The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Brian S]

Dietrich, I'm sure you have these in much higher magnification and resolution. I would really like to see these two in much much better comparison at this point.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I knew I would come under fire and that is the purpose od every investigation or finding. If it cannot withstand the critique it is not worth the paper (or screen) it's written on.

I think it would greatly serve the topic to try to refute the findings with the same logic I tried to apply in my findings.

So, may I kindly ask the critics to explain to me the Fig. 35 (I know I asked before already...)

Brian, what you are saying was something I thought about also. But the appearance of the flaws (the pyramidial form) and the same identical shape (when present) is for me absolutely inconceivable in regards of that explanation.

In Fig. 35 for instance, your theory of cravices would not only leave differenbt traces when the flaw is present but also no trace at all if not present (if you work with one die). Now - of course - everything is possible. Is it probable? Is it a more easy and logic explanation I brought forward? Does it work with the mechanical forces and laws of a die?

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich...'one sided science' was my response to your position of NOT discussing mine....Sarcasm lad as I know you are open to everything


As much as you are convinced of the 2 die I am sure of only one!!!!

The "TIME LINE" is the answer to all of this!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here you go...

[Dave Kane]

How about differing die pressures...surely that could have been manipulated at the time!

[Dietrich Maerz]

The "TIME LINE" is the answer to all of this!

The Time Line with ONE die needs to go like this:

800 unflawed
935-4 unflawed (but why the dent row?????)
800-flawed (no dent row no number 4???)
1957 unflawed (with dent row!!!)
Unmarked flawed (with dent row!!)

And between those models the knee flaws have to come and go.... and the 3 o'clock flaws have to come and go in certain beadings, and the inner corners sometimes fit and sometimes don't and the unflawed 800 had the real pickling and the 935-4 had the painted finish....

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

How about differing die pressures...surely that could have been manipulated at the time!

How would one achieve this with different pressure??? And sometimes not?? I mean the whole row, not just one dimple.

[Dietrich Maerz]

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

Brian the problem is not GROWING flaws, the problem is DISAPEARING AND GROWING flaws. And with "Match" I don't mean visual identical match, I mean "both there".

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

The Time Line with ONE die needs to go like this:

800 unflawed
935-4 unflawed (but why the dent row?????)
800-flawed (no dent row no number 4???)
1957 unflawed (with dent row!!!)
Unmarked flawed (with dent row!!)

And between those models the knee flaws have to come and go.... and the 3 o'clock flaws have to come and go in certain beadings, and the inner corners sometimes fit and sometimes don't and the unflawed 800 had the real pickling and the 935-4 had the painted finish....

Dietrich

Dietrich, there's a '57 cross on the German site that has the dipped ring and what appears to be the dents....

There are too many variables in this area that we shouldn't talk about the crosses in absolutes....I am guilty!

However, I can show absolute minute details that are the same, exact features that can't be argued and thus my 'position'! Respectfully, your position is based on an abstract of difference which without a series or number of differnces,any explanation may be applied...It's just too loose at the moment!

[tom hansen]

How would one achieve this with different pressure??? And sometimes not?? I mean the whole row, not just one dimple.

Dietrich- Is the flaw on the inferior part of the 3 oclock arm which extends from the corner with the "dents" seen on both sides of the cross? Thanks-

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

it's too loose for you. It's very firm for me. Not because I'm stubborn, but because for me it is clear as it can be. But that's just me. I cannot discuss away my findings with any other explanation. If somebody else can do that for himself, that's fine with me.
There's always the pressure, the debris, the bins, the evolution and devolution of flaws for some people. But not for me.

And don't take this wrong. I have made my position very clear and have explained why I personally came to this conclusion. I you come to a different one, based on the facts and pictures, that's perfectly okay with me.

I cannot explain the features I have seen with falling debris and variation in die pressue. I can, however, explain it as I outlined.

Dietrich



P.S.: The cross on the German site is a 1957 marked 800 K&Q and has no flaw row.

[Dave Kane]

Here's a constant yet at the same time a bit rambling set of flaws...they are the same but minutely different! The difference is they are MORE the same than different!!!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich- Is the flaw on the inferior part of the 3 oclock arm which extends from the corner with the "dents" seen on both sides of the cross? Thanks-

Yes.

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2