The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Brian S]

Timeline Dietrich... "Three months from manufacture to award." Not so necessarily... And you put flawed heavily crosses into the timeline which maybe everyone is not ready to let go of or at least you don't allow for repairs... Basically, you've tightened it up into your timeline and nothing else is now possible for you.

George, good question with respect to mother die production techniques. But, let's make sure it is in respect to the 40's, and, we're not talking coin dies, there is a difference.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

Here is a 'graph line', not a time line. The cut between A and B is just the cut between them, NOT any line in time.
This graph is based on how 'they' appear. That's all.

And I made an assumption with 3 month. Could be 6 month, could be 5 days. I just thought I would allow for some time between:

stamping - pickling - assembly - packing - PKZ - Army HQ - recipient.

You fill in the time you feel is necessary. I made my assumption. It's for sure not gospel and has no impact on the core finding: Two dies.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Brian

Okay, sure. Keep it confined to the technology available at the time. As for coins, I know that we're not exactly talking about dies for them, but it's a start. And the process for minting them would at least be somewhat similar in the procedure and results.

I see a lot of contentions being made in this thread that don't seem to have a lot of informed or factual bases. I would like to see some kind of factual input.

[Dietrich Maerz]

.. And you put flawed heavily crosses into the timeline which maybe everyone is not ready to let go of or at least you don't allow for repairs... Basically, you've tightened it up into your timeline and nothing else is now possible for you.

Brian,

I don't understand what you mean with this sentence. Please help me here.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich...Dangerous in the sense that you have a reputation as being middle of the road yet you are putting forth in very, very strong terms unproven statements. Much will be conscrued as fact if folks DON'T pick up on your hidden disclaimers of 'not Gospel, assumption, etc!


You argue as if you KNOW but you don't know and there-in lies the danger. You discount anything not concurrent with your discovery of dents (not flaws) in just a handful of crosses.

Heck it could have as said been just a bad 'run' creating 500-600 pieces...

Trouble is we DON'T KNOW so the rhetoric should be softened..

[Brian S]

Let me just ask you a question Dietrich. You've identified the 'dent row'. This has been mistakenly referred to as a 'hammer blow' to the die and let pass. It is exactly the opposite of that and I think you've overlooked its significance. It is an additional product on the die.

You point out the 'dent row' but you don't speculate you don't allow for speculation. Which is very scientific but very narrow.

Why is it there Dietrich?

Why is it on the lower three o'clock row?

Of all places why there?

Take off your white smock and come down to earth with the rest of us for a moment and explain the significance.

Why there? The 3 o'clock row. Exactly BELOW where the flaws began to first appear. Coincidence, I think not. You and I both know allowing any speculation on what MUST be explained puts your theory in grave danger.

(Dave posted while I was, but, I feel the same way here...)

[Brian S]

Thinking about what Dave said... Dietrich your article is too scientific, too lacking in speculation. In fact, it is only facts, that is factual if we take the facts as you've presented them.

There is no speculation or possibilities where there must be possibilities.

I think that's where the three of us and Richard Gordon, Gordon W. and others made it a discussion and we came out of it often with no conclusion because of the unknown. The unknown left possibilities.

Your article allows for no unknowns. And there are unknowns. In particular one huge unknown which you allow NO speculation on. The dent row.

Why? Because speculation on the dent row, which MUST be explained puts a dent in your perfect presentation of facts only.

But the dent row, which is a fact, MUST be presented with facts. But you do NOT know the facts of the dent row therefore leaving it an unknown which you cannot leave unanswered.

Therefore, because of the dent row, your article is missing a fact and that fact leaves your article with a great unknown and places your conclusions in speculation.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich...Dangerous in the sense that you have a reputation as being middle of the road yet you are putting forth in very, very strong terms unproven statements. Much will be conscrued as fact if folks DON'T pick up on your hidden disclaimers of 'not Gospel, assumption, etc!


You argue as if you KNOW but you don't know and there-in lies the danger. You discount anything not concurrent with your discovery of dents (not flaws) in just a handful of crosses.

Heck it could have as said been just a bad 'run' creating 500-600 pieces...

Trouble is we DON'T KNOW so the rhetoric should be softened..

Okay, I understand!

I cannot make people read everyting and I cannot make people understand everything what I write. The same applies to you and anybody else.

I reject the "unproven statement", however. I also reject the "as if you KNOW".

The flaws I pointed out are not an imagination of my distorted brain! Everybody can see them! Everybody can see them on the types of crosses I pointed out. Whether you call the dent row a flaw or whatever is semantics and doesn't make them go away either.

I did not say "I KNOW" I only said "I SEE" and showed the pictures.

You act as I said : "The 935-4 are postwar". This is the "warning" I receive!

So I say it again: I never said that nor do I have any proove that this would be the case.

In all previous discussion (which I red again during the time of the article) it was ALWAYS clear that the 935-4 came after the flawed 800. So my article is nothing new in that respect. Pieter V. always said there are two dies. Nothing new there, either!

The only new thing is the identification of those previous arguments via the flaws.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Explain the Dent Row: The dent row appears on the lower 3 o'clock arm. The dent row is actually a line of material left behind as a right handed person attempted repairs to the far right hand and perhaps upper beading areas of the 3 o'clock arm of the die.

Although the dent row appears on the UPPER edges of the beading and not in the valleys because of the reverse features of a die, the excess material landed in the recesses of the die.

