Steinhauer & Luck # 4 1st Class for review

[NBolinger]

Picked this up today, pick is marked 4, nice shape, would like to here what your guys think. Thanks for any help i can get.

[NBolinger]

pic 3

pic 3

[BROBS]

what's up with that dot at the top of the cross?


-Brian

[NBolinger]

the dot

its intresting , but ive been it before, i had one a few months back i posted with the same thing.

[Heer Flak]

The frame was intended for an EK2. The hole was the guide for the ring that would have been utilized.

Eric

[Douglas 5]

As Eric said .. a guide mark for attaching a EK2 jump ring . A draw back or 'blemish so to speak' when the frame is used for a EK1 .

Douglas

[Leroy]

Although it seems very logical that the "o" marked the spot for attachment of the ring, I tend to believe that the "o" was really something used in die alignment and that this frame part was a factory reject which has been "re-cycled".

[Douglas 5]

I beg to differ on this Leroy - if your comment was meant for this thread ? Alignment for the dies on the out side of the usable striking area to me would make more sense .
What a waste of time putting a re-ject mark on something that immediatly is going to be tossed in the recycle bin ?? It is a raised mark even to start with . Clamping the frame into some device to do this 'cold' strike with out leaving any other impression marks on the top flange !? If some how you had to or wanted to mark the reject piece --- why not just bend it or hit the beading once with a hammer . Rejecting a part is usually an - after thought normaly . I see no logic in premarking all the frames for the - only few that may actually ending up being rejects ????
A few different makers produced frames with these rings on them .

Cheers , Douglas

[Tom B]

In my collection I have what is considered the earliest type 57 EK1 made by S&L. I has the "o" mark and the exact same pin. Pretty obvious it was made with left over parts from war time production. I do believe the "o" is a guide for the ring if the frame was to be used for an EK2....just MO Tom

[Leroy]

I beg to differ on this Leroy - if your comment was meant for this thread ? Alignment for the dies on the out side of the usable striking area to me would make more sense .
What a waste of time putting a re-ject mark on something that immediatly is going to be tossed in the recycle bin ?? It is a raised mark even to start with . Clamping the frame into some device to do this 'cold' strike with out leaving any other impression marks on the top flange !? If some how you had to or wanted to mark the reject piece --- why not just bend it or hit the beading once with a hammer . Rejecting a part is usually an - after thought normaly . I see no logic in premarking all the frames for the - only few that may actually ending up being rejects ????
A few different makers produced frames with these rings on them .

Cheers , Douglas

Hi,Douglas - I have no problem whatsoever with anyone disagreeing completely with the theory that the "o" has anything to do with die alignment, as it certainly shows up many times in positions that seem to directly match hardware placement. It also, however, seems to show up sometimes in areas not related to hardware. In this particular instance, I wonder if the ring (after attachment) would fully cover the "o" so that it would be invisible (and I'm not 100% sure that it would). In any case, the "o" is not, itself, a reject mark and if it was intended to assist in die alignment (or for some other "non-hardware" purpose), and was normally cut away in the shearing process, but instead mistakenly intruded into the visible area on the front of this particular frame, I would think that would constitute "grounds for rejection" of this frame. This cross looks to be poorly assembled, with solder "leaking out" onto surfaces and just personally strikes me as something put together hurredly from leftover parts. -Best, Gentry

[Douglas 5]

Quit sure Leroy that even on this cross the ring would have been covered with solder and therefor invisable afterwards .
Not sure how many makers used this markers which normaly would limit the frame to EK2 use . I can only think due to a shortage on EK1 frames the odd EK2 frame was used .
One maker - Souval - stands out with most variations of this ring mount indicator . An interesting example is the W&L EK2 I have that also has such a ring . Pictures are not great .
The largest raised ring I have found so far were used on Deschler EK2s - bottom picture . The inside is cut out to solder in the jump ring on on side .

Douglas

[BROBS]

Ok that makes sense... but was it assembled post war?
The frame doesn't have the polished look and frosting like a normal S&L to me?

[Flemming]

Ok that makes sense... but was it assembled post war?
The frame doesn't have the polished look and frosting like a normal S&L to me?

Based on that poor job, I would say postwar. Lacks the quality you would expect from a wartime Cross.

/Flemming

[Douglas 5]

The workmanship Flemming mentioned sure points that way .

Douglas

[schönbeck]

and the unfinished look of the reverse is also a post war assembled sign.