collecting community. Each daughtr will be the same, but have minute differences that can be catalogued and understood.

Agreed! And that cataloging is what we doing right now, so that collectors can be safe.

Detlev Niemann noted long ago here that there is not a single postwar S&L cross which rises to 95% of the quality of finish and assembly of a wartime cross from S&L. No matter what else you may disagree with him about, this observation was 1000% correct.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hello Dietrich...do you remember this post made by yourself a little while ago:



for me at least diferences between two pieces are explained by the differences they have between them, not by the commonalities. There are a ton of common features between the A- and B-Type, you show one of them.

The difference lies in the differences, however.

This picture is the best example. You cannot have those two flaw pattern with the same die.

Dietrich



<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->


<FIELDSET class=fieldset><LEGEND>Attached Images</LEGEND>



</FIELDSET>

So it was something that you did consider..

That is exacly what I said and I don't know what is wrong with it - or better - what would support your mother die theory?? The common features are a sign of the same die and the non-common features are the changes made over time. That was always the case and has not changed. The wording "You cannot have those two flaw patterns with the same die" is a reference to the other early and hot debated theory that the post war 3 o'clock arm flaw is the same as the flaw pattern of the 1944 isseu and therefore all the flawed A-Types are made in the 80s in England. A theory still maintained by some ... There is a nice explanation in my book in the Appendix.
I find it quite amusung though how the core question "Why can a mother produce thre different daughters" is dodged, avoided, put aside, ...

[Andreas Klein]

The common features are a sign of the same die and the non-common features are the changes made over time.

Hi Dietrich,

i think here starts the problem about we can't sure. It's not safe that the non-common features are the question of the time a dies was used.

As said in my post:

If you produced two daughters from teh same mother at the same day they didn't became "twins".

I was more than possible that both daughters got different flaws during the hardening of the daughter. So the quoted picture can show daughters which were produced at the same die from the same mother.

To built something like a timeline we need some more informations than only a flaw in a badge - my 2 cents.

[Dietrich Maerz]

...and please explain how this flaw on the top of the beading could have survived the heavy intervention of a die repair ? (and there are others).

So you think that those little buggers were made by the mother and replicated in each die - A-B-and C. Well, then you should not say "Thank You" to Andreas ... He is just saying something else - little differences made by the engraver.

So one of the little differences the engrave made was adding a dipping ring? Or the dent row? Or taking the dent row off?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Dietrich,

i think here starts the problem about we can't sure. It's not safe that the non-common features are the question of the time a dies was used.

As said in my post:

If you produced two daughters from teh same mother at the same day they didn't became "twins".

I was more than possible that both daughters got different flaws during the hardening of the daughter. So the quoted picture can show daughters which were produced at the same die from the same mother.

To built something like a timeline we need some more informations than only a flaw in a badge - my 2 cents.

Hi Andreas,

I never have nor I never will deny the use of a mother die. There is too much reference in the literature and there are even pictures. Just because there is the existence of a mother die (and I know it was used to a great extend with badges) does not automatically mean it was used here. This is a very complex issue.

I just think one cannot explain the existence of three dies made from one mother when the differences are staggering (dipping ring, dent row, other flaws) when you have on the other side on each die stage 26 extremely minute flaws - absolutely identical.

And - as has been said "It has no influence on the collector community" - why is there so much insistence to bend and twist the reality to just be able to say "The C-Type is the first die" or"The production of all types was parallel since there were three dies at the same time".

We had this "parallel" before! I remember a very advanced collector postulating that the 935-4 was very very early and given only to very, very special people....

I will leave this thread. It makes no sense to me. I am sure it is read by some of out beloved dealer who just wait to be able to say " ON WAF they now found out that the 935 is early and that the dipping ring was made in 1939!"

We discussed all this years ago and I am sure it will be brought up again and again in the future. Maybe something comes out of it. Until then I stick with my honest and fact-based advise to be very careful with certain B-Types. I don't even speak about C-Types.