The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[hi-revr]

ANswers to Die questions

George,

A general starting price for a die is $10,000 to 15,000 today. It depends on what type machine it is being used for etc. A repair could be a fraction of this. Dies are reworked all the time. The master die mentioned above would make additional dies much less. Not knowng more about the machine they used, etc makes it difficult to pin-point. The last few pages of posts have good info but to answer these questions we really need to know what methods they used.

Eric

[Dave Kane]

Eric, thanks that's very interesting news! I am of the school that die making 60 years ago was a product of hand craft.....weeks and weeks of labor and very costly so the rehabilation of a die would have been in a business sense the thing to do!

If I were to pay $$$$$ I'd sure want my $$$$'s worth from it and in a very general sense work it in to the ground....all the while helping it sustain its integrety as long as possible.

[hi-revr]

Info on other makers

I had a thought. Surely somewhere there is info on other major manufacturers of the time. I think we could come up up with a likely scenario if we new what the other makers did. I gave more thought to the master die scenario. I wonder if they would bother doing this given the fact that RK's would not have ever been a high production item. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Eric

[tom hansen]

Here is an excerpt from what another forum member thought a few years ago. He mentions a die repair in another award. I am sure that many other members had considered this before, or have mulled it over since, but it seems as though it took the data presented by Dietrich and the resulting debate from forum members to flesh this idea out a bit.




<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal">01-28-2003, 05:57 AM <!-- / status icon and date --></TD><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal" align=right>#16 </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 width=175>Chris Jenkins<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_133084", true); </SCRIPT>

Lifetime Member


Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 811
Location: Asia





</TD><TD class=alt2><!-- icon and title --> S&L

<HR color=#cfb992 SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->JohnJ


In answer to :
"
PLEASE show us your examples of pre-45 S&L examples with the 'FLAW'....not a bit of metal flashing but the 'break' in the die so evident
"
I have two S&L's RK's in my collection at the moment. A 935/4 and a 800 cross. The 935 is without flaws (I have never seen a 935/4 with flaws... has anyone else ?..why is this ???). The 800 is apparantly without flaws, but as with almost all other S&L 800 crosses I have either owned or handled there ARE traces of imperfections, if you know where to look....quite honestly I havent yet found one 800 cross that isn't totally free of any sign (albeit ever so minute). Try as I can, I cannot get a viable closeup of this minute imperfection.... but the cross is superb with 800 incuse mark (see picture) .

Isnt it possible that S&L repaired the dies at various times throughout their use.... we know that dies for lesser awards were repaired (The Schwerin High Sea Fleet Badge article by Michael Kenny is a lesson in this respect)... so why not the S&L RK frame ?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is what I think happened....

Gordon Williamson:
Basically in the terms we are talking about here, the pantograph is a milling machine. The die block would be clamped to the milling table ( lower left on this photo). The model would be sitting on the table at top right of the machine. You can just make out the stylus arm here.When moving the slylus arm over the model, the movements are reduced by a factor of five, ten or whatever from the large scale model, and transferred to the milling cutter, imparting a design into the die surface, identical to the model."

This is how the working die was transfered form the 5:1 scale model in the first place. Why not twice?

Dietrich



<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->

[Brian S]

Yes, Dietrich, a thousand dies could have been produced in this method. But not those fractional mm flaws reproduced. You imagine the size of the bit to get in there and recreate those little flaws.

And your dent row, Dietrich, NO WAY.

[George Stimson]

Thanks for the info, Eric!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

we both dont know. The dent row could very well be what you described (weling splatter or such) but it could also have happened to a new die.

We might never know. However, we know now that there are two types and that one comes after the other. I think that is the important part. It could very well be that time tells that what I thought (and still do) to be two dies is in fact just one with two 'appearance stages', i.e. A and B.

It has no impact on the identification process.

It has an impact on the time line, however!

IF there was only one die and it was refurbished, then it is absolutely clear that the 935-4 and all other B-Type crosses are made after the flawed 800 crosses. Based on provenance somewhere after mid-44.

