Flawed S&L Knights Cross Pictures

[Skipper Greenwade]

Sorry for the delay…here are the high-resolution scans of my “die-crack flawed, ”S&L RK I promised. A couple of quick notes:

(1.) My cross has no trace(s) of the flaw on the 9 o’clock arm. The most predominant traces are on the 3o’clock arm while a slight bit of a flaw can be seen in the 6 o’clock position.

(2.) I have no interest in re-kindling the “die-flaw=fake…or does it” controversy. A request was made in the “Flaw Traces Again” thread for scans of my cross…here they are.

Best to all – happy collecting!
Skip

PLEASE Note: The links to the scans weren't working so I deleted them. Snigley was kind enough to help out by putting them in his post below.

/S/

[Skipper Greenwade]

Oops! Let me try again !@#$%^&@!%^&* technology!

Skip

PLEASE NOTE:

I also removed the links to the photos from this post, as there was a problem with them as well. You can see the scans in Snigley's post below, though.

(Looks like I need to do my 'homework' on photo posting!)

Thanks, Snig!

[Skipper Greenwade]

Sorry,

I'll figure out what I'm doing wrong and try again later...may be tomorrow before I get things sorted out, though. See you then!

Skip

[Larry Lipps]

Until Skip gets a handle on his problem, I'll take the liberty of posting one of his photos.

\

Since Skip is still having technical difficulties, here's a couple more closeups.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

Skip, nice images and much clearer than in the Hayes book!! I am not going to direct authenticity directly - I don't know either way - but I can contribute to the subject.

The flawed '57 RK the Prosper posted images of (with the blue background) is mine. Both the obverse and reverse frames are the same and the flaws are much more well developed than the images indicate. The flaws are the same as Skips example (maybe a bit more developed) on the 3 and 6 o'clock arms however my example has indicates very bad cracking on the 9 o'clock arm and the beginnings of cracking on the 12 o'clock arm between the 5th and 10th beads from the left.

One other similarity between my 57 RK and Skips RK, which may not be immediately apparent, is that my '57 RK has traces of black paint on the inside of the beading. It suggests that my 57 RK, although of good quality and probably produced from the wartime dies, had it's core painted after assembly BUT the paint job is 1000 times better than the cruddy recent S&L 57 RKs on the new dies. The big point to note here is that Skip's example ALSO appears to show traces of black paint on the inner edges of the frosted beading.

Regards
Mike K

PS: I can finally see this thread!

[Skipper Greenwade]

Thanks for jumping in with the scan, Snigley. We'll give it another shot tomorow.

As for the title of this thread, I have no idea where "Flawed S&L Knight's Cross..shame!!" came from...my original title was the same as the caption on my initial post here - "Die-Crack Flaw S&L RK Scans".

Sorry for all the confusion - head spinning...must sleep now!
Skip

[ChrisJ]

Theory of Life (Part 2)

I'm probably in danger of repeating myself. But bear with me.
My Theory :

(1) S&L would not have stamped out frames on a regular basis. maybe far more infrequently than we can guess.

(2) S&L would not have waited till they had no frames left in stock to go thorugh the whole process of tooling up to run off an new batch... they would have surely knocked out enough for the usage for a considerable period (remember, it was the 1,000 year Reich!)

(3) At some point the frame dies began to deteriorate... and the first trace of this appeared in the 3 o'clock arm (7th/8th bead down).

(4)At this point the "flawed" (I hate that word, but lets use it) frames could well have been a small percentage of those in stock.
It was therefore the luck of the draw whether the workers hand reaching into the box of frames pulled out a clean example or a flawed example. This is confirmed by the fact that some RL's show no flaws at all on the one side (obverse or reverse).

(5) The above all occured pre 1945... and the stock of frames were added to and used for subsequent runs.

It you follow this logic then it stands to reason that pre war 1939 S&L's, the post war retrikes and the 1957 versions could have flaws on one side, flaws on both sides or no flaws at all.
Gentlemen... for all we know S&L might not have done any frame stamping at all post 1945 and all frames (flawed or unflawed) might all be of period.

