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

[IDInv]

OK gents..here is the extension of the theory so far....developed through extensive brain storming with Leroy (and several bottles of wine from my side)...have a think about this as it seems to cover many of the bases:

For a start we need to discount bins and other variables...they produce wild cards, but not trends.

1.
S&L were the developer of the RK, as such Herr Escher produced three prototype dies maybe more, but for the sake or argument lets say three.

2.
The first die was the "C". This has the dent row, and as we are now in a "Master die" scenario the damage would actually be a scratch on the master...this would produce the raised elements in the valleys of the daughter. This is very very believable, and the weld splatter theory is just garbage (I always considered it thus).

3.
S&L ran off some RK's using the C, and then as the ring was a dipper they modified the Master die and developed the "B"..which has all the same features (generally) including the dent row but no dipping ring. I have seen an edict somewhere that stipulated that the ring was not to incur into the frame, so this process would have been in response to this. Again, some cross were produced using this die.

4.
In this period some C crosses and B crosses might have found there way onto the private sales market or actually be included in the first batch to the PKZ that might well have contained C, B and A crosses. During this early prototype period, different core materials were tried....others did this so why not S&L.

5.
S&L finally developed the A to remove the dent row feature ..this might well have been as a result of the stricter controls that were developing in 1941, but probably earlier. The A had no dipped ring and no dent row...hey presto, a clean die at long last.

6.
During the early years S&L were not engaged in private sales...as the developer of the RK it would have possibly been considered politically incorrect and tarnishing their reputation...bit like Hancock's (Jewellers to the British Royal Family who produce all Victoria Crosses) selling of Victoria Crosses in the backstreets of London. However, it seems they were not adverse to selling to other Companies to do just that..F&B for one. Other firms were doing the same...Godet/Zimmerman to F&B

7.
S&L Churned out many hundred of RK's and in 1943 the die dramatically and rapidly failed. We can see this to be the case, as the flaw characteristics are usually comparable between obverse and reverse of flawed A's crosses getting rapidly worse and then suddenly aweful to the point of ugly...and failed to the point of being unusable. S&L had to do something and reverted to the languishing B to produce the 934/4 and 800/4. These might not necessarily have had freshly stamped frames...they might have used stored early frames. I believe the 935 to have been from the early stock. Remeber the F&B A variety have 935 rings. When they started to use the dies again in earnest then they started to wear quickly and produced the sequence that Dietrich describes. At this point it would appear that S&L were not supplying that many RK's..perhaps they had flogged the A dies to destruction and had a good stock of crosses and simply didnt need any more, or that PKZ had adequate stocks...or maybe the other manufacturers took advantage of S&L misfortune and filled the gap (K&Q for example). We just dont see the number of PKZ numbered crosses we woould expect (from any manufacturer)

8.
In the post war years, enterprising individuals in S&L produce some examples, and I would think the majority of these would be replacements for German veterans rather than a commercial enterprise to exploit the collector market. The B subsequently got a bad name...veterans and their families sold off groups containing replacements that were not the original pieces...lets face it, most captured RK holder lost all their medals within days of captivity....and in many cases would have been keen to get rid of them quickly to avoid being singled out as significant individuals...and a quick bullet in the brain from the soviets. Many late recipients never got an RK, and after WW2 when things had settled down wanted to have one in their back drawer to show their children/grandchildren and ex comrades in later years.

9.
S&L used the B for the early 1957 crosses but the dies were showing the same degradation as the A set earlier...and eventually like them failed totally. The only option was to return to the C work die ....

That's it I think.

Notes:

The non mixing of A & B frames leads one to believe that the frames were stamped as required...the very close or identical degree of flawing on obverse and reverse supports this.

The difference in the location of the beading flaws between A & B can now be explained. Different dies that failed in different areas.

The better frames for S&L would be the ones with the least dent row...maybe not a significant point.

I think this about rolls it all up, and encompasses all that we know...tell me if I have missed something...or have points to add.

Only mystery remains where the master die is....my guess would be that it was probably destroyed by S&L. But there again it poses no threat to the collecting community, as any die that it produces will be neither an A or B (it wont be a C as the dipping ring was eradicated) but will have features in common. All A crosses must to looked at very closely, and not given the thumbs up just because the obvious features are there..there might be others that don't belong to genuine A crosses, but I consider this to be a very minor risk.

Look out for those C framed 1939 cored crosses with a clean dent row...they just might be very very early !

Incredible!!

