The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Brian S]

This is the result of some material getting into the large hollows of the die that formed the beading. It is uneven suggesting accidental spillage of some molten material. Some material that adhered to the die in those beading hollows. Notice the absolute random uneven pattern of this row of bumps. Not a die flaw.

[Dave Kane]

Another bit of 'debris'....

[Brian S]

Dietrich, when I said schmutz I wasn't referring to dust bunnies, give me a little intellectual break here. Something molten and something that dried and adherred to the die. That is absolutely clear to me.

Think how the die was formed originally with tools and carefull carving. This occured AFTER the die was completed and in use.

[Dave Kane]

And, the 'pressed result!

[Brian S]

And as the material shows more distinctly after the molten spill, the sharper the image as I see on the top cross.

In fact, your photos prove my point, the molten spill or whatever it was is slowly but surely erased off the die by continual pressings.

With regard to timelines, you don't know the timelines. To suggest it appeared, disappeared and re-appeared is not within the knowledge base as I've read the article.

But NOT a flaw. This is a misnomer.

[Dietrich Maerz]

.... and there is another minor problem: As soon as the Schmutz appeared (935-4) all the other (big) flaws disappeared, even the starting dimple, of the flawed 800 .....

How can that be?

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich in your latest composit the defect become less and less with age but yet you have asserted that the die does 'not heal itself'...!

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich the 'flaws' didn't disappear.....all along they ARE THERE just look at my pictures!!


If you are talking about when the die began to split at the flanges that's a different story!

I have attempted to show the SAME flaws present from early to late not to explain the severly breaking down of the arms!

[Dietrich Maerz]

And as the material shows more distinctly after the molten spill, the sharper the image as I see on the top cross.
In fact, your photos prove my point, the molten spill or whatever it was is slowly but surely erased off the die by continual pressings.
With regard to timelines, you don't know the timelines. To suggest it appeared, disappeared and re-appeared is not within the knowledge base as I've read the article. But NOT a flaw. This is a misnomer.

So the molten spill (or whatever) came into the die. Clearly this must have happened after all the pristine 800 and flawed 800 have been pressed. Right?

That is at least a start of a time line.

So it showed up firstly at the 935-4. Right?

It is still there in the 57 and after that, as you stated above. Right?

There's another time line.

So all crosses that have this feature, must be after the flawed 800, that's the time line. And coincidentaly, all those crosses with this 'feature" DO NOT have flaws like the flawed 800 (in the beginning) and when developed later (as you just confirmed that it must be later "surely erased by continual pressing") the flaw pattern is distingly different.

The appeared, disappeared was in reference to Dave's statement "And, when cleaned off after a 'run' the die is right back to normal!"

My position is clearly that is appeared and NEVER disappeared, because it was there from the very beginning of the B-Type die.

There were two dies!

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich in your latest composit the defect become less and less with age but yet you have asserted that the die does 'not heal itself'...!

This is not 'healing' this is wear as is also present when you speak of a 'sharp" strike in the beginning of a dies life and a less sharper strike an the end of the life time. This is clear.
Healing is "completely disapear" and was used in connection of seemingly complete disapearance of the typical flaws - if you subscribe to the one die theory.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

My other theory about cross excess material being left behind is perfectly illustrated in your figure 9. It absolutely shows the front and back of the same cross but with flaw material missing.

[Dietrich Maerz]

... is this similiar to a Senat confirmation hearing?? ...I'm just asking

Dietrich

[Brian S]

On EXACTLY what crosses do you show that dent row in the beading? Could you please list them?

[Dietrich Maerz]

My other theory about cross excess material being left behind is perfectly illustrated in your figure 9. It absolutely shows the front and back of the same cross but with flaw material missing.

My theory of a die flaw growing over time is perfectly illustrated in my Fig. 9 (and with all the other crosses where the flaw clearly grows, look at Marcs and Richards). It absolutely shows the front and back of the same cross with flaws less developed on one side and more on the other. A clear indication for a timely difference between pressing and assembly and also a clear indication that the worker did not pair frames to make them look the same (something that was mentioned in an earlier thred to explain the 935-4 out of the bin..)

By the way, the same is the case with the 935-4. Obverse and reverse with the dent row (the feature) and WITHOUT any other flaws.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

... is this similiar to a Senat confirmation hearing?? ...I'm just asking

Dietrich

You are being thanked for going into this with one idea and coming out with an opinion and facts as you've seen them with an entirely different opinion. Now please be willing to discuss the obverse of your unintended conclusions.

We'll get to the discussion about your membership in the communist party, your friends, your relatives and yours thoughts regarding the Constitution in due time.