Dave and Brian!
When I started this project, I was absolutely convinced I will find solid evidence for one die. This was always my strong position. Strating the project, I had one very big benefit going into this topic: I do not own any S&L RK. It was always and will always be a "doubt on the judgment" if one own the piece(s) in question, something Dave sometimes brings up during the Rounder-discussion. And that is quite natural and gives any discussion the neccessary 'drive'.
As I outlined in my article, I saw two big problems with the S&L controversy:
- the flaw and it's nature
- the time line and the flaws
I think that I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the flaw(s) are intrinsic features of the die producing each frame. As Dave shows with his minute details, those are reproduced all the time, if present. The same happens with the 'real' flaws. I don't think one can reasonably assume that the 'good' flaws that alledgedly support the one die theory are always there, but that the 'bad flaws' (i.e the ones that make the difference between A- and B-Type) come and go as they please or in a way to support the one die theory. And yes, the flaws are identical in shape and form, as Fig. 9 shows.
However, they are only identical in shape and form inside each Type. Flaws between A and B Type are not identical, as Fig. 35 clearly shows.
Before the article we were all under the assumption that a flaw is a flaw and everybody (minor exeptions granted) was convinced there is one die. Harry already showed in an earlier thread some evidence for two dies.
With the more detailled pictures it became clear that the flaws do not look the same and to support the one die theory one needs to believe that the extraction of the frame out of the die causes different distortions.
However, those different distortions go completely along the line of the type of cross, i.e. one "set of distortion" for flawed 800 and one set of distortion for "flawed unmarked". I cannot and will not subscribe to this theory.
So far no theory has been brought forward for one die regarding the 'dent row' at the inner 3 o'clock arm of the B-Type. To reconcile this dent row with one die, this row also has to come and go and always in relation to the type pressed. The 'soft silver theory' doesn't work either because this flaw row shows with 935-4, 800-4, 800 and Neusilber.
The different pressure theory also doesn't work, because we have all thoses materials present.
So far, no explanation has been brought forward to explain one die and the presence of the knee flaw, which - very consistent and completely along the line with my "two die theory" - appear always in conjunction with the other flaws in pairs:
- 6-9 o'clock knee flaw and dent row
- 9-12 o'clock knee flaw and 3 o'clock flaws
Coincidence? Die pressure? Material? Distorted Extraction? Vise Clamps?
Or two dies?
I remember very well the earlier discussions! The problem were the 935-4. No (visible) flaws but also no provenance and very, very likely late war. Now it is absolutely clear in my mind and I don't need to fall back on all kinds of 'possible but far fetched" explanations, as we all did before with the bin theory and such. As Dave always says, if you need to explain all kinds of strange circumstances, it's not good.
The indication of the dent row in a very pristine condition, the obviously smaller size of the frame and the 6-9 o'clock knee flaw (all big, visible and pronaunced) on the 935-4 compared to the flawed 800 were all these features are not present, but others, which are not present at the 935-4 and also under the very reasonable assumption that both are late war is for me absolute and definite proof of two dies.
To "sanction" the 935-4 it needs to be early, or it needs to have gotten a special treatment with the already flawed die. A treatment that made all regular flaws disappear, leave all the minute flaws, create the dent row, take away the 9-12 o'clock knee flaw and put the 6-9 o'clock flaw in, make the rim a little smaller. And this treatment is not soft silver related, since there are 800-4 and Neusilber.
And S&L used this special treatment also for the 1957 edition, at least in the beginning? Everyting is possible.....
The bin theory doesn't work either, who would sort this mess out?
My opinion about this subject is out and can be read by everybody. Everybody must make his own mind up. If somebody or everybody can honestly reconcile the findings with one die, sitting alone in the study, unbiased and without preconceived opinion, this is absolutely perfect and fine for me.
At least one thing is clear for me (and the numerous e-mails and PM's confirm it) that I have shown solid, logic and reproducable evidence for two dies. Something I wanted to refute in the first place.
