Announcement

**Brian S** · 05-05-2005, 09:21 AM

You're the judge and this is a trial. You control the discussion of the evidence. An RK was 'committed'. It's your job to allow and dis-allow evidence from both sides. If the presentation goes astray, the judge stops it and insists the 'side' get back to the evidence.

We all agree the ability to mint coins and such from masters/hubs/daughters was possible long before 1943. Great. Done. Been there. Now back to the evidence.

Do you have EVIDENCE or can you INTERPRET the photographic evidence you have to determine these crosses were minted from a die created from a master?

Or, is there EVIDENCE to SUGGEST the die was REPAIRED.

That's really it. Explain the evidence, not the possibilities that don't talk to the specifics of the evidence.

**Brian S** · 05-05-2005, 09:23 AM

EVIDENCE:

Photographic evidence of a material spill.

EVIDENCE:

925 silver was utilized immediately after type 'A'.

Questions:

Material spill, why?

935 silver immediately afterwards, why?

Does the number of pounds of pressure required to press an RK decrease from 800 to 935 silver?

**George Stimson** · 05-05-2005, 09:26 AM

Sorry to be late getting back to you on this, Andy, but when I got your request I was away from my house and I had to drive home halfway across the state and then things were piled up and blah, blah, blah....

Anyway, based on the criteria for determining "pickled or painted" described here http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...inted+frosting, I would say that the frosting on this "4"-marked S&L EK 2 was applied by pickling because on one area of the rim where the frosting is worn away (impossible to photograph) the rim does not appear to be polished.

Attached Files

sl2frosting.jpg (109.4 KB, 99 views)

**George Stimson** · 05-05-2005, 09:31 AM

I'm the judge

Right. As the judge I control the admission of evidence. I don't have to explain, justify, or refute it. That's up to the Prosecution and the Defense.

**George Stimson** · 05-05-2005, 09:54 AM

Verdict?

And if I had to come to a conclusion at this point I would probably declare a mistrial because it appears that the jury of our peers is hopelessly deadlocked (although leaning by a substantial majority towards Dietrich's point of view): http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ad.php?t=99300

**Rich G** · 05-05-2005, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by George Stimson

Sorry to be late getting back to you on this, Andy, but when I got your request I was away from my house and I had to drive home halfway across the state and then things were piled up and blah, blah, blah....

Anyway, based on the criteria for determining "pickled or painted" described here http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...inted+frosting, I would say that the frosting on this "4"-marked S&L EK 2 was applied by pickling because on one area of the rim where the frosting is worn away (impossible to photograph) the rim does not appear to be polished.

It would be really useful to really see the comparison between this chemical reaction frosting and the liquid applied frosting. Looking at the EK2 that George has provided, the frosting seems the same as eg. '100' EK2's and the 2 S&L RK's that I have and my guess is that this is not the chemical reaction type.

The truth is, I don't know how to compare because I do not have an example of each to be able to use a benchmark.

**Tiger 1** · 05-05-2005, 10:13 AM

Good morning Brian,

Johnnie Cochran is still dead and exasperation is not martyrdom. So please.

I find it somewhat incongruous that you ask questions of me that I have no answer for yet when you yourself don't know the answer either. We all are just speculating when we strip the fluff away at this time. At this point all of our collective thoughts are valid until proof positive. I try to accept your possition with and open mind.

You seem to want to diminish my 'recent' experience in the metalcraft field. Brian, I work with metal as part of my livelyhood. This experience was built on the study and practise of techniques that were developed long before I took up the interest of metalcraft. How can my input be irrelative? What practical skills do you bring to this table? In the same vein how does Dave's experience with forensic sciences (with humans?) carry over into metal work? Does Dave's Forensic training trump Dietrich's Engineer training? I would suggest that maybe the engineer has a better handle on industrial processes. Again, I don't ask to be confrontational just to better understand your positions and experiences.

