More S&L RK die flaws

[tom hansen]

Yep- I've got it also Brian.

Harry- I guess if they are consistent among all the types of a particular maker, they would more correctly be termed "features", while inconsistent imperfections would be "flaws". This is really quite interesting. I think this does help to determine authenticity. There are 16 flaws, beyond the cross hatching, that I have identified on the juncker RKs. I guess I should take a real close look at the K&Q as well!

[George Stimson]

It'll be interesting to see if all of these traits are on non-flawed '57s.

[tom hansen]

yes, it will George. A whole new wrinkle in the die flaw theories.


1. Now did someone say they have a "die flaw" S&L that they are looking at? If they do also have these minor "flaws" as well, which would be very difficult to reproduce, does that not stick a fork in the two die theory?

2. Also, if these were from cracks in the die also, why did they not increase in size over time? Is it because the force is greater applied to the "exposed" anterior surface and not the sides where these flaws reside?

[Dave Kane]

Tom, the multiple die thought is very full of holes and has never held water....

Even as the die was on its last legs ( those so bad and light with the 800 at the right of the ring ) it still produced 'unique' and consistant signatures!

[Mike Kenny]

1. Now did someone say they have a "die flaw" S&L that they are looking at? If they do also have these minor "flaws" as well, which would be very difficult to reproduce, does that not stick a fork in the two die theory?

2. Also, if these were from cracks in the die also, why did they not increase in size over time? Is it because the force is greater applied to the "exposed" anterior surface and not the sides where these flaws reside?

Hi Tom,

1) I wasn't actually looking at it but I have since had a look at my heavily flawed 57er. It does appear to have the same characteristics, although strangely enough they appear to be more subdued and HARDER to see than on your example! I actually missed them on the first two or three attempts with a x10 hand lense/loupe.

2) After examining it, my personal theory for this feature is that it is not a die flaw (ie another "crack") but instead a score or scratch on the die. It looks like a sharp instrument has been scraped along the beading of the die - there appears to me to be a definite "cutting" movement involved, heading towards the top of the cross as the marks are all aligned along a slight curve and they are "V" shaped in that they appear to be more prominent in the side of the grooves towards the top of the cross. I'd suggest someone "slipped" with a sharp instrument at some stage - whether this was before the first strike or during die maintenance you guys with really early wartime S&Ls may be able to determine. I'd further suggest that this score in the die was WORN with time (ie was "smoothed out"), resulting in the apparently more subdued effect on my flawed 57 example.

My 57 flawed example also has the #7 & #13 groove features mentioned above.

I hope this helps and doesn't muddle things further??

Regards
Mike K

[Dave Kane]

Mike, that's great stuff!! It clarifies rather than muddles things....


The amount of frosting applied or that remains will also 'soften' the effect!!!

[tom hansen]

That is very nice information on the '57 RK- thanks Mike!



Oddly, the little "flaws" like this on the juncker RKs also tend to be less pronounced on the later crosses. Some of the marked "flaws" on the 800 and 800 dot, are clear on the L/12s, but much less so on the micro "2", despite it being mint.

[Brian S]

Good information and his theory makes a lot of sense to me that the die wore down. A flaw, be it an original score caused by a tool shows as a raised relief on the cross, then is less distinct as the die wears. Very good stuff. I believe good thinking Mike.