Detlev makes very good the point that the original pre 1945 crosses are of noticably superior quality to later copies.... and I believe (I hope that you have followed me thus far) that to judge an example soley on the frame is dangerous... one must look at the whole item and judge it as a whole, and also add that indefinable "feel" that orignal RK's generate. I think thats the point that Detelv was making... and lets face it, he has handled more RK's than anyone I would imagine.

The scan that Snigley post for Skip shows (as far as one can judge from one picture) a high quality example of a S&L cross, which points to it being OK... without handling it I would like to comment further. Skip thinks its fine.. good for him (!)

This cross is clearly not a UK run off using the dies from Germany that Prosper came across... and I myself saw and handled examples of in a certain London dealers "shop" in the 1980's.

Detlev also goes on to make the further point that we were all comfortable with the over S&L with the dimpled core......but in fairness it could be said that that particular cross had serious flaws (much more significant than a frame flaw) and therefore was not original.... (period frame with repro core). So where is the consistency in the arguements ?

Now... the only party that can effectively answer our questions is S & L themselves..... Oh that they could be prevailed upon to do so ! But fellow collectors.... if everything was so black and white wouldn't it be a boring life !

Regards

Chris

[ChrisJ]

Paint ?

Sorry Mike... that aint paint... its only the frosting wearing off. Here is a scan of one of a S&L I owned RK's showing this in a more pronounced form.
Chris

[Ludwig]

Chris Jenkins and theory of life (2)

Dear Chris,

Finally. Finally someone else than me came up with that (very good!!!) theory. A box full of frames. Cracked and uncracked ready for assembly. There was no reason to waste them and make new for the later crosses.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Chris,

Maybe I've misinterpreted the darkening on my 57 example then, my apologies - it actually explains a contradiction this early '57 RK has posed for me. It certainly looks like paint but, unlike the later poor quality 57 S&L RKs, there is no strong indication of paint gumming/clogging up the gaps between the iron core and the beaded frames. Darkening to the finish would be more in keeping with the early S&L 57 crosses being better finished.

Another point on my 57 RKs' flawed beading is that the flaws (and they ARE flaws due to faults/cracks in the die, no other term for it imo) are also present on some of the beading in the "V"s between the arms, not just on the ends of the arms.

Regards
Mike K

PS: I could see you last post so I could respond to it - most of the thread is still squares though!

[Sebastian Bianchi]

These scans were forwared to me by Kai for posting on this thread, I'm sure he will expand on the topic.

Seba

Scan 1,

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Scan 2

[Sebastian Bianchi]

scan 3

From Kai,

"please notice that the frontside of the oakleaves are exactly the same like the 1945 wartime awarded pieces and also notice the backside of the KC. It looks like the same than the wartime peces as well."

[Sebastian Bianchi]

scan 4

[Gordon Williamson]

I have been giving some considerable thought to the flaw problem and looking at it from the process, whether the flaws can be induced by any other cause than cracked dies.

In the heavily flawed pieces, like the fake posted by Prosper, it really does look like something caused by cracks in the die. However, where the flaws are very light like Skip's piece, and the one posted for Kai, I wonder.

The frame stamping was a two piece operation. The first operation on a blanking die, stamped the shape of the frame into a thin sheet of silver. The "hole" in the centre was not pierced out and the area between each of the arms was also still solid.
Then the "blank" was placed on a finishing die, which cropped off all the excess around the shape of the cross and pierced out the centre.
In this piercing stage it is perfectly possible that small slivers of silver could fall into the "female" part of the tool. When the next blank was placed into the tool for cropping, the sheer weight pressed on it could "mash" any tiny slivers of silver (a soft metal) into the beading of the frame.

So I could concieve of how there could be small "flaws" which are OK on a genuine piece, and serious FLAWS - big time, which come from pieces made on damaged dies.

Just a thought.

Gordon