S&L RK flaws and all!

[Harry]

Good evening from the UK!
I know many of you will have seen this already (currently on Bill Shea's site) but I thought it might be worth posting the pics here in view of Dave Kane's recent e-bay aquisition. It is a smooth painted core, supposedly a feature of early crosses, but with heavy flaws and an 'unfinished' eye. Possibly a sloppy paint job, or perhaps heavy reaction between core and frame. Do these crosses further indicate an assembly of early cores with late frames, or a return to smooth paint a very late (!) stage?

[Harry]

reverse.....

[Harry]

closer look.....

[Harry]

more......

[Peter Wiking]

I dont know if it is of help or if it confuse and starts another dieflaw...

Here is my only legit RK i have. A very early S&L 1957. Look at the flaws on my 1957 on top and your posted cross. See how the flaw has developed. Greater crack, greater pressure? Who knows.

Cheers.
Peter Wiking

[Harry]

Beleive me Peter, I have no intention of re-opening the die flaw debate! I am merely posting pics of a cross I came accross that is very similar to Dave's e-bay find. I would like, however, to explore the debate more as to whether 2 or more sets of S&L dies existed at the same time, producing war-time pieces, and one set going on to produce the early 1957 re-issue pieces. In addition, there has been some discussion before about some very early crosses having Zinc cores. As we know, many RK's were produced, and some were used for display purposes, both by the makers themslves and also by uniform outfitters. Considering the contradiction of using zinc in one of the highest forms of the Iron Cross, is it unreasonable to ask whether it is a possibility that zinc-cored pieces, in particular, were produced for this purpose but were eventually requisitioned into the stock from which award pieces were taken. Or alternatively, if after the ban on zinc cores, any left lying around were used for display only, and not used as award pieces.