One knew this sort of bunk was comming as of a few years ago

[Les50]

With these very different theories about S&L Knights Crosses I think I can see why some collectors avoid them, there are just too many unanswered questions regarding them.
Les

[ChrisJ]

Incredible!!

One knew this sort of bunk was comming as of a few years ago

Hello D..perhaps you could comment in more detail ?

[ChrisJ]

With these very different theories about S&L Knights Crosses I think I can see why some collectors avoid them, there are just too many unanswered questions regarding them.
Les

HI Les.... Three of these sold this month for around the 15,000 USD each on a well known dealers site...so not everyone shares this view.

[Les50]

HI Les.... Three of these sold this month for around the 15,000 USD each on a well known dealers site...so not everyone shares this view.

Hi Chris, I am just looking at it from a first time Knights Cross buyers perspective, I think most Third Reich Badges and Medals have unanswered questions and mysteries surrounding them, S&L Knights Crosses seem to have more than most. For myself I would most likely not buy one produced by that particular manufacturer, whether that makes me uninformed , too cautious or sensible I have not decided yet.
Les

[ChrisJ]

Hi Chris, I am just looking at it from a first time Knights Cross buyers perspective, I think most Third Reich Badges and Medals have unanswered questions and mysteries surrounding them, S&L Knights Crosses seem to have more than most. For myself I would most likely not buy one produced by that particular manufacturer, whether that makes me uninformed , too cautious or sensible I have not decided yet.
Les

Fair enough Lee...mystery surrounds most RK's, and analysis of the evidence and attemting to put forward solutions that seem to join the dots has always been the strength of this particualr forum. Eliminate the impossible and what we have left, however improbable, will be somewhere near the truth.

[ChrisJ]

MMm..no, I've seen it somewhere....let me try to remember where.

Yep got it...not related to RK but to EK2's and the fact that the ring shouldn't encroach into the frame. Different medal, but as S&L reportedly produced the prototypes of the 1939 version, maybe significant in this context too.

[Leroy]

Deleted

[Leroy]

Incredible!!

One knew this sort of bunk was comming as of a few years ago

If this is really Dave Kane posting under an alias, we should all know. Starting a war with a kneejerk reaction is very easy, but, to coin a phrase, "payback can be hell!".

There are issues raised in this thread which may be controversial or even "heretical". They should be discussed, however, in a sober and serious way and, most importantly, they should be addressed in some sort of order. They may lead to nothing. They may lead to something interesting and useful. If your only participation here is to be sarcastic, though, maybe you should go park yourself to the side and do everyone a favor.

In its catalog published in the Spring of 1941 (it's last catalog, by the way), S&L announced that it had been awarded the LDO designation "L16". It is in that catalog that S&L showed both its Ritterkreuz and its version of the Oakleaves. The Ritterkreuz shown, however, does not match the version we have come to know as the "A" version, produced by S&L until it began developing serious raised beading flaws and was withdrawn sometime prior to the PKZ's new mandate in February/March, 1944 that crosses be marked with the manufacturer's assigned PKZ code (in S&L's case, "4", the very low number assigned to it at some point by the PKZ and used by it on some products, including badges such as the Spanish Cross, made of tombak).

The illustration in the catalog is clearly a photograph on which only the swastika and date appear to have been been slightly re-touched. The cross has a "dipping and unfinished" ring and this part of the photgraph has not been re-touched. Both Dietrich, in his book, and Bob Hritz, in this thread, have commented upon this illustration. Bob, however, went further and commented how closely the cross frame in the 1941 catalog looks like the "C" frame used by S&L in the manufacture of its final version of the 1957 Ritterkreuz series. This resemblance, which is striking, has never before been seriously addressed or its possible implications considered.

S&L's cross using the "A" frame we all know was apparently approved by the PKZ and awards began to made, using this design, sometime in mid-to-late 1940, based on information Dietrich has indicated that he has compiled. This is before the institution of the LDO, and before the catalog published in the Spring of 1941 by S&L.

There are no "A" type crosses with S&L's "L/16" mark. There are, however, "A" type crosses which have loops with the "L/21" code of Foerster & Barth. (There are also, interestingly, Zimmermann made crosses with the "L/21" mark.) Foerster & Barth apparently retailed crosses, from different makers, sometime between the institution of the LDO and the "ban", in October of that same year (l941) on private sale of the Ritterkreuz. Interestingly, there are also S&L Oakleaves (shown in the same catalog as the "strange" cross), made of both silver and silver-plated brass, which are marked with S&L's "L/16" code, and which were apparently available also for purchase in that brief time period. But, again, no "L/16" marked crosses. In his book, Dietrich mentions the possibility that the lack of "L/16" crosses might indicate that S&L did not begin manufacture of the Ritterkreuz until after the "ban" went into effect in October, 1941. This, however, would seem to be contradicted by the acceptance and actual award of S&L "A" types through the PKZ in mid-to-late 1940.

