Flawed S&L Knights Cross Pictures

[ChrisJ]

Hi Seba,
What point is Kai wishing to make with these scans ?

[Sebastian Bianchi]

When Kai sent me the scans I asked the same thing, and requested he post his opinion on the forum. He said he was going away but stated that upon his return he would clarify the point that he is wishing to make. I for one can't wait.

Seba

[Dave Kane]

Maker?

Who made the cross? It could be the picture angle but, to me the swaz looks like Juncker and the frame leans toward Zimmermann. I'm hooked...how long do we have to wait?
John

[Richard]

I have collected coins for over 30 years and the processes that are used in minting coins would certainly apply to the "minting" of the frames for the KC. In no way can a stray piece of metal that is left in the die, falls into the die or attaches itself to the material used to create the frame itself EVER produce a raised defect in the finished product. Coins that are minted from dies that have something as innocuous as grease in them, produce a coin that has a depression. In order to produce a raised flaw on metal that is die stamped, the only answer is that there is damage or missing metal in the die itself that the metal being stamped will fill as the pressure of the press is applied. Die cracks on coin dies are not uncommon. You are squeezing two dies together with a piece of metal sandwiched inbetween at extremely high pressure. After time after time of pounding out metal, the dies are affected by the pressure, intricacy of design and length of usage. If, by the end of the war, the dies exhibited some type of crack, or if in polishing or cleaning the dies someone put a scratch into them, they would probably not be scrapped but would continue to be used if the defect were deemed to be insignificant enough as dies are not cheap to produce and I am sure the Germans had enough to worry about that a minor defect that most would never notice might get by without any problem.

United States coins go through some of the most stringent quality control methods known to modern technology. Granted, there are millions and even billions produced annually. But even the US mint lets slip some items that they are embarrassed about later. Some of these "errors" become extremely collectible in their own right (1955 double die, 1972 double die, coins with die flaws, etc.) and command some high prices when they turn up in the market. Even with modern technology, some things just slip through. This die flaw is minor enough that, if it occured later in the war, may never have prompted a push for a change. Here's a scan of some of the items that "got away" from one of the institutions that has the most technologically highly advanced quality control. The cent in the upper left is struck off center and is a miracle to have survived quality control and go out into public commerce. The coin on the upper right is a double die. Contrary to public opinion, this coin is not struck twice but had an error in the hub that was used to produce the die which resulted in the second engraving of the die being slightly off of the first. The result is a doubled image (look closely at the "o" in one and the phrase "one cent". This will work better if you have not been drinking otherwise everything will appear doubled!). The coin in the lower left is a classic example of what we have been discussing. It had a scratch on the die, possibly caused during cleaning, that has left a raise line going across the coin face that appears as a line in the scan. This is actually raised metal. Some parts of the devices of coins (or other struck items) are more subject to fatigue than others. Case in point, the coin in the lower right. Notice the filled in lower part of the "B" in "Liberty". This is the cause of stress on the die at a very detailed part of the lettering. The die broke at the lower part of the "B" and gives it a filled in look as there is a depression on the die allowing the copper metal to fill in this part of the device now. Sorry about the lack of real quality in the scans. The coin on the lower right may not have enough detail for everyone to see what I am talking about. Hopefully this will help somewhat in this discussion. Until we have cross with provenance that has these flaws, we will never be able to be certain that this flaw existed for pre 1945 RK's.
Richard V

[Dave Kane]

Thankyou Jesus!!! I mean RICHARD!!!

Wonderful! This may be the breaker...
John

[ChrisJ]

All sounds reasonable. My own theory...is that the die material started to delaminate. I deal with steel material inspection every day, and modern NDT (non destructive testing) is used to check for such faults in base material...

All very interesting, but.......

Richard states ..."we will never be able to be certain that this flaw existed for pre 1945 RK's."
Playing the Devils avocate, we could say by the same token we will never be certain that it didnt !

But.... didn't Detlev post images (via Gordon) to show original crosses with minor flawing on the earlier thread last week ?

[ChrisJ]

Question ?

I havent followed this debate for that long, but does anyone know of a 1957 S&L cross, with the new horrible non-silver (stay bright) type frame from the original dies with NO flaws ?

If not... doesn't this indicate that S&L used up their old stock of frames (including both flawed and unflawed stampings) to make early 1957's ???

Why make some quality frames in Silver if you are going to be content to settle with those terrible gaudy versions ?

[Seppl]

Being of German origin and knowing from first hand experience, about German manufacturing standards in general.I find it hard to accept that a prestigious Award like the Knight's Cross would pass quality control with such "Die Flaws" as previously pictured.
I don't think that even lower grades of the Iron Cross would pass inspection with such flaws!

[ChrisJ]

Incorrect !

Sorry Seppl.... but that simply isn't true 1.

Gordon has arleady replied to this point elsewhere (take a look).

Also, there is also the posting of the very non standard S&L core... why is that considered as an acceptable "flaw"?... its much more visibly noticable. Similarly I had in my collection a K&Q RK with a very noticable "crazed" finish to the core blacking... totally non standard, but the cross was an award piece !

From first hand experience I can say that in any case (without the benefit of digital zooms) it is hard to spot these defects and an otherwise standard S&L without a magnifying glass.

[Dave Kane]

Several hands in the making!

I find it unreasonable that the flaws would NOT be brought to someone's attention by a 'line worker' or eventually the 'craftsman' who hand finished the cross to include polishing off the rhodium to form the highlights. The 'polishing' was done with a 'jeweler's' stick made of a particular type of wood ( can't recall its type ). This alone would cause much detail handling and inspection. And I would think that the line worker or stamper would be responsiple for a 'clean' machine thus inspection, oiling and cleaning might be a daily occurance!
John

[Gordon Williamson]

Here is an original Schinkelform EK1. belonged to a U-Boat officer.
The 9 o'clock arm is heavily flawed.

[Gordon Williamson]

Here is a close up of the flaw.



I think some people over-estimate the levels of QA carried out by German orders manufacturers, certainly as to what may or may not have constituted a significant enough fault to discard a piece.

[Dave Kane]

Gordon, great picture and more proves the case for die fault/cracking than debris being hammered to the frame.

However, the IC1st looks to be of very early manufacture so I doubt that this early die remained on the production line much longer after the particular cross was produced.

Now again for the sticky question! I expect dies cracked relatively often for all medals etc. My question still nags at me as to why there are SO many S&L RK's with the flaw and so relatively FEW (in comparison to #'s produced) Iron Crosses with die crack flaws.

The numbers just don't add up. And as (we) try to offer excuses for the 'flaw theory' the '2nd set of dies' theory has taken a very far back seat.

John

[Gordon Williamson]

The example illustrated may be very early, but I have had plenty of other EK2 and EK1 early, mid, and late war with the same flaws, they are not that unusual. I'm sure other members would find examples in their collections if they looked for them.

I don't think the fact of the existence of the flaw itself is what bothers people, just simply trying to determine whether any damage that might have caused such flaws happened pre or post May 1945 as far as the S&L RK dies are concerned and I really don't think this is something that we will ever be able to determine with absolute certainty.

Gordon

[Dave Kane]

I don't know! We just might if we keep at it...

If we found enough m57 S&L crosses without the die flaw and then with just hints of die cracking and thereafter getting worse we could compare these to the '39' crosses looking only at the flaw and its placement! My thought is that they would match but, I fear we will never get to that level of agreement or cooperation.

All you '57 collectors out there look at your crosses and then at the '39 crosses posted here....any matches??

John