The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich...sit back and have a look!!! Die #1 Juncker and Die #2 Juncker.....Ofcourse not!!!

[Dietrich Maerz]

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!

Yes Dave, the Rounder will be next ...and then I will have Brian on MY side

Again, we are not talking about minute flaws, we are talking about the dent row, the knee flaws and the traditional flaw rows. There IS a distinct difference. And do YOU know 100% for sure that there was only one Juncker die? I'm not suggesting anything at all, far from it. But do you REALLY know?

And yes, I do exspect my assertion to hold water and it does. because it is NOT based on minute flaws, it's based on clearly visible and distinct differences. Just have a look at the flaw map. I'm not making this up, it's there and you have all the pictures to see. Even where the flaws are in the same beading spot they do not look the same! But they look the same between the A-Type (as can be seen in Fig. 9). Coincidence? Always congruent with the type? Not for me! If you can believe that, that's fine.

Study the flaws (i.e. the differences) between all your 800's and the one 935-4. You can see it with your own eyes!

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

Well then address this flaw, debris or anything else you wish to call it.....


Juncker..one die yet self healing to steal your words, I think not!

[Brian S]

...and my refutation (I can cut and paste from the article). The same cross, both sides. Dietrich says it's from a different timeframe. Yes, that explains it from your perspective, but, I do not believe it from a different timeframe.

Look carefully. Look how incredibly close in nature and distinct the similarities are. You can clearly see where the material is missing from one side, the fraction of the flaw CAN be seen. Clearly. And, the material could be left behind in the crevice.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Okay, Fig. 9 then. But we will have to come back to the flaw map, I hope.


Fig. 9 shows the obverse and reverse of the same cross. A 3 and 6 o'clock flawed 800, Type A.

The reverse has less flaws as indicated with the blue boxes. So the frame was made later. The common flaws however, have the same shape. Look at the 5th, 6th and 7th from the top. Look also at the pyramidial shape, i.e. the base of the flaw. This is the negative of the cavity of the die, the silver fills it out completely. The 9yh valley from the top is very interesting: see the little dots. The same in the valley where the description is. Same dots. This is because the 10 or more tons press the silver with this force into whatever room there is. And 10 tons is a lot of pressure.

If you say it sometimes sticks and sometimes not, why does that not happen with coins and the very, very tiny details you find on the reverse. A leaf or such. Shouldn't his sometimes stick and sometimes not?

The silver material has the tendency to stay together and not stick like some plastic goo. This is why the cross hold it's shape.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Dietrich...sit back and have a look!!! Die #1 Juncker and Die #2 Juncker.....

Oh NO! What die is mine??? What is the value now? Oh my gawwwwwwwwd. Help me help me. All of which type is now worthless? Way to go Dave.

<marquee> </marquee>

[Dietrich Maerz]

...and my refutation (I can cut and paste from the article). The same cross, both sides. Dietrich says it's from a different timeframe. Yes, that explains it from your perspective, but, I do not believe it from a different timeframe.
Look carefully. Look how incredibly close in nature and distinct the similarities are. You can clearly see where the material is missing from one side, the fraction of the flaw CAN be seen. Clearly. And, the material could be left behind in the crevice.

Thank you Brian. That is exactly what I mean also! This cross is from the same die but with a difference in manufacturing time. Later on the flaws got even more.

As you said: " Look how incredibly close in nature and distinct the similarities are." This is exactly what you can see on the A-Type: same shape and form!

AND THAT is exactly why we have two dies! Because the flaws at the same spot on Type B look different in shape and form. And the pattern is not congruent (in addition). And there's the dent row, and the knee flaw!

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Oh NO! What die is mine??? What is the value now? Oh my gawwwwwwwwd. Help me help me. All of which type is now worthless? Way to go Dave.

<MARQUEE> </MARQUEE>

Okay, I was waiting for the sarkasm long enough! Let's all have a laugh about lost RK values and such and then let's continue the discussion.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Thanks Brian for the diversion....we need a little humor once in a while as things go to a boil!


There isn't multi die for Juncker and I believe the same for S&L!

I have shown many many pics of exacting (real) flaws that couldn't possibly be replicated and the entire community has always depended on a 'constant' NOT a 'prove what isn't' attitude that my head is spinning with this stuff!

I'm being sarcastic here but now we have multi S&L and Juncker die????????

No, just one of each!!!

