The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Luftm40]

Robert, that is the type of knee jerk, blanket conclusion that (I hope) was not Dietrich's intent. After all, the 935/4 crosses are type "B"s and his theory holds that they are original. At the very most, this new theory places type B crosses in a grey area..the same one previously occupied by any flawed SL cross. Don't get me wrong, I like the theory and think it holds promise. It explains a lot of issues. I like to see thing for myself though, and would like to compare the characteristics of these two "types" in the flesh before deciding...

[Marc Garlasco]

Fabulous discussion all. I know this is pointless, but I will say it again. How I wish we had a veteran manufacturer willing to talk to us...but it is too late as I am sure these guys were already pretty old. It would be so interesting to hear why they did some things. I bet some of the things we take issue with would put them on the floor rolling. "You care about THAT!?!? It was a war and we did that by hand. Sorry if I was not perfect!" I often think we ascribe too much and expect to much perfection just because they are Germans. My appologies to my mother and to Frank Heukemes...

[Dave Kane]

Different but the same? Robert that's the problem in this two sided discussion


I'm surely not arguing againt post war production as I have always been very vocal in that regard but I'll still side with the Head Master regarding ONE die that eventually gave out!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

I will not discuss the commonalities you are showing. And why should I? My findings are not based on the commonalities! They are based on the differences. And if you are to explain why it is one die then please explain the differences and not the communalities. I 100% agree with you on the commonalities.

Explain to me and every reader how the flaw pattern in Fig 35 can be created by one die and one die only! Not even talking about the flaw row and the other ones.

Dietrich

[robert60446]

At the very most, this new theory places type B crosses in a grey area..the same one previously occupied by any flawed SL cross. Don't get me wrong, I like the theory and think it holds promise. It explains a lot of issues. I like to see thing for myself though, and would like to compare the characteristics of these two "types" in the flesh before deciding...

Andy, with all respect, every collector must ask himself right now a question: am I willing to pay thousands of dollars for the very, very, very “gray area” type “B” RK or not? Of course, everyone is free to have his own answer, but for me type “B” is finished!<o =""></o>

[Brian S]

Andy, with all respect, every collector must ask himself right now a question: am I willing to pay thousands of dollars for the very, very, very “gray area” type “B” RK or not? Of course, everyone is free to have his own answer, but for me type “B” is finished!<O =""></O>

I think you need to read the article again. All B type die crosses struck are not post '45. One thing we don't need here are more people throwing gasoline on the fire like you are doing.

What we have is a die that according to Dietrich's analysis ceased to function properly. That is the A type.

Then we have a B type that was utilized at some later time according to Dietrich.

What bothers me is that it's not all about the differences, it's also about the MINUTE similarities as Dave has pointed out. These are practically microscopic and indeed are microscopic when you consider the magnifications. A mother die copy reproducing this degree of similarity in such minute underbelly regions of the beadings???

I understand and follow the article very well and if you indeed read it and not the Reader's Digest Version, you'll come to the conclusion that flawing on the postwar pieces is much more pronounced than on a perfect S&L B-type die. If you believe in the B type die...

There are still a lot of unknowns...

Leftover cores from the B type die utilized in some '57 crosses. That's almost for certain.

The fact that B type '57 crosses have beading flaws...

Now we need to secure B type crosses with provenance and provide a timeline.

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich I can't nor can you explain to me why the minute flaws that are exactly the same regarding position, shape etc. appear on supposedly different die.


I am only responding to your assertion of a 10,000 lb. press producing these frames and the tag of die don't lie!




""I will not discuss the commonalities you are showing. And why should I? My findings are not based on the commonalities! They are based on the differences.""


Pretty one sided science....