Dietrich
When I started this project, I was absolutely convinced I will find solid evidence for one die. This was always my strong position. Strating the project, I had one very big benefit going into this topic: I do not own any S&L RK. It was always and will always be a "doubt on the judgment" if one own the piece(s) in question, something Dave sometimes brings up during the Rounder-discussion. And that is quite natural and gives any discussion the neccessary 'drive'.
As I outlined in my article, I saw two big problems with the S&L controversy:
- the flaw and it's nature
- the time line and the flaws
I think that I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the flaw(s) are intrinsic features of the die producing each frame. As Dave shows with his minute details, those are reproduced all the time, if present. The same happens with the 'real' flaws. I don't think one can reasonably assume that the 'good' flaws that alledgedly support the one die theory are always there, but that the 'bad flaws' (i.e the ones that make the difference between A- and B-Type) come and go as they please or in a way to support the one die theory. And yes, the flaws are identical in shape and form, as Fig. 9 shows.
However, they are only identical in shape and form inside each Type. Flaws between A and B Type are not identical, as Fig. 35 clearly shows.
Before the article we were all under the assumption that a flaw is a flaw and everybody (minor exeptions granted) was convinced there is one die. Harry already showed in an earlier thread some evidence for two dies.
With the more detailled pictures it became clear that the flaws do not look the same and to support the one die theory one needs to believe that the extraction of the frame out of the die causes different distortions.
However, those different distortions go completely along the line of the type of cross, i.e. one "set of distortion" for flawed 800 and one set of distortion for "flawed unmarked". I cannot and will not subscribe to this theory.
So far no theory has been brought forward for one die regarding the 'dent row' at the inner 3 o'clock arm of the B-Type. To reconcile this dent row with one die, this row also has to come and go and always in relation to the type pressed. The 'soft silver theory' doesn't work either because this flaw row shows with 935-4, 800-4, 800 and Neusilber.
The different pressure theory also doesn't work, because we have all thoses materials present.
So far, no explanation has been brought forward to explain one die and the presence of the knee flaw, which - very consistent and completely along the line with my "two die theory" - appear always in conjunction with the other flaws in pairs:
- 6-9 o'clock knee flaw and dent row
- 9-12 o'clock knee flaw and 3 o'clock flaws
Coincidence? Die pressure? Material? Distorted Extraction? Vise Clamps?
Or two dies?
I remember very well the earlier discussions! The problem were the 935-4. No (visible) flaws but also no provenance and very, very likely late war. Now it is absolutely clear in my mind and I don't need to fall back on all kinds of 'possible but far fetched" explanations, as we all did before with the bin theory and such. As Dave always says, if you need to explain all kinds of strange circumstances, it's not good.
The indication of the dent row in a very pristine condition, the obviously smaller size of the frame and the 6-9 o'clock knee flaw (all big, visible and pronaunced) on the 935-4 compared to the flawed 800 were all these features are not present, but others, which are not present at the 935-4 and also under the very reasonable assumption that both are late war is for me absolute and definite proof of two dies.
To "sanction" the 935-4 it needs to be early, or it needs to have gotten a special treatment with the already flawed die. A treatment that made all regular flaws disappear, leave all the minute flaws, create the dent row, take away the 9-12 o'clock knee flaw and put the 6-9 o'clock flaw in, make the rim a little smaller. And this treatment is not soft silver related, since there are 800-4 and Neusilber.
And S&L used this special treatment also for the 1957 edition, at least in the beginning? Everyting is possible.....
The bin theory doesn't work either, who would sort this mess out?
My opinion about this subject is out and can be read by everybody. Everybody must make his own mind up. If somebody or everybody can honestly reconcile the findings with one die, sitting alone in the study, unbiased and without preconceived opinion, this is absolutely perfect and fine for me.
At least one thing is clear for me (and the numerous e-mails and PM's confirm it) that I have shown solid, logic and reproducable evidence for two dies. Something I wanted to refute in the first place.
Dietrich
Comment