We can look all we want at the 'modern' technology for answers but I suggest that the answer lies in understanding how things were done the first half of the century. After all that's when these decorations were supposedly made. Right?

I'm also very sure, that like myself, both you and Dave also didn't work at S&L in 1940-1945. So what's your point?

You may 'see' repair. I happen to see a series of ridges that so far have not been explained how they got there. At this point none of us here has the answer.

You keep asking for evidence. Yet seemingly not seriously entertaining any idea that does not fit into your strongly held notions. Why is that? Shouldn't we consider everything as a possiblility in finding the answer to this perplexing question?

Tony

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-05-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by George Stimson

I would say that the frosting on this "4"-marked S&L EK 2 was applied by pickling because on one area of the rim where the frosting is worn away (impossible to photograph) the rim does not appear to be polished.

George,

the pickled frosting cannot be worn away! It's kind of engraved into the cross and sits deeper. I'm confident that your cross has the painted frosting - the more so since the 'real' frosting ONLY works with silver.

Dietrich

**George Stimson** · 05-05-2005, 10:56 AM

frosting

I (happily) stand corrected, then!

**Dave Kane** · 05-05-2005, 11:19 AM

'Morning all!

The picture I offered last night sort of got 'lost' in a bunch of posts so I would like to see it revisited.

I had the cross in hand and examined very closely these dimples and those on the lower portion of the 3oc arm.

I found NO difference in the general configuration, depth and crater shape of these dimples and those that appear in the 'row'.

It has been asserted that this 'row' is indicative of a new die and this 'row' of dimples is a flaw in the die.

It couldn't be...no way and no how!!

The obverse of the cross has the 'row' on the lower 3oc arm but DOES NOT show any indication whatsoever of the craters that appear on the front of the cross.

These craters couldn't possibly be die flaws but rather and logically so....debris of some sort. I lean toward weld.

Let's try and get through what we have in hand!

Attached Files

DSC06624.JPG (42.5 KB, 90 views)

**Bob Hritz** · 05-05-2005, 11:25 AM

Facts 1: St&L was a profit driven business fulfilling orders for government issue and privarte sale orders, medals, pins, buttons, and other metal insignia. The role of a profit driven business is to maximize profits.

Postulation 1: St&L didn't give a rat's a$$ if there were miscroscopic 'flaws' in a Knigthts Cross. The only way they would change a die, replace a die, or repair a die is if the finished product was rejected by the customer, ie; Orders and Medals Chancelory.

Facts 2: Die making, die cutting, die polishing do not involve alchemy or the black arts. It was done every day. If you doubt it, look at any period catalog of the metals and insignia makers and see the range of their products. The catalog items do not include the myriad of tinnies and festival pins that were designed and put into production constantly. On many products, it takes multiple dies for the finished item.

Postulation 2: If it tooks months to create, cut and polish dies, the good manufactures would still be catching up, with the thousands of dies needed to fulfill the catalogued items.

Facts 3: We see two clear types of St&L Knight's Crosses. On these two distinct types, there are similarities as well as differences.

Postulation 3: Dies were repaired and reblocked leaving specific traits of both patterns on the same (repaied) die.

Facts 4: St&L made 1957 pattern Knight's Crosses.The WWII era frame die was still in existance

Postulation 4: The pressmen overshot the press and further damaged the die, opening new or old portions of cracks. No one cared as these were NOT government contracts and were for private sale to former awardees and anyone else who wanted them.

Facts5: There exists post WWII St&L pattern 1939 Knight's Crosses.

Postulation 5: They may have been produced at St&L (according to reputable sources). There are also crude types that were supposedly produced in Great Britian by some mystery dealer ( so many claim to know who, but no one will actually reveal this person). St&L may have found it more profitable to sell their dies to an interested party and cut new dies with in-house die makers who are already on the payroll. The demand for 1957 Knight's Crosses could not have been so high that a production time lapse would cause the company financial harm.

