Calling all S&L RK holders

[Rich G]

Careful Richard someone may quote you in another thread, steal your words.

Anyone noticing how contentious RK threads are becoming? You can't use other pictures from other threads within the forum? People's feelings are hurt by trying to learn what's going on with the S&L die history? It seems totally pointless to try to learn because someone will become a 'victim' if their cross is discussed.

Or in other words... how many times can you flog a dead horse?

[Brian S]

Or in other words... how many times can you flog a dead horse?

But I suppose if you consider the search for information a dead end then I'd be compelled to ask why you participate here? It's just 'flogging'???

[Rich G]

On this topic, yes Brian.

How many times more is the die theory going to be flogged? Each time it starts up, where does it end? If you haven't worked it out yet, I'll let you into a secret... exactly where it started.

[Harry]

Richard,

I didn't think I was flogging a dead horse, I am not opening the debate as to whether the flawed 1939 crosses are wartime or not, I am trying to establish a pattern as to what dies made what era S&L.

[Rich G]

Harry


Apologies I do not mean to interrupt your thread. As you can see, Brian has gone out of his way to try to belittle me. Something which has become a regular occurrence anytime I post something on RK threads. It's almost like Brian thinks I'm not allowed to post on the subject of Rk's.

Please continue

Rich

[Brian S]

...

[Brian S]

..

[Brian S]

...

[Brian S]

Richard I don't think you get it that when someone wearing the Moderator mantle steps in and steps on members it's a significant dis-contribution to a thread. Is that really so hard to understand? Your opinions, anyone's opinions are welcomed but cynical comments just derail over and over.

[Dietrich Maerz]

With 12,994 views and 314 replies the thread "Flawed S&L RK on Detlev's site" is still number one in the thread list.

I guess, there is a reason for this ...

My opinion is that this kind of threads makes the forum interesting and worth while for everybody. I don't think that a moderator would prefer only threads about newly bought EK1 or EK2 or the never ending request to indentify this Meybauer or that Floch or the other Zimmermann.... I don't think this will keep people to stay very long and I'm not saying that Richard would like this better.

The S&L threads only end every time in the same way, because everytime the same DEFINITE and evidently PROOVEN statement is made by some: Absolutely duplicate dies, produced as Pieter wittnessed and described, by using another die as a master. This is accepted by the majority without proove and ends the subject....

So this pimple issue which Harry discovered is very interesting and needs some explanation or at least investigation, don't you think? Maybe it is the proove for two dies? Maybe it prooves that there was only one degenerating die? Who knows, but I prefer this type of thread a lot more as the ones where new members are educated the 2 Millions time about Floch (instead of using the search function...)

I'm looking forward to learn something here! Go Harry Go!

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

I have a 800 marked S&L with no die flaws and there is no flaw in the rim. I guess we have an added wrinkle in the S&L time line if there are no flaws in the rim of the 935s and 800 crosses with no die flaws, yet it appears on '57 RKs, as well as die flawed crosses, and unmarked S&L crosses. Any thoughts?

[Dave Kane]

I second that, Dietrich!!!

Harry, don't give it up and I applaud you as one who steps up to levels of 'above and beyond' in actually aquiring some more or less controversial crosses for hands on research!!!

You surely aren't one who just talks about it!

To use a great phrase.....GOOD ON YOU!!!

[Dietrich Maerz]

If I remember correctly the last discussion ended with this conclusion by some:

- two completely identical dies
- one flawless (4/935) and one flawed ("late" 800)
- both in use at the same time during the war and after the war

I know, it sounds crazy, but thats what it was....or must be, to explain the flawed crosses with provenance (which do evidently exist!).

Now IF the pimple is an indication of two different dies (which would make sense), the time line is off, as Tom points out.

If it is the same die, it's "off" too, if we stick to the official time line (Zinc early)

or, there is another solution to bring this together in one time line ...

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

For those who feel the die flawed crosses are post war, the time line would be consistent if -


1. There was only one die and we considered the non-iron core crosses as well to be post war as well.

2. There were two dies. One produced the 800 and 935 crosses. The other die was used for the non iron core crosses, and "wore out", producing the die flaw crosses and the '57 crosses.

[Brian S]

Harry is this the spot you're looking for on my flawless 800 marked S&L?

To anyone reading this thread please feel free to reproduce this photo, reuse it in another thread, refer to it in any way that contributes to the furtherment of our hobby.