Calling all S&L RK holders

[Dietrich Maerz]

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.

... I couldn't have said it better ...
Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Harry's at the Pub .... Yes, Brian that's the area!

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

For what it's worth, my example actually appears to have two (2) of these "pimples" on the obverse 9 o'clock arm - but still only one on the reverse 9 o'clock arm.

Regards
Mike K

[Dietrich Maerz]

Mike,

is the flaw pattern the same on the obverse then as on the reverse?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

So, which of those two possibilities seem more plausible? Do we have any unmarked S&Ls with non-iron cores that have rock solid provenance? If so, that would probably make option two more appealing. If not, option one would still be in play, but would probably cast greater suspicion toward the unmarked crosses with the non-iron cores.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Option 1 is only in play, if you believe in 'rock solid' provenance at all. Granted, there is a lot of rock solid provenance, but there is also a lot of hear-say provenance. So believe what you want....

Option 2 is only in play if you believe that it is possible to produce two completely identical dies (as Pieter has witnessed), down to areas smaller than 0,1 mm. So believe what you want ....

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

So in effect, suspicion is cast upon the non- magnetic core unmarked S&Ls.

[Mike Kenny]

Mike,

is the flaw pattern the same on the obverse then as on the reverse?

Dietrich

Yes, the die flaw pattern on all 4 arms on both sides appears to be the same. If there are differences, they are very, very minor.

Regards
Mike K

[Dave Kane]

Each arm? Harry found this 'bit' on the 9oc arm and its twin the 3oc arm....Mike you evidence it on all four?

[Mike Kenny]

Each arm? Harry found this 'bit' on the 9oc arm and its twin the 3oc arm....Mike you evidence it on all four?

Dave,

No, Dietrich was asking me to compare the degree of flawing on the beading (at least that's how I read it). I assume to see if progression in beading flaw equated to the appearance of another "pimple". I was only talking about the beading flaws on all 4 arms - the "pimples" on my example are only on the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock arms.

Regards
Mike K

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

No, Dietrich was asking me to compare the degree of flawing on the beading (at least that's how I read it). I assume to see if progression in beading flaw equated to the appearance of another "pimple". I was only talking about the beading flaws on all 4 arms - the "pimples" on my example are only on the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock arms.

Regards
Mike K

Mike,

that was my question and thats how I understood your answer. So your cross has the same stage of flaws obverse and reverse but only 'pimpled' on the 9 o'clock reverse and it's brother 3 o'clock obverse. Which is consistent.

Dietrich

[Mike Kenny]

Mike,

that was my question and thats how I understood your answer. So your cross has the same stage of flaws obverse and reverse but only 'pimpled' on the 9 o'clock reverse and it's brother 3 o'clock obverse. Which is consistent.

Dietrich

Yes, but with the addition of the second "pimple" on the obverse 9 o'clock arm.

Regards
Mike K

[Rich G]

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.

Brian

It doesn't take a genius to see that it is you who came in with the cynical comments.

Just to clarify, I do not moderate the crosses forum, I moderate Die Kneipe. That doesn't make me an expert on anything. I can post regarding any subject in this forum so why would anyone take my opinions anymore than anyone else's? You seem to have this thing about me being a moderator. Rather than continuously try to belittle me, why not take it up with the Administrator?

Rich

[Harry]

Brian,
thanks for posting a pic of your 800 marked flawless cross. I cannot see the 'blip' on your cross, but it is difficult to see in the pic, its hard to see when the view is straight-on, I need a view taken more at an angle.

Tom,

Why would this new light of evidence call into question the validity of the zinc-cored unmarked '39 crosses. We see that they have identical frames to those unmarked crosses with iron cores, blip and all. I referr back to the cross listed on D.Niemann yesterday - unmarked frame, with blip, and iron core, awarded September 1942, listed with much acompanying provenance.

Best,