S&L SC in silber

[Brian S]

I don't know whether that is plausible wit the eagle. I have not studied it.

(I will explain the failure of the mother die theory at the SOS over a nice dinner. And I am 100% sure you will agree, based on brutal and undeniable physical evidence.)

You can buy me dinner at the SOS but I already agree with this.

[Brian S]

Fixing the hole isn't the problem, its fixing the broken die so there is absolutely no trace at all of the repair is where I have a problem, fall of the wagon and start crying.

Road potholes are fixed every day, but there is always signs of the repair.

Tom

Yes, the dents on the S&L RK are the evidence of the repair. Repair splatter of a material extraordinarily hard and therefore a perfect die repair material.

[Thomas Durante]

AGREED, thanks Dietrich. Looking forward to seeing you at the SOS and discussing further.

OK, so back to the Spanish Crosses. This seems obvious and maybe its been discussed already with a good reason, but when I compare the "wartime" eagle and the eagle produced in the 1970s, why is the later eagle more detailed?? If these were the same eagle die, you would expect less detail as the years go on. The eagle on the "wartime" cross is already pretty weak in detail and it would only get worse over the next 30 years of postwar production.

If the timeline of these crosses is correct, then is this not evidence of 2 separate eagles being used by S&L?

Tom

[Legion Condor]

Hi Tom,

they should know that the war piece still has a strength bronzing and the postwar period piece is a blank as you can see without bronzing. No final treatment.

you can make very clear to many see it's the same eagle. 100% the same.

[Legion Condor]

I think here you can better see the eagles are the same. But here covers the very strong bronzing a few details. The bronzing was no longer used in the post-war pieces.

But as it is, it does not change the fakes with the needle system

Original cross body sytem with postwar needle
Cross body copy system with original needle

I'm not so happy with the provides an explanation!

Gruß LC

[Norm F]

This seems obvious and maybe its been discussed already with a good reason, but when I compare the "wartime" eagle and the eagle produced in the 1970s, why is the later eagle more detailed?? If these were the same eagle die, you would expect less detail as the years go on. The eagle on the "wartime" cross is already pretty weak in detail and it would only get worse over the next 30 years of postwar production.

If the timeline of these crosses is correct, then is this not evidence of 2 separate eagles being used by S&L?

Tom

There's a consideration that makes it very difficult to decide any timeline based upon crispness of detail alone (something I've struggled with unsuccessfully), and that is the variation from production run to production run on the same die, both from varying the pressure of the applied die and the quality and texture of the planchet blank that is used. This problem is evident from Juncker's Auxiliary Cruiser output. Some are smooth and some are pitted but even more dramatic is some eagles have very poor detail vs. others with crisp detail and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to place the detailed ones earlier than the less detailed ones.

I don't doubt that die wear, controlling for all other factors, would result in a less detailed product but the other confounding variables make it very difficult to judge. The only truly reliable signs I can imagine for timeline would be the observation of new reproducible flaws in relief (positive) on the badges from damage that caused negative flaws in the production die, or the development of negative flaws in the badges from negative flaws in the master die transferred as positive flaws in a new production die.

Life is complicated...

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hans, what are your thoughts on this S&L example?

Tom

[grenadire2307]

I do not like the swastika , eagles and inverted marker, but hook, needle and hinge, really war time.

[Legion Condor]

Hi Tom,

I see a piece of S & L with later built Soval eagle. I think because someone has a private garage hour.

Unfortunately, I can not see the punch.

Greeting LC

[grenadire2307]

There are other examples of controversial products S&L
It can be seen that the first cross (labeled CHE): eagles postwar, but hook textbook war time S & L.

[Legion Condor]

Hi,

the lower piece I think is original. The above is a post war piece.

Gruß LC

hansgünter

[Legion Condor]

It is of collectors often told that the S & L pieces are identical to Soval. Only from Soval with better quality. But is not correct according to my research!

Soval is Soval's and S & L is S & L. Completely different design.

Gruß LC

Hansgünter

[Legion Condor]

Tom,

the piece that was showing to you built according to the Foundation Certificate. Since the first model of the Air Force eagle can be seen. As someone has had plenty of time.

Made product of the imagination in the hobby shop.

Gruß LC

Hansgünter

[Thomas Durante]

I see a piece of S & L with later built Soval eagle. I think because someone has a private garage hour.

Hi Hans,

So don't you find it odd that S&L would have Souval eagle's on hand to make such a badge? What timeframe would you put such a badge in? Why would they have a need for Souval eagles if they had their own eagles (both wartime and postwar in the 1970s)?

Thanks

Tom

[Leroy]

I think it's only fair to tell Hans Gunter that this SK is from an S&L "souvenir board". In fact, it is from the very board shown below.