We should all remember that between 1939 and the Spring of 1941, when the LDO was formed, anyone and everyone could make and sell decorations and badges, including the Ritterkreuz, from whatever materials they wished. There was no "policeman" on the block. The LDO was created to bring order, quality control and uniformity to the market.

It is well known, and acknowledged by everyone, that S&L was selected to be the primary designer of the Ritterkreuz. Its designs were certainly the subject of intense review and discussion with the PKZ and other prominent firms. Although S&L' s design was eventually, with revisions, accepted by the PKZ, S&L did not make the first Ritterkreuz which were awarded. Instead, that privilege went to Juncker, which manufactured a Ritterkreuz using a frame which was not of silver and a core made from non-ferrous material (zinc). The ring on the Juncker cross was not a "dipping ring" and was, in fact, fully finished.

What revisions occured between the cross frame used as the illustration in S&L's catalog and its final "A" design?

There are some very-well made crosses, certainly comparable in quality of finish to the "A" framed crosses, which use the frame we today call the "B" frame, complete with "dent row" and "bridge flaw" (but lacking other flaws) made, however, in a variety of marked and unmarked styles, and using both ferrous and non-ferrous cores (very similar to the early Juncker crosses and the 3/4 ring crosses). None of these observed crosses has either an "L/16" or a "4" mark. Some of them have unfinished (but not "dipping") rings. Very many of them have loops marked "935" (a marking considered by Dietrich to be much less common than the "800" mark usually found. Interestingly, the Foerster and Barth "L/21" cross also uses a "935" marked loop.) One of those types (the 935 with brass core) was shown in Dietrich's book and was actually subjected to SEM testing for that book. The paint was found to be carbon black, consistant with wartime paint, and the frosting was described as being "similar" to the painted frosting used on the 935-4 crosses. It was not reported in the book whether or not other specific versions of these type crosses (other than the 935 with brass core) were subjected to SEM testing. The problem with these crosses is that they were all found by Dietrich to have "dent rows" which were less-defined than the "dent row" on the 935-4and 800-4 crosses, the crosses allegedly produced following the failure of the "A" die (sometime before February/March 1944). The 935-4 and 800-4 crosses, whether or not any consensus has been reached on their wartime manufacture, are unquestionably regarded as the crosses having at least the best "claims" to being the wartime replacements for the failed "A" type. If the the 935-4 and 800-4 crosses are the "benchmark" for "dent row definition", how on earth could these "other" crosses, with less-defined "dent rows" pre-date them?

Hopefully, we'll consider this dilemma here. Is there a way to reconcile Dietrich's basic and very valuable observations with the possible wartime manufacture of these "other" crosses? Chris has posted his hypothesis, which I talked about with him and to which I have now suggested, but have not yet posted, some fairly minor changes. I will wait for others to comment first, including Bob Hritz, who precipitated all this with his excellent observations, and who also has been been involved but who is on a short excursion for a few days. Bob has been involved in this hobby, seen more crosses, owned more crosses, and has better instincts, than almost anyone else on this Forum. He is as tired of all the bickering as anyone, but no discussion of this subject will be complete without his input, whether online or offline.

There are, unquestionably, both "B" crosses and "C" crosses with swastika cores, produced mainly for the collector market. No one can dispute this and, because of them, a cloud has been formed over S&L crosses which is injurious to this hobby and which needs to be cleared away. Most of these "B" versions have raised beading flaws. Both the "B" frames with raised beading flaws and the "C" frames appeared after 1957, during S&L's production of the 1957-version Ritterkreuz. The "C" frame was the replacement for the "B" frame with raised beading flaws. Neither type of these swastika-cored crosses are finished with the quality seen on wartime pieces.

[Colorado]

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. Leroy, I enjoyed your detailed further explanation.

Below is a link to my 935/4 RK I posted back in 2008 which you and Mr. Hritz commented very favorably on. I was not aware that 935/4's came with anything other than 935 marked loops.

You stated in your last post, "Very many of them have loops marked "935" (a marking considered by Dietrich to be much less common than the "800" mark usually found." So, 935/4 crosses are more commonly found with 800 loops? Is that of significance time wise if so? Always assumed 935 markings pre-dated any 800, so a mint 935/4 with an 800 loop would be later, right?