Why was the incredibly small material left behind and not 'cleaned' as the repairs were finalized? Unknown. Perhaps, busy repairman was more concerned with bigger picture of die cracking any further than microscopic metal spillage which he didn't even notice and had moved onto next job before die utilized again in days, weeks, months for another production run.

Repairs on dies as I've read were temporary in nature pre 50's. The die repairs failed, the flaws reappeared but as 'new' looking in terms of flaw features on actual crosses.

As much as we as collectors would enjoy seeing a neat progression of die flaws, this does not exist as repairs then failure caused a 'new look'.

This is speculation but I believe the story is accurate.

What about the production now of crosses? Timeline?

The 'dent row' is now at its most pristine. The die repaired and as good as it will be until it fails, again.

Now the 935 series are created. Why? 935 silver is softer. Less strain to die. But the war is on and 935 silver is in short supply. So crosses are struck with material available and 800 silver is then used which production managers know will result in placing additional stress on die. The early 800's after the 935s show well but are more work or stress on the die.

And stress it does indeed create, it fails again.

The same location and others begin to stress and crack. The crosses look different but minute cross characteristics tell us, it's the same die.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

it really doesn't matter where the dent row is and what it actually is, IMHO. What is important is that it is there and it is still 'there' with the 57 and the heavily flawed unmagnetic unmarked cross.

And it's not just the dent row, as you know. There is the knee flaw also. And the 'not there' of the other knee flaw. And the not matching dent row of the 3 o'clock arm, in shape and form and place.

It's not just the 'dent row'.

My article allows for EVERY unknown! I did put forward several THESIS not gospels. Everybody with a RK from S&L can look and see if it's right or wrong.

Call all owners of 935-4, 800-4 and early 57 and ask about the dent row, the knee flaw. It's that easy. And then let's go from there.

Only because I cannot explain what made the dent row (however, it's clearly a feature of the die) it doesn't make it go away. As you said, it's a fact and it must be addressed.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Only because I cannot explain what made the dent row (however, it's clearly a feature of the die) it doesn't make it go away. As you said, it's a fact and it must be addressed.

Dietrich

Feature of the die? Hardly. Unless you call accidents 'features' of the die.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Explain the Dent Row: The dent row appears on the lower 3 o'clock arm. The dent row is actually a line of material left behind as a right handed person attempted repairs to the far right hand and perhaps upper beading areas of the 3 o'clock arm of the die.

Although the dent row appears on the UPPER edges of the beading and not in the valleys because of the reverse features of a die, the excess material landed in the recesses of the die.

Why was the incredibly small material left behind and not 'cleaned' as the repairs were finalized? Unknown. Perhaps, busy repairman was more concerned with bigger picture of die cracking any further than microscopic metal spillage which he didn't even notice and had moved onto next job before die utilized again in days, weeks, months for another production run.

Repairs on dies as I've read were temporary in nature pre 50's. The die repairs failed, the flaws reappeared but as 'new' looking in terms of flaw features on actual crosses.

As much as we as collectors would enjoy seeing a neat progression of die flaws, this does not exist as repairs then failure caused a 'new look'.

This is speculation but I believe the story is accurate.

What about the production now of crosses? Timeline?

The 'dent row' is now at its most pristine. The die repaired and as good as it will be until it fails, again.

Now the 935 series are created. Why? 935 silver is softer. Less strain to die. But the war is on and 935 silver is in short supply. So crosses are struck with material available and 800 silver is then used which production managers know will result in placing additional stress on die. The early 800's after the 935s show well but are more work or stress on the die.

And stress it does indeed create, it fails again.

The same location and others begin to stress and crack. The crosses look different but minute cross characteristics tell us, it's the same die.

Brian,

sure! This could be an explanation. As I said yesterday and we both agreed (I think). The heavily flawed 800 die was repaired. Flaws disappear, dent row comes, crosses look different after that.

You call it repaired die - I call it Type B. Same difference!

That still puts the 935-4 after the flawed 800, and I never said ANYTHING else. I used Type B, you use "repaired Type A".

Now one needs only to explain the knee flaw.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich war time, post war isn't the issue....the post war Crosses are determined utilizing a little knowledge, logic etc.


It's the multi die assertion based on only one set of fingerprints on a very,very limited number of 'subjects' that I'm uncomfortable with.

You continue to DISCOUNT dozens of dinstinct 'prints and landmarks' that I show and focus only on your dent row....concluding based on these dents, that it must be a 2nd die.

Then to further mix things up the time line.....again I see no basis for that assertion.

Far too strong and dogmatic and surely will scare folks away from Knight's Crosses and add fear to an area that is quite simple as any other medal!!

[Brian S]

Brian,

sure! This could be an explanation. As I said yesterday and we both agreed (I think). The heavily flawed 800 die was repaired. Flaws disappear, dent row comes, crosses look different after that.

You call it repaired die - I call it Type B. Same difference!

That still puts the 935-4 after the flawed 800, and I never said ANYTHING else. I used Type B, you use "repaired Type A".

Now one needs only to explain the knee flaw.

Dietrich

Knee flaw or should I say die crack, also repaired. Perhaps that's when our repairman spilled your famous dent row.

It was after all his job to 'repair' the die. And this was a crack. And although only a few collectors study the minute die flaws, you can be assured a die expert did also.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Feature of the die? Hardly. Unless you call accidents 'features' of the die.

Brian,

stricly semantics. I call it 'feature of the die" because it is something in the die that is transfered to the finished product. "Feature of the die" in the sense of 'intended feature". No, of course not.

Dietrich