[robert60446]

Different but the same? Robert that's the problem in this two sided discussion

Dear Dave,

I can see your point. However, please take moment and try to look at the other side of the story. Can you see this letter “A”? A now take a look at another letter “Ǎ”. Looks the same! Oh, no wait is different! Based on this, what are you going to say, that these two “A” letters are the same or maybe different? Sure they have many common points, however they are different! Similarities are good to the top of the letter, and then you have one big difference! It is the same story with these RK dies...(IMO).<o =""></o>

[Brian S]

Dietrich I can't nor can you explain to me why the minute flaws that are exactly the same regarding position, shape etc. appear on supposedly different die.


I am only responding to your assertion of a 10,000 lb. press producing these frames and the tag of die don't lie!




""I will not discuss the commonalities you are showing. And why should I? My findings are not based on the commonalities! They are based on the differences.""


Pretty one sided science....

I'm afraid I'm a little stuck on these points also.

A timeline on some of what you call the B type would help immensely.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave and Brian,

I understand your reasoning about the minute communalities. What I do NOT understand is the accusation of a "on sided science".

I can do this:

Here are two cars. Both have 4 wheels, a front window, 4 doors, ....but one is a SUV and the other is a cabrio. So would I concentrate on the communalities or on the differences in explaining the two cars?

I know this is simplified.

Here is my explanation: There was was Mother Die. From that the two Types A- and B-Type were cut. The copying process was so good that your minute details were copied into the die. Those are the communalities.

However, there are differences and that is what makes the two different.

I will immidiately admit that I was totally wrong and will openly state so if somebody can explain to me the Fig. 35 and the flaw row on the 935-4 (which is not on the flawed and unflawed 800) as well as the comming and going (if it's one die) of the two kneee flaws with the existence of one die.


Dietrich

[robert60446]

Now we need to secure B type crosses with provenance and provide a timeline.

Brian,

At this point it is impossible to this! I agree with point that “B” type dies were used for original production as well! However can you tell me how many of them are good and how many is not? I don’t think so…RK it is expansive collectible, for many on this forum it will be one time purchase only…are you asking them to “take a chance”? You are saying that I’m “throwing gasoline on the fire”, I’m sorry Brian, but Dietrich article is “gasoline”…however I would like to apologize for taking this thread in to the “wrong” direction, so I will stay quiet from now on…<o =""></o>

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

there is a Timeline in the article. Just click on that very little box under the chapter time line.

And - by the way - this is a theory, the timeline that is. As soon as there is one 935-4 cross with solid (and I mean dead solid as we always want) provenance, we have a point in time. So far - to my knowledge - this is not the case.


Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

I will continue to post pictures showing crosses with the same yet soooooo slightly different interpretation in the stamping......but the SAME nontheless!!!


I'm far from 'scientific' here but could the 'difference' simply be the 'FLOW' or 'LIQUIDITY' of the material used at the time creating the appearance of being different and all the while being the same?

Brian has gathered this discussion well and sort of brought it back to focus

[Brian S]

I can theorize to some extent the presence of a 'flaw' appearing or not appearing in a valley. These are very very small pieces of metal squeezed into a die that has now developed incredibly tiny crevices. I noticed this actually long ago in several photos that an exact match up was not there. I assumed it was because as the piece is extracted from the die that the tiny pieces could become trapped in places shaped unevenly and left behind in the extraction process. As the crevice becomes larger, I can imagine this 'loss' of material being left behind occurring less and less as the opening widens. You asked...

[Brian S]

I'll take this another step to try to drive what I thought I'd been seeing over the past few years with all the photos, from your Figure, Dietrich.

The beading on the cross on the top of your photo is more flawed, and I assumed, from a later pressing.

When I look at what I thought to be its younger brother on the bottom, a more 'worn' cross, I saw flaws that directionally appeared to me to be evolutionary in position. In other words, the direction of the flaws appeared consistent, some of the bulges on the earlier brother appeared to have grown appropriately in the upper photo and where 'missing' I subscribed to my earlier theory.

Now, I am comparing the commonalities of the flaw evolution here, sticking entirely to the commonalities and explaining the differences.