That is the only impact I see. The refurbished die theory is for sure more linear then a second die and a possible parallel run.

The bit thing is correct, but it was also a bit that did create the minor flaws in the first place! So why not twice?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

My day off today! Too cold to play golf here in Siberia.


Dietrich- Your process makes sense, but why would they TRY to reproduce very small flaws when transcribing to a second die? By their nature, these are flaws and are therefore unintended. Even if they had the capablities to reproduce the EXACT minute, nearly microscopic flaws, would they have done so, or attempted to produce a flawless cross? Given the very small size of these flaws, would the technology, permitting they wanted to reproduce such flaws, allow them to do so? These flaws are nearly microscopic to be able to even identify. On the other hand, a repaired die would already have these flaws present and they would be faithfully reproduce the same minute flaws they had created on earlier strikes. Beyond the area repaired, the other common small flaws would be present just as they had been before.

[Tiger 1]

Gentlemen,

I was given some interesting reading about coining. It concerns dies, hubbing, master dies, the pantograph, the Janvier lathe and various other pertinant info about the process of minting or coining metal. I believe we can use it here to futher our collective understanding about this process. I can make some copies of this material and send it out to anyone that is interested. Just PM me with your mailing address.

I will also be talking further with an old friend of mine who is now retired. He is a Czech gentleman who owned and operated a tool, die and mold shop in Chicago for many years. He is very knowledgable in the various tool and die processes. His initial comments about repaired dies was that they never were worth a damn once they cracked from fatigue or stress. Economically it was much more expedient, time and material wise, to remake a new die from the master than to mess around with a cracked die.

More later.

Tony

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I don't think they tried - it just happened. In the same way it happened when they did the first die, which clearly was copied from the 1:5 plater model. At least that is the common understanding of the process.

And as I said earlier, somehow it was possible with the given tools to inroduce the tiny flaws (which 'they' for sure did NOT see as a quality problem at all) into the first die. So why not again?

And I don't think one can say that only without these minute flaws the cross was 'flawless'. As you have shown with the Juncker crosses - it's present in every cross. I don't consider these 'fingerprints' as flaws at all. It's just part of the initial process.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Yes, I agree that all crosses have flaws. But again, flaws are an unintended result of the manufacturing process. If they could have made a perfect cross, I am sure they would have wanted to do so. Why would they TRY to reproduce flaws? There are dozens of these small flaws on an S&L which cannot be easily seen even under 10X magnification. Even if the found them under 40X-

1. Why reproduce them?- they are flaws

2. Did they have the technology to reproduce such flaws which cannot be seen except under higer magnification with macroscopic tools?

3. Did they even know these flaws that we can see under 40X were even there?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I'm sorry if I made myself not clear the first time..

Let's look a the first die. The minute flaws are there, right? So they were somehow created, right? During the manufacturing process of the die! We also know, that the die(s) were manufactured by copying from a 5:1 scale plaster model.
Do you think anybody noticed them? No way!

So - to stay with my two die theory - they did exacly the same thing they did the first time around with the second die (from the plaster model, I assume, which had of course those 'minute details, but in a scale of 5:1). And by doing so, they introduced the same minute flaws in the same way they did the first time. Unintentional but process related. We clearly know that is was possible as the frist die indicates beyond doubt.

And yes they had the technology to 'produce' these tiny flaws, otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place.

And I don't think 'they' knew or - more impotantly - cared that those 'flaws' were there. It's absolutely irrelevant to the final product.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Thanks Dietrich- I understand that they had the ability to produce them, as you point out, they would not be there in the first place. The question is


1. Could they REPRODUCE them?

2. If so, why reproduce flaws?

[tom hansen]

[QUOTE=tom hansen]Thanks Dietrich- I understand that they had the ability to produce them, as you point out, they would not be there in the first place. The question is


1. Could they REPRODUCE them?

2. If so, why reproduce flaws?