RK Timeline

[Robert T.]

Not much interest it seems (how times change)

Okay, moving on then if for a moment we accept the scenario in my first mail, from 1942 onwards the official manufacturers of the RK almost certainly had stocks of RK parts, and probably made up crosses in anticipation of orders that would sooner or later be forthcoming.

We therefore would have a disconnect between award date and production date of the completed crosses, and also a disconnect to a certain extent between the production of the parts and the assembly of the crosses.

I'll let that sink in before continuing.

Hi,

I have tried to gather some recent S&L KC findings and theories and see how they could work out within the PKZ 1942 marked awards timeline.

TIMELIME 1:

We would need to fit the manufacturing and shipment of the “A” type crosses (unflawed and flawed frames with two different type of frosting, two different cores and two different markings) in a seamless production sequence while accepting that one particular silver mark was only found on unflawed frame assembled to one type of core. Also, one type of core only assembled to the flawed frames until the “A” type frame working die failed…. All this before January 1942.

It would easy to suggest that the “LARGE 800” marked crosses were not assembled by S&L, the contract could have been given to Deumer in 1940. This would make sense in this timeline scheme.

The 1944 PKZ order date is fictional but would give sufficient time for S&L to replace/repair the failed “A” type working die (if it had not been already done during the 42/44 waiting period). The “B” type awarded date of Nov. 1944 (very frail origin) has been put forward in this thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=635467


TIMELINE 2:

If we accept that S&L was indeed the manufacturer and assembler of all types of cores and frames, then the pre-1942 production could have been shipped in 3 groups (orders) separated by a few weeks or months;

1) First order: A shipment of LARGE 800 marked “A” types.
2) Second order: A shipment MICRO 800 marked “A” types (the frame working die is starting to show some weaknesses).
3) Third order: A shipment of MICRO 800 marked “A” types (the frame working die has failed and increasingly shows beading flaws) assembled to the new (?) dipping 3 core (replaced for unknown reasons).

The 1944 PKZ order date is fictional but would give sufficient time for S&L to replace/repair the failed “A” type.
The first appearance of the “B” type crosses in the PKZ supply is recorded in late April 1945 at the Klessheim Castle storage area.


Robert

[Leroy]

"Dipping 3"- found on (seemingly) every "large 800" marked cross and on some "micro 800" crosses. You need to correct your charts.

[Robert T.]

"Dipping 3"- found on (seemingly) every "large 800" marked cross and on some "micro 800" crosses. You need to correct your charts.

Sorry... I meant to write non-dipping 3...

I will see if I can correct the chart...

Robert

[Robert T.]

Sorry... I meant to write non-dipping 3...

I will see if I can correct the chart...

Robert

Text and charts corrected...

_______________________________

TIMELIME 1:

We would need to fit the manufacturing and shipment of the “A” type crosses (unflawed and flawed frames with two different type of frosting, two different cores and two different markings) in a seamless production sequence while accepting that one particular silver mark was only found on unflawed frame assembled to one type of core. Also, one type of core only assembled to the flawed frames until the “A” type frame working die failed…. All this before January 1942.

It would be easy to suggest that the “LARGE 800” marked crosses were not assembled by S&L, the contract could have been given to Deumer in 1940. This would make sense in this timeline scheme.

The 1944 PKZ order date is fictional but would give sufficient time for S&L to replace/repair the failed “A” type working die (if it had not been already done during the 42/44 waiting period). The “B” type awarded date of Nov. 1944 (very frail origin) has been put forward in this thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=635467


TIMELINE 2:

If we accept that S&L was indeed the manufacturer and assembler of all types of cores and frames, then the pre-1942 production could have been shipped in 3 groups (orders) separated by a few weeks or months;

1) First order: A shipment of LARGE 800 marked “A” types.
2) Second order: A shipment of MICRO 800 marked “A” types (the frame working die is starting to show some weaknesses).
3) Third order: A shipment of MICRO 800 marked “A” types (the frame working die has failed and increasingly shows beading flaws) assembled to the new (?) non-dipping 3 core (replaced for unknown reasons).

The 1944 PKZ order date is fictional but would give sufficient time for S&L to replace/repair the failed “A” type.
The first appearance of the “B” type crosses in the PKZ supply is recorded in late April 1945 at the Klessheim Castle storage area.


Robert

[ChrisJ]

This is nice.

We could say then that something pretty major occurred to both the original core die and the A frame die at the same time ?

[Robert T.]

This is nice.

We could say then that something pretty major occurred to both the original core die and the A frame die at the same time ?

I do not know if the two occurrences are related...

Note: We named it the "NON-DIPPING 3" core but there are several other differences.
The "1939" is basically the same on both core types.

Robert

[Leroy]

There are many "A" type crosses, marked with "micro 800", with no flawing whatsoever and with the "non-dipping 3" core. There seems to be no allowance for these types in either chart.

[Robert T.]

There are many "A" type crosses, marked with "micro 800", with no flawing whatsoever and with the "non-dipping 3" core. There seems to be no allowance for these types in either chart.

From what I have seen on this forum, the "non-dipping core" is always associated with at least some sort of flaws on the 3 o'clock arm or more on other arms.

The question asked when the subject was discussed: Are there any "dipping 3 core" crosses with some flaws on the 3 o'clock arm? They were hard to find but I allowed for a transition period of both core types when I posted this chart back then.

Robert

[Leroy]

From what I have seen on this forum, the "non-dipping core" is always associated with at least some sort of flaws on the 3 o'clock arm or more on other arms.

Don't think so.

[Leroy]

Compare

[Leroy]

Here's another (excuse the quality of photo - poor lighting here). Worn cross, non-dipping 3. A couple of minor dents, but no flaws.

Most crosses, if you look hard enough, will have some degree of minor flawing, or "dings", or debris adhesion, but (at least to me) a flaw indicating die failure is a "repeating flaw", seen over and over in the same position.

[Leroy]

Compare

[Leroy]

And the mark - a "micro 800"

[Robert T.]

From what I have seen on this forum, the "non-dipping core" is always associated with at least some sort of flaws on the 3 o'clock arm or more on other arms.

The question asked when the subject was discussed: Are there any "dipping 3 core" crosses with some flaws on the 3 o'clock arm? They were hard to find but I allowed for a transition period of both core types when I posted this chart back then.

Robert

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...dipping&page=7 Post 101.



Robert

[Leroy]

Robert - I understand the meaning of "back then". The point was that your current "timeline charts" make that allowance, which gives S&L (if the PKZ number discussion and the "overstock" situation are correct - and they probably are) two years to fix the "flawed frames".

There are "micro 800" marked "B" type frames as well as "B" frames with more than the 13 dents found on 935-4 and 800-4 frames. What does that tell us?

It is my firm belief, although I fully agree that the PKZ numbers are much earlier than originally thought (and that "early" crosses - including 3/4 ring crosses - continued to be awarded at least well into 1944, perhaps indicating large numbers of crosses on hand) that our "sample base" of crosses, and our knowledge of PKZ ordering, storage and distribution practices, as well as the practices of manufacturers, is too limited to establish any definitive timeline.

Certainly, "award date" has little if anything to do with manufacture date.