Do die flaws get bigger over time?

[tom hansen]

So if we discard the "progression of flaw" theory with one die and adopt the "mother die" theory with multiple dies, why are the early crosses less flawed than the later crosses?

If there was an early "flaw free" die that was used on the nuesilber pieces, why was it discarded and dies used later that had flaws? Why would you throw away a perfectly good die when they were expensive to make, and use a die that was worse than the one you had? Granted, these flaws are very small and not nearly as apparent as the S&L flaws- maybe these were not noticed at all. I guess the "mother/daughter" die theory does not make sense to me from an economic standpoint, coupled with the juncker "time line" shown in the pics above and confirmed with Marshall's, Andy's, Harry's, and Dave's crosses.

In contrast, we know from the pilot's badge collectors that there were three different juncker pilot's badges from different dies used during the war. Why the change? I guess one would suspect the dies are equally as expensive to make, yet there was a change there. No problems switching the die there. Why would it be such a big deal then with the RK?

Further, if there was a "mother/daughter" die, would the very minute other flaws be present on all the "daughter" dies and subsequently crosses struck by them?

I do not know the answers here, but am asking for opinions based on the above photos of these flaws.

Any thoughts on this?

[tom hansen]

Any further comments?

[George Stimson]

comment

I've heard for a long time in many threads about how expensive dies were to make. Well, just exactly how expensive were they to make? Prohibitively (except as a last resort) expensive?

[skip]

Just a small correction, nothing really that important but there were in fact only 2 Juncker Pilot Badge dies. The first is the thin delicate type (J1). Then came the thick heavy type (J2) and lastly the J2 die was repaired around the talons and feathering of the right wing to give the J3.

I should imagine that dies were quiet expensive, otherwise why bother going to the trouble of repairing one when you could just make one new.

Skip

[George Stimson]

Does anybody have an idea of a dollar (Reichsmarks?) amount? I mean, one man's "extremely expensive" is another man's "Oh, by all means -- get one!"

[tom hansen]

I've heard for a long time in many threads about how expensive dies were to make. Well, just exactly how expensive [I]were[/] they to make? Prohibitively (except as a last resort) expensive?

Skip- thanks for the correction. I do not know crap about pilot's badges, but just knew there were three different juncker badges. Thanks for the correction.

Georege- I have no idea. I guess Craig Henninger knows about dies for coin manufacturing; perhaps he knows what approximate effort and expense is involved.

But if they were so darn expensive, why did they switch the pilot's badges? I would assume a pilot badge would involve a similar degree of expertise and workmanship. The first one looks perfectly fine without cracks or apparent problems, yet they changed. Interestingly, with different pilot badge dies, the difference from one badge to another is readily apparent. Why completely change the die and instead just use a "daughter" die there as well?

Similarly, did they switch the EK1 dies? Apparently not. Why then switch the RK dies only?

Are we then to assume from the above pics and "data" that juncker did have only one die for the RK and that the later crosses are more flawed, showing a progression of flaws over time? Or is this misinterpreted and it is evidence for a "mother/daughter" die theory?

[Bob Hritz]

Germany and Great Britian had an enormous amount of die makers, from the 1880's to present. It is a necessity of the industrial era.

If one is so naive to believe there is some sort of alchemy or black arts involved in the complxity of creating dies, one may want to consider the over 10,000 tinnies (we won't include the equal or greater amount of WHW and non-government commercial pins produced.

From what I read here, they must still be working on the dies for the 1936 Olymic tinnies if it takes months to complete a die. More like hours, if you have the tools, and Germany had the tools.

Bob Hritz

[emaroli]

It would take alot longer than a few hours to make a die. With the low run of KC's unless a die broke there would be no need to make another. ~Ed

[tom hansen]

So what do you think then?


Is it one die with progression of the flaws over time?


OR


Different sets of dies?

