The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich you talk of a time line like it's been discovered and confirmed....we don't know when the 800 large or small was used nor do we know when the 935/4 was first stamped out and surely we have the missing link from one of the oldest and prolific medal/award makers in Germany.....the "L" marked S&L Knight's Cross!


Far too many loopholes.......

An oft overlooked ( at least among this circle ) fingerprint on a Cross does NOT suggest in your very strong terms a NEW die!

[Dietrich Maerz]

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

Brian,

on thing is clear and I hope you understand that and will not "hang me" on this technicality. I did not examine ALL crosses there are on this face of the earth!
I have seen it so far:

- on all 935-4 I have seen
- on all 935 I have seen (one at Winklers site, by the way)
- on unmarked, non-magnetic crosses
- on 800-4
- on (one) 800
- on several 1957 1st Type

Dietrich

[Brian S]

- on all 935-4 I have seen
- on all 935 I have seen (one at Winklers site, by the way)
- on unmarked, non-magnetic crosses
- on 800-4
- on (one) 800
- on several 1957 1st Type

Now condition please, in terms of flaw degree. Each type. Please, no hanging here.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now condition please, in terms of flaw degree. Each type. Please, no hanging here.

I neither do understand "condition" nor 'hanging'. What do you mean?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

I neither do understand "condition" nor 'hanging'. What do you mean?

Dietrich

Meaning I won't 'hang' you for not looking at every S&L on Earth. Not critical. I think we have a good population.

Condition. What degree of flaws in the beading? Each type. Also, regarding the row of dents, does the row of dents get less distinct as the flaws get more distinct if there are indeed flaws on the beading of the examples you've mentioned with the dent row.

[Dave Kane]

I think that there-in lies the problem....and Dietrich I absolutely mean no disrespect, you must know that by now BUT just to have a handfull of Crosses for a little while and others just days and then to come up with an ABSOLUTE isn't the right approach.


To disregard 30 or more EXACTING fingerprints in favor or something new and then assert what (has been put forward) leaves too much of a question!!!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Meaning I won't 'hang' you for not looking at every S&L on Earth. Not critical. I think we have a good population.

Condition. What degree of flaws in the beading? Each type. Also, regarding the row of dents, does the row of dents get less distinct as the flaws get more distinct if there are indeed flaws on the beading of the examples you've mentioned with the dent row.

Okay, was a language thing...
(i will not mention the knee flaw, with flaw I mean the arm flaws)

- on all 935-4 : dent row pristine , no flaws
- on all 935: dent row (can't say how pristine but look full lenght)
- on unmarked, non-magnetic crosses (80% present, flaws)
- on 800-4 dent row present, no flaws
- on (one) 800, dent row, no flaws
- on several 1957 1st Type , dent row present 60-70%, later flaws

The 57 is a 'problem' in as much that the dent row is less pronaounced and no flaws are present. But I also do not know when those 57's were made. Could be anytime after 57. I recognize this and that's why I wrote in my article:

"The comparison shows that there are without any doubt stunning similarities but also lacking dents. I don’t know at this point in time to explain this but I’m absolutely convinced that the early 57 die is either the late B-type or a ‘daughter’ thereof. Sure is that the 57 die is not directly related to the A-Type die."

Dietrich
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>

[Brian S]

- on all 935-4 : dent row pristine , no flaws
- on all 935: dent row (can't say how pristine but look full lenght)
- on unmarked, non-magnetic crosses (80% present, flaws)
- on 800-4 dent row present, no flaws
- on (one) 800, dent row, no flaws
- on several 1957 1st Type , dent row present 60-70%, later flaws

The 57 is a 'problem' in as much that the dent row is less pronaounced and no flaws are present. But I also do not know when those 57's were made. Could be anytime after 57. I recognize this and that's why I wrote in my article:


<O</O

I am now more resolute in my belief of a single die and not less so with this information.

The dent row is indeed a spillage of some sort. Becoming less pronounced with use as the material became absorbed and worn down more quickly than a hardened die. The material causing the dent row is in other words less resolute than the die steel.