Epilogue: I do not have the answers, so perhaps I only waste my time and limited amount of brain cell activity. However, there is compelling evidence to support my conclusions.These are my conclusions, only, and I hope others will help fill in the voids to either prove or disprove my postulations.

Bob Hritz

ps: The technical side brought forth by Tony is invaluable. He has studied and learned the archaic methods of the past and is not one who just reads, but also practises the techniques of the working of metal.

pps: Tony, I remember your and Andy's (rest his soul) first broadsword, when we were youngsters!

**khstover** · 05-05-2005, 12:05 PM

number crunching on Dietrich's table in post 431

Hi,

Dietrich's table is enlightening in terms of answering Brian's question in post 452.

First definitions: Hardness is the ability of a material to withstand scratching or penetration. Tension strength is the ability to withstand the forces of compression, tension and shear. As for units, hardness is given on a scale, while N = 1 Kg * 1 meter/second^2 (SI unit of force, the Newton)

Hardness is directly proportional to tension strength, but the relationship isn't 1-1. For 935 silver, we have a hardness of 125, and a tension strength of 290 N/mm^2. For 800 silver, 130 and 370 N/mm^2.

So, for a (130/125 = 1.04) 4% increase in hardness, we get a (370/290=1.276) 27.6% increase in tension strength.

Therefore, you would expect a die to experience a 27% increase in the amount of force needed to press something of 800 silver as opposed to 935.

So, if a die was failing on striking 800 silver items, and was repaired/replaced and you were worried about another failure of the die, it would seem reasonable to step up to 935 silver if you could afford it, and quality mattered.

Sorry for the pedantry, guys.

Kevin

**Brian S** · 05-05-2005, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by khstover

Hi,

So, if a die was failing on striking 800 silver items, and was repaired/replaced and you were worried about another failure of the die, it would seem reasonable to step up to 935 silver if you could afford it, and quality mattered.

Kevin

Kevin, where have you been...

Thank you. I appreciate your real-world knowledge in the application to the evidence we have here.

27% less pounds of pressure on the repaired die IS a significant number.

Look guys. If I were selfish and didn't care about the facts and I owned a Type B cross, I'd swear based on the evidence of MULTIPLE DIES and the existence of the hub/master/mother/daughter/sisters/aunts and uncle dies.

Why? Because there is only ONE Type B die people. One. You want to suggest multiple dies and how easy it was and blah blah blah I will selfishly agree. And, based on your assertions of multiple dies I will also agree that the master exists, the hub exists and dies are still being created today and therefore given the price value of RKs today, Type 'A's are still being minted. After all, why not? It's so easy... The collector market is there. And you all love Type 'A's. So fine, you want to bring out the selfish side of Brian S, you've got it people. And with it, your worthless Type 'A's. I subscribe to your theories of multiple dies and with it, the existence of multiple, perfect copy, Type 'A' dies. Still produced today.

**Dave Kane** · 05-05-2005, 12:45 PM

Kevin, very well put and for a 'lay person' perfectly clear!

Addressing economics and logic...why would S&L, in a war time economy step UP to the more expensive and probably harder to obtain 935 grade of silver?

I propose the answer is that they HAD to in order to maintain the contract and as we all know, in business a little less profit is better than no profit!

It stands to reason that the softer but more costly silver was used to 'maintain' the die.

**Brian S** · 05-05-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Dave Kane

It stands to reason that the softer but more costly silver was used to 'maintain' the die.

Nah, I'm going over to the multiple die theory Dave. I endorse "greed" over facts and logic.

The 'B' Type. The only one of the scores of S&L dies that can be conclusively proven to a period of time. For me, it's the unflawed 'B' Type. All others come from any one of those scores of dies created from the MotherShip anytime from 1940 to 2005. Anyone asked S&L for an 'A' Type die lately? They are after all easy, cheap and made quickly. Put me down for one, please.

Announcement

The Two S&L Dies for RK's

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread