The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Luftm40]

Harry, yes...but according to the theory, flawed crosses CAN be pre 45 if they are the type 'A"

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

we have discussed this already several time and you know my position. There are numerous details that are nearly the same on both types but there is no way that we are talking about one die for the crosses looked at.

Unless we open up the discussion about coming and going flaws, up and down each arm and jumping from knee to knee and bins all over the place with all kinds of material from Neusilber to "800" to "935", just to justify one die?

Not even taking into consideration the dent row and the two different knee flaws, how could or would one explain the flaw pattern in Fig. 35??

I'm so sure about two dies that I'm confident everybody should make up their own mind based on the pictures provided.


Harry,

the A-Type was heavily flawed at the end of it's live. The example with the painted finish, marked "800" is an A-Type and those flaws are - IMHO - the reason to introduce the B-Type, i.e. the 935-4.
Very late, the B-Type also developed the same flwas at the outer armes, as can be seen with the flawed 57 (B-Type) and the heavily flawed, non-magnetic, unmarked example.

Dietrich

[robert60446]

I'm so sure about two dies that I'm confident everybody should make up their own mind based on the pictures provided.
Dietrich

Based on the Dietrich article, here is the most important question: how much “B” die RK's crosses lost today on their value?

[Dave Kane]

Who will tell me which is an 'A' and which is a 'B'!

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[Dietrich Maerz]

Based on the Dietrich article, here is the most important question: how much “B” die RK's crosses lost today on their value?

For me this is not a question of value, it's a question of truth (or at least how I see the facts before me). It was always clear that S&L continued to produce after the war, this is nothing new. There was always the question about the flawed crosses. I was absolutely convinced to find something negative about the flawed crosses, but it turned out to be the opposite. I was always absolutely convinced that there is only one die. It turned out to be not the case.

I would be a very bad collector if I would not present my findings just because some market prices might or might not drop. And I'm sure you did not mean that.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

for me at least diferences between two pieces are explained by the differences they have between them, not by the commonalities. There are a ton of common features between the A- and B-Type, you show one of them.

The difference lies in the differences, however.

This picture is the best example. You cannot have those two flaw pattern with the same die.

Dietrich

[robert60446]

I would be a very bad collector if I would not present my findings just because some market prices might or might not drop. And I'm sure you did not mean that.

Dietrich

Dietrich,

I cannot describe how happy I’m right now because of your article and because of the “B” die exposure. Thanks to you we have one more “tool” in our hands to “eliminate” post 1945 production. It is plain simple for me right now that I will never buy “B” type RK! Unless someone else will prove that your theory is wrong. Excellent work!

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich and that's why you opened it to discussion and critique....you will argue for your findings and I'll do the same for mine

I can't explain why the material acted differently on some stampings yet exactly on others....the die don't lie and the eye don't lie!

Here are more....

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[robert60446]

Dietrich and that's why you opened it to discussion and critique....you will argue for your findings and I'll do the same for mine

I can't explain why the material acted differently on some stampings yet exactly on others....the die don't lie and the eye don't lie!

Here are more....

Dave,
i have to agree with Dietrich here: The difference lies in the differences...