'57 Knight's Cross core

[prvtdck]

Will someone give me an idea when the core of 1957 Knight's Cross changed from a rather sharp iron stamping to the poor painted one we see most commonly. Or, maybe better said, when did the core and frame change?
Dave

[Andy Mac]

Changes

I have been told the down drop in quality came in the early seventies, (maybe someone retired!) and has been going down ever since.

Andy Mac

[Gordon Williamson]

There are two distinct centre core patterns for the 57 RK. The early type was much more finely executed and had two smaller acorns set a slight way down the stem. The second type had larger acorns set hard up against the leaves on the stem.
Geissler quotes this second type centre as being introduced around 1980.
This is not related to the quality however. The early types were definitely the best, but the first of the "1980" type were still of good quality with excellent paintwork and well finished. I would say mid to late 80s is when the real crap began to flow. It wasn't an overnight thing, but a general decline in quality over a few years.

Gordon

[prvtdck]

So, would it be reasonable to say that in a general time frame S&L changed core and frame dies AND sold off the original WWII frame dies to a fellow in England?
Dave

[Andy Mac]

Dave,
I've been thinking about this message you have written, please tell some more of the story.

Andy mac

[prvtdck]

Andy I'm afraid I won't be much help and prefer to ask Gordon Williamson to be kind and add some detail to my generalizations!
I will however, give it a go.
Collectors of the Knight's Cross have questioned for years the "flaw" in the frames of S&L crosses. There are theories and speculation as to WHY the company sold its war time dies and, ofcourse one of them is that the die were starting to stress and show a 'flaw'. It is suggested that the dies were bought by a Brit who churned out many many supposed original S&L Knight's Crosses until the 'flaw' became too severe. Examining S&L crosses with this 'flaw' one can see a PROGRESSION in the severity of the 'flaw' untill it is almost the length of the 3oc arm and the 6oc arm. I imagine the die just fell apart one day!
Now, back to my orig. thought. I'm attempting to learn if the "sale" took place just prior to the S&L company making or buying the new set of die. And, the appearance of the severly flawed crosses. I would think that the techs. in the S&L Co. would antisipate total die failure and jump on a chance to sell the damaged equipment and ofcourse pay for a new set.
I'm trying to eliminate the "coincidence" by attemting to gather dates etc.!
Dave

[Dave Kane]

I'm not very confident that we will ever get beyond the speculation point with this one. The dealers who have sold these in the past will never go back on their assertions of originality and those who own a flawed cross must protect their interest. S&L would be a bit silly to cop to selling RK's showing the Swaz. for 20+ years while it was outlawed! But if we did come up with dates that closely correspond it might lean toward a stronger possibility of some nonsense going on! And, on the downside, disappoint a lot of collectors...
John