The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Dietrich Maerz]

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!!

Dave,

I DO NOT discount the distinct 'prints and landmarks'. As I said already several times. I focused on the big flaws, a set of features.

My two die THEORY is based on:

- the dent row
- the knee flaw
- the different flaw pattern on the 3 o'clock arm

A THEORY cannot be by definition a DOGMA. I alwayus used the word 'Thesis' in my article, never dogma. You can believe or you don't as with any other thesis.

I'm also not scaring away people from RK's. I'm stating my findings in regards to the S&L controversy which was discussed since years. The onus of the heavily flawed S&L or the 935 or the unmagnetic, unmarked flawed is not my invention. By far not.

Please do not accuse me of something I did not say or invent!!!

The time line? Nothing new. Look into all the old threads! 935-4 was always after mid 44. Nothing new here either!!! No my invetion nor my dogma!

The graph I just put up is NOT a time line. It's a line of events. I call it type B, Brian calls it repaired die!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

I think we are very close in agreement here. Sometime in '44 I believe they repaired the die and the 935's were pressed. I am comfortable with Type 'B' because that is what they will become. Same die but now with different characteristics as flaws repaired, repairs fail, and new failures appear. If anything, I am happy to know when my cross was pressed. A little mystery revealed.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think we are very close in agreement here. Sometime in '44 I believe they repaired the die and the 935's were pressed. I am comfortable with Type 'B' because that is what they will become. Same die but now with different characteristics as flaws repaired, repairs fail, and new failures appear. If anything, I am happy to know when my cross was pressed. A little mystery revealed.

Thank you Brian! I really appreciate that! Logic prevailes! The purpose of the forum has been served.

You call it repaired die, I call it new die. Same effect.

So we have an A-Type and a B-Type (for whatever reason, new or repaired). I still believe it is a new die, but for the ongoing discussion it really doesn't matter. The Type is what counts!

The task now is to nail down the time line, if that is ever possible!

I heard that there were 935-4 in the Klessheim hort. Can that be confirmed?
Let's look for 935-4 and 800-4 with provenance. Let's compare with early 57 and late 57 to find out more.


Dietrich

[Brian S]

You call it repaired die, I call it new die. Same effect.

So we have an A-Type and a B-Type (for whatever reason, new or repaired). I still believe it is a new die, but for the ongoing discussion it really doesn't matter. The Type is what counts!

The task now is to nail down the time line, if that is ever possible!

I heard that there were 935-4 in the Klessheim hort. Can that be confirmed?
Let's look for 935-4 and 800-4 with provenance. Let's compare with early 57 and late 57 to find out more.


Dietrich

It really does matter that it is a 'new die'.

The 'dent row' is overwhelming evidence of a repaired die. To the collector this is not inconsequential. As you indicated a second die combined with your comments of postwar S&L restrikes with '39 cores is quite damaging but a premature conclusion. This is where Dave and I are a bit confused by your rush to judgement when the 'dent row' is such an important unknown in your article and must be explained and explored before such conclusions or explosive theories brought out.

The daughter die theory is actually entirely wrong when the dent row is considered.

Here we have B Types with minute similarities that are fractions of a MM wide and long but the daughter die process produced a line of dents? Not reasonable. That all other aspects are perfect but here is a line of mess in the daughter die?

Fact: The first S&L crosses have no dent row. Therefore, a daughter die would have no dent row when created from a master. Conclusion: there is no daughter die, the original was altered. One die conclusively.

[Dave Kane]

Dangerous? Surely, as evidenced by some commentary and mis-interpretation of the article such as this!



Well based on who's arguing with Dietrich in the other thread .. it's obvious who has the RKs that could be Post war <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
Regards Darrell



There are just too many absolutes asserted and as Andy has already said.....the kneejerk reaction is a resullt!
<!-- / sig -->

[Dietrich Maerz]

It really does matter that it is a 'new die'.

The 'dent row' is overwhelming evidence of a repaired die. To the collector this is not inconsequential. As you indicated a second die combined with your comments of postwar S&L restrikes with '39 cores is quite damaging but a premature conclusion. This is where Dave and I are a bit confused by your rush to judgement when the 'dent row' is such an important unknown in your article and must be explained and explored before such conclusions or explosive theories brought out.

The daughter die theory is actually entirely wrong when the dent row is considered.

Fact: The first S&L crosses have no dent row. Therefore, a daughter die would have no dent row when created from a master. Conclusion: there is no daughter die, the original was altered. One die conclusively.

Brian,

I do not agree with your statement. I did not bring forward explosive theories. For me it is still a fact that S&L did produce 39 models after the war - there is not even the slightest doubt in my mind! The heavily flawed, un-magnetic, un-marked cross is a post-war production. We all agree on that!

It is also a fact that this post-war cross is a B-Type.
It is also a fact that the 1st Version 1957 is a B-Type

I do not see any difference whether S&L produced post war crosses on a repaired die or a new die. The effect and conclusion is exactly the same.

No matter what: All B-Types are produced after the heavily flawed A-Type crosses (which have provenance).

I still say it's a new die, not because of the dent row, but also because of the knee flaw and the flaw pattern and the smaller size. I cannot accept your 'entirely wrong' statement. There is neither proof for or against repair. There is only proof for a different looking die (repaired OR new)

As you pointed out, the flaw row is in your opinion a sign of repair. Could it not as well be something that happened with the new die during the replication process from a mother? I say 'Yes'. But we both don't know.

Fact is, the flaw row is the sign of the B-Type, which came after the A-Type.

And I do not understand why a repaired die is less or more "explosive and damaging" then a new die. As the worker who did your repair would have said " It looks like new!" And it was ready for another years and years of production.