[Brian S]

Postalloy 2225-FCG - an iron base alloy that produces a tough, nickel/chrome/moly weld deposit for build-up and repairing cracked or fractured steels with up to 140,000 psi tensile strength. Preferred for use on forging hammer bases, columns, rams, sow blocks, die shanks and die holders.<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P> </O:P>

Postalloy 2235-FCG - an iron base alloy that produces a wear resistant nickel/chrome/moly weld deposit. For weld repairing cracked or fractured steels with up to 180,000 psi tensile strength. Excellent choice for forging applications where welding of rams, sow blocks, die shanks, die holders, and filling in complete impressions, is required.<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px"> </O:P>

<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">Postalloy 2240-FCG - an iron base alloy that produces a nickel/chrome/moly weld deposit that is more wear resistant with higher physical properties than 2235-FCG. For weld repairing cracked or fractured steels with up to 200,000 psi tensile strength. Hot working applications include flood welding complete impressions on forging dies. Widely used for overlays on dies, punches and inserts.<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px"> </O:P>

<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">Postalloy 2245-FCG - an iron base alloy that produces a high hardness nickel/chrome/moly weld deposit. For shallow hammer and press forging die applications that require impact and wear properties up to 1000°F(538°C).<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px"> </O:P>

<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">Lots of info here;</O:P>

<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">http://www.postle.com/forging%20wire...0Alloy%20Wires</O:P>

<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">

Postle Industries has had a long association with welding products designed for hardfacing, and maintenance and repair, dating back to 1954. At that time, the concept of using welding as a tool to help industry salvage and prolong the life of expensive parts was still new. It was common practice to throw away broken, failed or defective parts.

During the early years many new repair products and techniques were developed. Their introduction resulted from the endless needs and applications within the growing maintenance repair field. Today, the products for hardfacing and repairing cast iron, special steels, aluminum, and copper alloys, as well as application techniques for salvaging thousands of parts, are well known.

</O:P></O:P></O:P><O:P style="MARGIN: 0px"></O:P>

[Brian S]

No, Dietrich, we are looking at the same photo and seeing two different possibilities. Same press time in my mind, material left behind.

And, dies were indeed repaired although not with the modern materials I listed but with materials that failed.

Failed you say, Brian?

Yes, failed.

And failed what does that do Brian?

Why grasshopper I am glad you asked.

Thank you master.

No problem. The repair and failure of repairs might lead the grasshopper to believe in two dies.

No master, never.

Yes, grasshopper, the precious is from one die.

Forgive me master but why is their the extremely flawed icky ugly nasty looking cross with massive flaws?

Grasshopper, the repairs were crude in the forties. They failed with younger persons pressing massive quantities of '57's and fake '39's. At some point they didn't care because they were replacing the original beat to hell die with a really icky later '57.

You are amazing master, amazing. Tell me more...

Tomorrow grasshopper.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Thanks Brian for the diversion....we need a little humor once in a while as things go to a boil!
There isn't multi die for Juncker and I believe the same for S&L!
I have shown many many pics of exacting (real) flaws that couldn't possibly be replicated and the entire community has always depended on a 'constant' NOT a 'prove what isn't' attitude that my head is spinning with this stuff!
I'm being sarcastic here but now we have multi S&L and Juncker die????????

No, just one of each!!!

Of course ther is only one die for Juncker, and K&Q, and Schickle, BUT not for S&L. The logic cannot be that because Juncker et al have one, S&L has one too.

Juncker does not have the big flaw problem, Juncker has no 57 models, Juncker did not produce after the war. Juncker did introduce the "2" marking late in the war, as did K&Q. So S&L did not do so? And if they did, we are back to numerous production runs, vise clamps, disapearing flaws, mixed flaw patterns, switching knee flaws.

Two Dies, the die don't lie! As Brian just confirmed!

And honestly Dave, I do not have an explanation for the minute flaws. I don't! I can only think of a very detailed reproduction process. The flaws with the Juncker? I have no idea. Tom should look closer. Maybe he finds an explanation. He already mentioned that those get less 'strong' over the time line, as proposed.

But what good does it if one cannot explain the big flaws? And only the 2 die explanation makes it clear like crystall water - for me at least.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

The die does not lie grasshopper, the vision presented to the uninitiated brain does not see the truth. One die. Material left behind. Repairs to die.

Ohh, master...

[Brian S]

And honestly Dave, I do not have an explanation for the minute flaws. I don't!

Dietrich

And with that...