My RK link:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=304755

[Leroy]

Hi, Jeff,
935-4's usually have "935" marked loops (just like yours). One of our members here (Albert, I believe) did post, about a year ago, a 935-4 with an "800-4" marked loop
(the only one I've ever seen)! I do think that "935" loops were used earlier and are less frequently seen than the simple "800" marked loops used on most crosses (including loops used on "A" type crosses and loops used on crosses by other manufacturers).

Again, a beautiful cross you have!
Best,
Leroy

[aeg]

More than 1 pair of dies were used

Gentlemen:

Very interesting debate, and I would like to contribute the following thoughts.

It is highly unlikely (close to impossible), that ANY manufacturer that die-stamps anything, would gamble their production capabilities, on 1 pair of dies.

Dies need to be periodically maintained, along with the machine itself, in order to produce consistently. (They need to be cleaned, polished, realigned, etc.)

The metal blanks being stamped (or struck) need to be checked in order to minimize damage to the die. They are checked for uniform weight, thickness, etc.

Errors in die-stamping, or die-striking, can be the result of:

1) Scratched, cracked, or worn dies.
2) Too much metal in the blanks being stamped, which can also crack dies, over time.
3) Residual metal buildup within the die. As the pieces are made, metal can get built up in the die. When the next planchet is moved into the die, there is now an incorrect amount of metal (The new planchet, plus the built-up metal in the die).
4) Careless maintenance to a die (or die pair).

Improper alignment can break a die pair very quickly. Repairs to a die, are not long-term fixes: Dies clash with thousands of pounds of pressure, thousands of times a day.

Once a die is cracked, it can still be used for a little while, but the damage to the die will show up in the finished product and the errors will only get worse over time, until the die is worn/damaged beyond use.

Because of what I've outlined above, it is unrealistic to me, that a company would gamble their entire production capability on one set of dies.

Cutting a die pair is not an overnight process, and the die pair can be easily damaged beyond use, for any one of the reasons I've given.

Therefore, it is much more likely, that at least 2 pairs of dies were in use at the same time, with a third pair in reserve. When one pair of dies needed routine maintenance, another set was put in its place. When a pair got worn/damaged beyond use, the third pair was used.

Keep in mind, that the blanks used to make RK frames, were thin silver. Unlike striking a coin, there was not a lot of silver, in between the steel dies. Because of silver's malleability, a thicker planchet acts somewhat as a cushion between the dies, which would not have been the case with RK frames. Steel basically hitting steel, all day long.

-JMO-

[Leroy]

aeg,
Thank you for that interesting information.
What is your view as to alteration to/ repair of a die such as the ones which were used to strike RK frames?
Regards,
Leroy

[Robert T.]

If this is really Dave Kane posting under an alias, we should all know. Starting a war with a kneejerk reaction is very easy, but, to coin a phrase, "payback can be hell!".

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=240582

Dietrich, I understand...

All I'm attempting to uncover is the possibility that the period S&L RK frame began life with a dipped ring AND that the same die was used over and over in to possibly the 80's.

I don't understand why you can't see the remains of the row but it might have been the angle. Be that as it may, to answer (your) question " The one in your last picture (the white one with lots of dents) - where is that suppose to be?" it's the Cross depicted at the start of the thread and of course it's on the lower portion of the 3oc arm of a '57 S&L (early) Cross!

I forgot to add that the frame also exhibits the 'split' bead on the 6oc arm.

DaveM....pm sent!

Some months ago I posted a 'post war' frame which exhibited a dipped ring. I found that it matched the war time frame in many regards and postulated that this could be the reason why we see some period pictures with RK's apparently showing this feature.
Thereafter, the frame was sent to several of those interested in the possibility. Some interesting deductions were drawn. It was suggested that the S&L die produced the dipped ring BUT at 'finishing' or sometime during the manufacturing process the base of the ring was 'skived' or filed down. We never see the exact same finishing to the base of the rings of S&L Crosses.

Unfortunately, the orig. thread has gone missing!

In the meantime I obtained pictures of another S&L dipped ring '57 RK made from the original war time die affirming the above suspicions. It shows the pock/dent marks in the lower 3oc arm and several other 'fingerprints' associated with the period die.

[Dietrich Maerz]

And here is the "original thread" which never gone missing.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=196370

And if one does a search one will find a lot of discussion about one, two, three , mother, daughter dies.