I did not intend to damage or explode the collectors community! I tried to find a logic explanation for a discussion that was raging since years. An A-Type and a B-Type S&L did emerge and explains what was unexplainable before.

And I surely don't think that you completely reject the idea of post-war S&L 1939 models. No explosion here! We know now, that ONLY B-Types COULD POSSIBLY MAYBE PERHAPS be post-war. No A-Types. That's all.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

I am concerned that you say, "As you pointed out, the flaw row is in your opinion a sign of repair. Could it not as well be something that happened with the new die during the replication process from a mother? I say 'Yes'. But we both don't know."

But you are an 'author'. But as an author don't you have some responsibility for insisting on something you cannot prove? You admit it could be a repaired die but rather than let it rest as an unknown you are insistent on YOUR conclusion.

Wouldn't it be more professional to leave it as an open question?

As Dave has pointed out, now some people are laughing at Dave and I for not submitting to your 'article'. I'm done.

[Dietrich Maerz]

There are just too many absolutes asserted and as Andy has already said.....the kneejerk reaction is a resullt!
<!-- / sig -->

Dave,

I have not asserted absolutes! I reject that! I have brought forward features of the dies - with pictures. No hearsay, no unfounded statements.

I have brought forward a thesis that explainds what was discussed since years. I'm not responsible for any kneejerks of anybody! I'm not responsible for any comment by any kind of people.

If you think that, we better never ever come up with any therory or possible explanation about anything, beacuse there will always be people who are offended, have a kneejerk, cannot digest whats said or whatever.

At least two of the three people driving this discussion (and that in itself is something...) agree on an A- and B-Type. Not more or less. I still say it's a new die, but for the actual fact of the finding, i.e. the differences in the crosses, it does not matter!

Don't shoot the messenger!

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

But you are an 'author'. But as an author don't you have some responsibility for insisting on something you cannot prove? You admit it could be a repaired die but rather than let it rest as an unknown you are insistent on YOUR conclusion.

Wouldn't it be more professional to leave it as an open question?

As Dave has pointed out, now some people are laughing at Dave and I for not submitting to your 'article'. I'm done.

Brian,

I called my findings thesis! Not proven fact as you now try to portray it. I still say that I believe it's a new die, but I don't KNOW. It is my thesis, as clearly pointed out in the article.

I'm not insisting on my thesis, I'm defending it as is my right and my duty. And I'm defending it with the findings and pictures I have to defend it. In the same way you bring forward your repair thesis and defend it. That is perfectly normal and legitimate.

I don't get the "not admitting to the article" part. You fault me now for the comments of some other people and that's why you are done with this?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

A type and B type by matter of repair only. You insist on a second die, that is not accurate. But assert your position you ask me to think "perhaps that was a flaw in the die creation process". What? Now we have to buy a story to make your second die theory work? No. S&L cranked out a few thousand crosses at MOST and they did it on one die. Pure logic dictates this. The die was repaired, the dent row proves it. Pure logic dictates this.

And now some people are enjoying Schadenfreude. This is the result of your premature conclusion and placing your feet so firmly in the sand upon which they stand.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

you don't have to buy anything.

If pure logic tells you S&L had one die, that is your perfect right to think so. If you think the dent row is proove of repair, it is your right to do so.

For me it is an indication of a second die - and that is my right to think so and to openly discuss this. I brought forward a THESIS and you act as this would be the most outrageous thing ever said. You call it explosive and damaging, implying bad motives on my side.

You fault me of drawing 'premature conclusions'. I brought forward a thesis based on findings I saw. And I stand behind it. It's a thesis and is subject to discussion, approval, disapprooval, believe or rejection.

Don't fault me for the features of the S&L crosses. And don't fault me for any "Schadenfreude" from whoever. This is not fair!

Dietrich

[hi-revr]

Technical issues

I hope I can offer "some" help. I am in the industrial hydraulic/pneumatic industry. My company both uses many of the techniques to make these crosses and many of my customers are Tool and Die builders, Die-casters, forgers, etc. I should be able to get clarification on some of these issues. With all the info that has been in these threads lately I may have missed some of this. I need some things clarified. (I'm trying to get info here, not question somebody's integrety.)

1) Do we know for a fact the frames were diestamped? is it possible they were die-cast? When I look at my type "A" The 3:00 arm at first glance appears to be excess material from what would be the low point of the mold. (This would make since only if they are die-cast)Presently mold release agents are sprayed on the die surfaces to prevent sticking. Think of it as Pam cooking spray, same idea. I don't know what was the norm then. The consistancy may lie in the fact that the same areas of the dies tended to "stick" due to a very slight variance in the finish. Excess molten Silver would end up in the valleys. If die-casting was used the possible variance in material temperture would certainly have an affect on how the die, material, and possible flaws in the die react. When we forge a piece of steel wire into a forge-platter, the temperture of the material is controlled to plus or minus 5 degree f via a CNC furnace. When temps very in almost any manufacturing process strange things start to happen.

2) What facts do we have about other major producers with respect to dies? Do we know for a fact, Juncker, and the other guys only had one die set for the RK frame? And was it a single cavity die. One of the first questions you are asked when having a die cut is how many pieces per run/year/etc do you think you will use? Multi-cavity dies are common now. I don't know about the 40's.

3) How many examples has anybody documented with pics to see all this?

I have a couple of good QA guys in a few plants I can show some of this to. It may or may not help with a direction.

Regards,

Eric

[hi-revr]

Technical issues

k

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, any ideas about this...?


"It is also a fact that this post-war cross is a B-Type."
"It is also a fact that the 1st Version 1957 is a B-Type"


No dimples and confirmed POST WAR!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

do you have a closer look of the arm? And the 6-9 o'clock knee area?

Dietrich