Dietrich - S&L RK???

[tom hansen]

Sorry, I thought the focus was to get Dietrich's article out for publication.

Why an argument? I said the primary focus there (meaning the old thread "more S&L die flaws") was just to see if other S&Ls had similar flaws. There was no in depth analysis of anything there. It was just a thread. There is no need to pick apart my words here. I am as interested as the next guy in reading about Dietrich's work, as I think there will be some great information.

I think everyone will be interested to see the work that Dietrich has put in to analysis of these crosses.

[George Stimson]

I think that Tom was referring to the earlier thread.

In any case, I'll keep my mouth shut re Dietrich's article, except to say that I look forward to seeing it published! It will generate much good thought!

[Dietrich Maerz]

George,

one important aspect is of course to prevent people or at least think about it more than twice from buying some of the S&L RK's that are currently on sale on some sites.
For me that was the important aspect, to make the line between pre-45 and post 45 productions of S&L a bit sharper.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

This is going to be based on items 'in hand' not just old doctored pictures and surely no assertions of a "new" something or other in town!

Always the back hand now from you Dave. Does it have to be the same crosses over and over from 100 different angles? If you don't appreciate discovery then ignore it. Why back hand it? Dietrich has taken the photos of crosses in hand and discovered something not just replayed the same old theme over and over. But he also appreciates discovery whatever the source. Too bad you have become so narrow minded. George I know you don't appreciate these responses but then why do you allow the backhanded insults?

[George Stimson]

"George I know you don't appreciate these responses but then why do you allow the backhanded insults?"

Okay, well I guess you guys are even then.