juncker L/12 second die flaw
-
-
L/12 juncker first die flawComment
-
second 800 L/12 juncker die flawComment
-
800 only marked juncker first die flawComment
-
800 only marked juncker second die flawComment
-
800 dot first die flawComment
-
800 juncker dot second die flawComment
-
That is it. If anyone could take some detailed photos of the same area on their crosses for additional information, it would be helpful
The first flaw is on the reverse at the top of the 12 oclock arm, 13th bead from the right
The second is on the reverse 6 oclock arm, right side, between the 10th and 11th bead at the corner of the 6 and 3 oclock arms.
Any comments appreciated, either agreeing or disagreeing.Last edited by tom hansen; 04-02-2005, 11:08 AM.Comment
-
I do not own a KC but you are correct that the crack in the die has grown leaving more material on the frame as it was squeezed into the crack.
~Ed MaroliComment
-
Tom
That's indeed some nice photos!
I believe if you live in an area with lots of changes in humidity and temperature even silver will suffer from such cracks, particulary when it's subject to the stresses of an iron core. If the KC is left in a dry and stable environment then I think no changes would appear, but it would then require a nice home in the central part of the interior of the pyramids in Egypt...Looking for any original items related to Danish W-SS volunteersComment
-
Thanks-
I keep these in a safety deposit box which is humidty and temperature controlled. I do not know how they were stored prior to acquiring them.Comment
-
Die flaws absolutely get larger the longer the die is used ,they will eventually break.There are numerous 19th century coins that are catalogued as to various stages with the deterioration of the die.Comment
-
It sounds reasonable and what one would expect. However, I do not think there has been a pictoral presentation of this with a defined time line with regard to RKs such that presumption could be applied.Originally posted by JWYATT
At least to my eye here, it seems as though the later crosses have a progression of the flaw while on the early crosses they are absent. The intermediate crosses, L/12 and 800, seem to show a variable amount of the flaw.
Can we then apply this presumption to the S&L crosses? If one make of cross shows a progression of a flaw over time, would it be too big of a jump to conclude that more flawed S&Ls are later production?Comment
-
How about this:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.net/foru...S%26L+die+flaw
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.net/foru...S%26L+die+flaw
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.net/foru...S%26L+die+flaw
some good reading ...
DietrichComment
-
I am aware of and have read the threads on the S&Ls. The problem is that no one knows what type of S&L was made when, therefore does a flaw "progress" or is there another die?
Some have contended that "800-4" S&Ls are early, others late. The same is true for the "935-4" crosses- some say early, others late. Unless there is a "known" timeline, one cannot say one way or another for sure. This opens up the contention then of S&L flaws being due to a different die.
Here is where this differs from previous S&L threads reagrding this issue:
1. On the juncker crosses, there appears to be a more accepted time line for the individual types of juncker crosses. Most would accept that neusilber framed crosses are early, lazy 2 late, and the 800 and L/12s intermediate
2. Further, there is ONE DIE. There is not a debate about multiple juncker dies. If there was one die, then changes would be due to wearing post manufacture or progresssion of flaws during the time line of manufacturing.
With the progression of flaws from early to later crosses, this shows that die flaws do indeed progress over a "time line". This information can be useful if we have enough of one particular maker to make some assumptions (not definitive, but decent assumptions) that more flawed crosses are later. This has been a point of uncertainty and debate.
So I guess the question is---------------
DO you guys feel as though these photos support the contention of a progression of die flaws over time, or is this presumption flawed, and if so, how? ThanksLast edited by tom hansen; 04-02-2005, 03:02 PM.Comment
Comment