[emaroli]

Tom,

I would think that your first assumption was correct. The die flaw had grown over time. Also rim thickness is dependent on the stock material not just the soldiering. A .1mm is roughly equal to .004 inches. Most stampings are usually +/- .005" some are even +/- .010" and still within manufacturers allowed tolerances. ~ed

[tom hansen]

Tom,

I would think that your first assumption was correct. The die flaw had grown over time. Also rim thickness is dependent on the stock material not just the soldiering. A .1mm is roughly equal to .004 inches. Most stampings are usually +/- .005" some are even +/- .010" and still within manufacturers allowed tolerances. ~ed

Thanks Ed! It sounds like you know about die stampings and metals. I do not. So some of the differences in thickness of the rims are more related to sheet thickness than the solder? What impact would sheet thickness have on the impression of a given die? Thanks

[Gary Jucha]

Dies

Tom,
From what I have seen, and was taught in engineering classes some 25 years ago, Dies were expensive to manufacture, and would only be manufactured for a "minimum run" of between 5000 and 10,000 objects.
The reasoning behind this was cost recovery for the initial die production.
Also, as each piece was struck, the die would wear a fraction, and subsequently over the dies life the "image" would slowly reduce the detail impression.
Also, as time progressed, through work hardening and internal stress, the die would reach a point where it would be expected to crack and possibly shatter.

A "sister" example I can roughly quote is of the die used to strike the Polish Parachute Brigade qualification Eagle.
The original dies were "rested" after 2500 strikes. This was done for possibly two reasons.
1)A new manufacturer stepped in, and most probably undermined the quality of the now used die.
2)The new manufacturer could make more money - charging for a new die.

The new die lasted for about 3000 - 3500 strikes before the die weakened and the wing tip off the badge was compromised.
The die carried through for approx another 500 strikes before a terminal crack.

Now I know the production was not exactly the same as the German badges, but bare in mind the metal used on the Polish badges was Tombak which has a similar softness to silver.

I hope there might be something to gleen from what I have noted ...

Regards

Gary Jucha - England

[emaroli]

The thickness of the material even with the =/- for tolerances should not impact the details on the obverse. The material would be squeeze into the shape of the die. That is why the flaws are 3D. And the wrong material or too thick of a material could cause catastrophic die failure. ~ED

[tom hansen]

Thanks Gary and Ed-


So it sounds like:

1. any thickness difference in sheets of silver or neusilber would not have any influence on transmission of the impression of the die.

2. Secondly, it sounds like the experience of dies with another tombak award suggests 5-10,000 strikes is the lifetime of a die before cracks and flaws develop. Also, they were used until visible failure was apparent?

3. Dies were expensive, as many have suggested before


It seems like all this points to a single die with the junkcer RK with progression of flaws over time. Is this what everyone else sees from this information? Thanks

[Bob Hritz]

A crack in a die is not a terminal defect. All the die needs is to be 'rehoused' in a new die block with the proper compression to stop further expansion. A die cracks when the press is not set-up properly and causes too much pressure. Compressed metal must go somewhere, so the die gets flatter and the tempering of the die causes a crack.

When I worked for Taylor Forge, a division of Gulf+Western Industries, I recall the die makers working on creating dies every day. Taylor Forge made light and heavy forgings for the oil pipline industry, and other custom forged stock buyers. When someone from the Forging Institute wanted to have tiebars made that read FORGED in raised lettering, the die makers at Taylor Forge had the soft prototypes by the next working day. All that was required was the final polishing of the die and the hardning, so they could be used to forge the tie clips.

I still contend that if there was a shortage of die makers and finish polishers, how would one account for the thousands of tinnies made over the short span of the 3rd Reich. Every manufacturer would have in-house die makers and the smaller concerns could have the die work shopped out. When die makers are not creating dies, they are the in-house makers of machine parts that are broken or worn. Of course, such a prolific makers as Deschler and Assmann would have kept the die makers busy with the thousands of dies that were required.

You must remember that such simple items as buttons would require 1die for the button face and a 2nd die for the button back and a 3rd die for the button loop. If this were so complicated and time consuming, the Germans would have been closing their garments with sharpened pieces of bone. Some day, count the various patterns of buttons used ( including all the differnt die patterns of pebbling ) on 3rd Reich garments and you will see that die making is not something that was done over a period of months, but in a day or two.

Has anyone thought to look in any old phone books to see how many die makers would have been listed? I think you would be surprised. The phone books should be on film in any large German library.

Even today, the charge for a die to make company logo pins costs only a few hundred dollars for a custom pattern. There is nothing but the lack of understanding of the tool and die industry that would make one believe that die making is a very time consuming effort. From finished design to production, even in the 1930's, would not take more than a few days, excluding the time for burecrats to approve the prototypes.

Bob Hritz