The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[George Stimson]

Can't anything that can be produced be reproduced? As to why, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it was done intentionally.

[tom hansen]

Can't anything that can be produced be reproduced? As to why, I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it was done intentionally.

If that was true, George, we would have perfect juncker RK fakes. This fact suggests that these subtle flaws cannot be reproduced, even with modern equipment. Heck, they cannot get the larger details down, let alone subtle microscopic flaws. If it was possible to replicate even the minute flaws to the exact detail, fakers would do so.

[Dave Kane]

This 2nd. die allegation is just getting bazarre now!!! Are we to believe that the microscopic 'flaws' I have shown would be transferred EXACTLY to a 2nd block of steel that probably had a different composition to the first....and eventually begin to break down in exactly the same manner?


This is just beyond reason!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

it only gets bizzare if it is portrayed that the first die was the model from which the second die was copied.

It is not bizzare when you consider the process of cutting the first die AND the second die via the copying pantograph as described by Gordon from the same 5:1 scale model.

The transfer of the features of this scale model worked the first time, why not the second time? A feature of the die of 0.2 mm size is a feature of 1 mm in size of the plaster model and no longer that microscopic.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Okay, let's get back to differences, then. Dave, during your extensive microscopic examinations have you noticed any "flaws" or imperfections that appear on one (or more) of your S&Ls but not on others?

[Dave Kane]

George the pictures I have shown indicate clearly they are the same. There might be a 'variation' (however slight) because of material, temp. and how the silver 'flowed' when struck.

The flaws are the 'same' on each with the exception of the 935/4 showing the dimples...which are NOT flaws but debris, possibly was weld splatter!

Even the area between the 9 and 12 o'clock arm one can see evidence of flawing...much more pronounced on the 12oc BUT there is flawing on the 9oc.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Even the area between the 9 and 12 o'clock arm one can see evidence of flawing...much more pronounced on the 12oc BUT there is flawing on the 9oc.

There are flaws in the knee area between the 9 and 12 o'clock on type A but not on type B.

There are flaws in the knee area between the 6 and 9 o'clock arm on type B but not on type A

And what I really do not get is the rejection of the dimples being a flaw. Since when has a flaw to be something that is not permanent debris but only a crack.

For me a flaw is something that:

- is not intended by the original maker of the die
- leaves a distinct and reproducable trace in the final product

If there's no flaw then the product is flawless, which it is clearly is not when compared to the early 800 which has not that flaw.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

"There are flaws in the knee area between the 9 and 12 o'clock on type A but not on type B."

"There are flaws in the knee area between the 6 and 9 o'clock arm on type B but not on type A"





But there are!!! All very subtle but there are flaws apparent. Lighting and angle is awkward but I'll get some pics.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

that's exactly what I'm saying.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Did I misinterpret (you) when you suggested that the die are different because of the dimples and the lack of flawing in a portion of the knee in the 935/4 cross..?


I recall and please correct me...(it's been a long, long thread) that you suggested that the crosses were made by different die because of the above referenced.!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

here is what I said in the article and what I said in this thread and what I say again here:

The A-Type has a flaw (actually it's more like a row) in the knee area between the 9 and 12 o'clock arm. The B-Type does not have this flaw.Fig. 39 and Fig.40

The B-Type has a flaw in the knee area between the 6 and 9 o'clock arm. The A-Type does not have that flaw. Fig. 42 and 43.

Thats why I'm saying two dies.

I am not talking about any minute flaws.

Dietrich


Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Yes, that's what I thought you said....but I got really confused by your response to Tom regarding the pantograph / die making machine REPRODUCING in exacting detail even the minute flaws yet NOW it doesn't because it either added a flaw or left one out....

Disregard the microscopic flaws that I showed and let's go with the more visible...9 and 12 and 6 and 9...If this machine or technique replicates to such incredible detail how did it add or delete?


See what I mean?

[George Stimson]

"If that was true, George, we would have perfect juncker RK fakes. This fact suggests that these subtle flaws cannot be reproduced, even with modern equipment. Heck, they cannot get the larger details down, let alone subtle microscopic flaws. If it was possible to replicate even the minute flaws to the exact detail, fakers would do so."

Tom, I'm not talking about reproducing (copying) something from scratch with modern equipment, which the Juncker fakers are doing unsuccessfully. I'm talking about reproducing something using the original tools, molds, dies, whatever -- that were used to produce the original article.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

now I'm with you again - lost you for a second or two.

In three words: I don't know!

I can only throw theories around as anybody else at this time.

Fact is (for me at least):

- the die(s) were created from a 5:1 model
- the original die got the minute flaws and the knee flaw from somewhere

The knee flaw could very well be something that was 'done' to the die after the actuall copying process (finishing, polishing, ...)


Fact also is:

- the second die (or refurbished die) has the knee flaws switched in position and appearance.

Now, was this done by finishing up the second die or by finishing up the refurbished die? I don't know, but for me it's more plausible with a second die. No trace of repair in the knee area and no trace of repair in the traditional 3 and 6 o'clock arm areas.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Now we are back to a reasonable position! A repaired, refurbished or rehabilitated die is clearly the answer when one accepts that the machine (pantograph?) couldn't possibly add or delete detail and surely couldn't reproduce the two dozen or so microscopic flaws, fingerprints or landmarks that have been shown.

An item that has been nursed and made to last may show subtle differences, however!