This still in my mind leaves me where I was before in believing S&L's with serious flaws are postwar or very late war crosses at best if you believe the early '57's are from leftover stock.

One die.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think that there-in lies the problem....and Dietrich I absolutely mean no disrespect, you must know that by now BUT just to have a handfull of Crosses for a little while and others just days and then to come up with an ABSOLUTE isn't the right approach.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. If that statement is true you better never ever make a statement about right or wrong just by looking at a picture of a cross on the forum.

Or, if that statement is true, and really no disrespect regarding the article (not my person) is intended, the whole idea of identifying and comparing crosses to each other is out of the window.

It would be true, if I would not have done some due dilligence with other people to confirm my findings (and discussed with you and others in numerous e-mails and poictures back and forth).

But okay, if that's a point, lets do this:

YOU call all holder of S&L and ask about the following aspects:

- dent row
- 6-9 o'clock flaw
- 9-12 o'clock flaw

You will come to the same conclusion as I did. Over the net. Without holding the crosses. Look at Weitze's and Winckler's site..

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

I am now more resolute in my belief of a single die and not less so with this information.

The dent row is indeed a spillage of some sort. Becoming less pronounced with use as the material became absorbed and worn down more quickly than a hardened die. The material causing the dent row is in other words less resolute than the die steel.

This still in my mind leaves me where I was before in believing S&L's with serious flaws are postwar or very late war crosses at best if you believe the early '57's are from leftover stock.

One die.

Brian,

you forget one point however. The big flaws with different flaw pattern which cannot be explained away by 'sometimes sticking - sometimes not" and this always the same on obverse and reverse AND you also forget the two knee flaws that also come an go with the flaw pattern and the dent row. And the smaller frame.

Where would you put now the 935-4 with dent row and no flaws? Before or after the flawed 800? And what about an "800-4" with dent row and no other flaws? Where does that fit?


I'm sorry Brian and I mean no disrespect. I just beg to disagree: TWO DIES!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Maybe Dave is saying that after we've now dissected your work, we still have questions that more crosses will help in the understanding. At least for me that is true. Especially I am interested in perfect provenanced pieces and how they fit.

[Brian S]

The big flaws with different flaw pattern which cannot be explained away by 'sometimes sticking - sometimes not" and this always the same on obverse and reverse ...

Please illustrate your point with your figure 9!!!

[Dave Kane]

Holy heck...we are heading back to the R...

Naw!!!

DM, I'll show you a very flawed Juncker....a very EARLY cross that its flaws don't show up in LATER crosses NOR was there a new die!

We accept a ONE die for this but because of some sort of debris (????) or the unexplained timeline of S&L NOW the assertion of a 2nd die (they couldn't get it right and left BLOBS) you expect your assertion to hold water!

It's new yes, but there's been 'tests' to determine post war production without the possibility of multi die....to cloud the determination!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe Dave is saying that after we've now dissected your work, we still have questions that more crosses will help in the understanding. At least for me that is true. Especially I am interested in perfect provenanced pieces and how they fit.

Brian,

again with all due respect - you have not disected my article nor has any of you brought forward an explanation for either the proposed time line nor for the different flaws, their appearance and disappearance, nor the diffeerent flaw pattern on Type A and B. Fig. 9 is not the correct figure. This is both Type A. Fig. 51 is the correect one between A and B.

Here is the explanation of what I mean:

Both types must have the same flaws in the same spot, but only ONE can have more.
If one type has a flaw where the other has none AND the opposite is also true, it's not the same die.

Look at the map. Where it says "gone" a "healing" must have taken place because the A-Type is earlier then the B-Type (A-Type has less flaws and is an "800", B-Type is the heavily flawed, un-magnetic, un-marked where we all agree it's post 45).

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Please illustrate your point with your figure 9!!!

Figure 9 please...

You tell us that the difference in the flaw pattern front to back is due to the time difference in the production of the halves.

I don't buy that.

I believe same production time, material left behind in die.

The photo is so evident of that material left behind.

A crevice in the die is an accidental tear or ripping of the metal. A jagged, non-smooth tiny crack. Material trapped in the crevice does NOT have to come out with the cross as the material is held back inside.