The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Dave Kane]

I'll give it a go!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

I meant the obverse arm. But anyway. The resolution is just not there and I will not pass judgement based on this picture. This would not be right. Just because one cannot see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

here it is..

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

if you consider that up to maybe a week ago nobody really saw that dent row it would be wrong to say based on this picture to say "it's there" or "It's not". I certainly couldn't say that.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

DM, you should have the full sized picture in your files...we have discussed it plenty of times!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

yes - this cross looks familiar!! But I don't find it. Let me look again! - No, don't have it!

Dietrich

[Marc Garlasco]

I find it intersting that in the poll people either agree or ar at least open to the possibility of Dietrich's conclusion. Methodologically, I find it interesting that he did not accept his initial belief once the data did not support it. I am still on the fence - mostly because I have two kids that are taking most of my time and I have not been able to really give this its due. I think I will try to get the article to a metallurgist and see what he thinks. I appreciate all the talk, but I would rather leave the science to the pros. Still, this is the way we need to go in the hobby - challenge our beliefs. If they hold up, great. If not, well, all the better.
Marc

[George Stimson]

Gentlemen, I've gone back and edited some insulting remarks out of some posts. I'd appreciate if you could keep the discussion civil and not resort to name-calling.
Thank you.

[tom hansen]

Just a question here. Why is Brian's suggestion of a repaired single die not compatible with the information presented by Dietrich and the presence of the same multiple minute flaws on all S&L crosses? This seems to explain the continued presence of all these very small flaws (which appear on all S&L crosses) which would seem nearly impossible to replicate exactly with two dies, and also explains the apparent "moving flaws" on the vertical part of the 3 oclock arm. If this area was repaired, I guess one would expect the repaired area to be the weakest and subject to cracking again with repeated use, but would result in a slightly different flaw pattern in the same area. Furthermore, it explains the apparent "disappearance" of the flaw on the three oclock arm and its later "reappearance". Am I missing something here?


Lastly, I would guess that these repairs would be made during the war, as the quality controls required for government acceptance would dictate a high quality product that would not be necessary for production of souvenier and replacement pieces post war. If one was making souvenier pieces, who cares if there are a few flaws? I do not have a "B" type 935 -4 S&L, but would have no problem buying one with the information provided by Dietrich in his article and by the posts in this thread. I guess the main issue is not so much the 935-4 crosses, but with this information does this reduce some doubts about the wartime production of flawed "A" type S&Ls which has previously existed?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom!

My article brought forward a thesis based on the different flaws I saw. Based on the sequence of events MY conclusion was TWO dies.

Brian acknowledges the same flaws and the same sequence of events. HIS conclusion is a REPAIRED die.

The point of new/repair is the same
The effect of new/repair is the same

In both cases the result is a B-Type die! In my opinion the results of my article are very well compatible with Brian's thesis. I still stringly believe in a second die, but this has no impact on the outcome.

I also think the new die (or the repaired one if you wish) was made during the war and I said so in the article.

I also clearly said in the article that I think the 935-4 are made pre-45 IMHO, no argument there either.

The B-Type identification will help to nail down some questionable crosses. Crosses that had the onus of doubt all day long. Now the tool is here!

And yes, it takes away the dark cloud from the flawed A-Type. And that is also congruent with the provenance of those crosses!

All what has happened is that there is a tool now to identify A and B and IMHO that is a very good thing!

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Tom, the post took on a life of its own and began to focus on the 935/4 because Dietrich used one in the study....


Initially, it was proposed that there were at least 2 die based on the dimples on the lower 3oc arm.

I asserted that there was merely ONE die and presented minute flaws that couldn't possibly be 'interpreted' or 'transfered' to a second die.

Brian suggested an on going 'fix' of which I lean toward.

I think that all would be better said and more fully understood if all of the folks discussing the issue agree that there indeed was one die but that it was REHABILITATED during its life until it went to England and finally fell apart.

The other area we need to define in the PK # system and when S&L began to use it. There's still lots of discussion left.

More pics to show ONE ongoing, workhorse of a single die!!

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,


just out of curiosity and in the tradition of the Cold War negotiations :

If (and I say IF) I would agree to the notion of a REHABILITATED die, would you agree to the existence of an A- and B-Type single die???

Dietrich