The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Brian S]

So it is absolutely and 100% clear that "material drip" (which I agree it is) can only happen with a refurbished die but not with a new die?

Here's is what happened: The new die was put under the press. The foreman said "Hey, there's a problem with the upper part of the press - let's fix it! Hans, come here and put a spot weld on that crack up there!" Hans does, and material drips into the new die, which Karl forgot to cover up.....

Far fetched! Of course! Possible? Yes! Probable? Maybe - maybe not.


Dietrich

Yes, it is 100% material drip. Look at the pattern.

And now you put forth far fetched stories that do not mix with the evidence of the Material Drip???

This is just ridiculous.

From methodical and scientific and keeping to the facts to stories that do not work with the evidence.

And, Tony, when you go beyond the history of many many possibilities to what S&L actually DID do, then respect. Until then it's a re-telling of varied die processes which may or may NOT apply. Emphasis on NOT.

Now, Tony, earn my respect, tell me about the Material Drip which Dietrich has incorrectly called a Dent Row. Incorrect because it implies the die was hit with an object but I understand he means because it appears as a dent on the cross itself but confuses many who have already written here.

[Dave Kane]

If done by a machine wouldn't the cuts, valleys and ridges be the same???

Would the machine be 'programed' to change the design at the cross tip?

It doesn't take much to 'see' the 'human hand' in any of the Knight's Crosses and most assuredly in Juncker and K&Q....heck the guy(s) who cut the K&Q didn't even get the count of the ridges right !

[Brian S]

If done by a machine wouldn't the cuts, valleys and ridges be the same???

Would the machine be 'programed' to change the design at the cross tip?

It doesn't take much to 'see' the 'human hand' in any of the Knight's Crosses and most assuredly in Juncker and K&Q....heck the guy(s) who cut the K&Q didn't even get the count of the ridges right !

Yes, and unless their Pantograph utilized a bit the size of a sewing needle, and why would it, those microscopic elements of all those crosses you've shown would not be there.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Yes, it is 100% material drip. Look at the pattern.
And now you put forth far fetched stories that do not mix with the evidence of the Material Drip???
This is just ridiculous.
From methodical and scientific and keeping to the facts to stories that do not work with the evidence.

Brian,

before you accuse me of being ridiculous, please do yourself a favor and read my post again.

Quote Dietrich: ""material drip" (which I agree it is)"

And my 'story' was an example that I (and you and anybody else) can make up a story how this material drip came into this particular die. And I thought I made that clear with:

Quote Dietrich:"Far fetched! Of course! Possible? Yes! Probable? Maybe - maybe not."

But Brian, if we are now that 'hard' on the positions it's time for me to take a break before I really become ridiculous.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Maybe it's time for everybody here to take a little breather, and go out and do some research and come back with some real, factual information that we can digest instead of going back and forth with theories, speculations, maybes and how abouts. Let's face it, there's a lot about this whole subject that we don't know. And I think it's premature and inappropriate for some people to act like they do know.

[Brian S]

George, that means never because an S&L die maker or even someone who worked with the S&L dies to create crosses has not been interviewed that I know of.

So we are left with questions to answer from what we see.

1) Why did S&L wait so long to produce now another Type cross? The RK was badly flawed visibly so and it bothered S&L enough to produce a better cross. If the master was sitting around, why not utilize it earler?

2) If it was so easy to produce another daughter die why settle for one that was itself flawed? And began to flaw like it's older daughter so quickly? Why wasn't this one tossed and another quickly produced that was indeed perfect.

3) Unless a Pantograph utilized for this die used the bit the size of a sewing needle, the Pantograph is out of the question. Dave has shown us microscopic die characteristics that could only be copied with the most microscopic of bits.

4) Has anyone studied the known Type 'A' cross flaws microscopically to the early Type 'B' to see if any evidence is visible of a die re-work?

5) Has anyone studied the later Type 'B' crosses with flaws to see if the re-work failed and if so is it an exact match to the later flawed Type 'A'. Obviously new flaws would have developed but are there fingerprints of old flaws that match the later Type 'B' flaws?

Many questions.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

you are right, a lot of questions. And some of them will remain for a long time, maybe forever.

Just two remarks:

I did look microscopicly at the 935-4 at the 3 o'clock area and did not find any traces of rework. I will do again - I have the arm in 20 Mb detail. And I will do the same with the 3 o'clock of the B-Type.

Regarding the bit size. I'm no specialist in micro mecanics, but I do know that there are tools of that size. Just open your mechanical wrist watch and look at the gears, levers and - more fascinating - the threads of the tiny little screws. All made on machines and those watches were already available in the late 18th century.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Brian,

Regarding the bit size. I'm no specialist in micro mecanics, but I do know that there are tools of that size. Just open your mechanical wrist watch and look at the gears, levers and - more fascinating - the threads of the tiny little screws. All made on machines and those watches were already available in the late 18th century.

Dietrich

It's not the point Dietrich that microscopic points COULD be duplicated, it makes no sense to machine an RK to microscopic specifications. There are no micro-gears and screws in an RK. Replicating a die with a process that involved the tiniest of possible bit sizes to duplicate every microscopic flaw is not only unnecessary but a bit slightly larger than your microscopic flaws would result in a cleaner looking final die.

[Dave Kane]

Brian...you may be on to something!!!

The 3oc arm on the 935/4 is considerably ROUGHER on the surface than the rest of the cross.

The ridges and valleys throughout the cross are crisp and very smooth where-in the ridges on the length of the 3oc show a very rough finish under just 30X!!!!

This is not apparent with just a casual viewing but becomes very clear under magnification.

Mystery solved I believe....ONE die and rehabilitated during its life!!

[Sal Williams]

Ok guys,

here are 3 facts. Dave has shown reoccuring very small marks on both the so called A&B type crosses. Dietrich has shown flaw patterns that "come and go" ie do not correspond to a continually developing flaw and a dent row only found on b type crosses. Regardless of 1 0r 2 die theory the 3 of those facts have tp be dealt with! An explaination is needed by the 1 die ers that explain both Dave & Dietrichs observations and it is also imcumbant on the 2 die ers to explain the same. Brian , I don't see how it is fact that it is matierial splatter that explains the dent row at all. What makes that a fact?
I would say that any reasonable explaination would have to include examples of phenomena such as weld, splatter denting clamping of dies. There should be examples of metal workers having material stick in cracks in dies and then coming out again leaving different die flaws from the same die if that is the theory you represent. there is a long history of die work and there is certainly information of problems and problem solving in this field. Seems like all the time spent asserting" facts" could be better spent finding out what happens when dies are damaged in various ways.

Best, Sal

[Sal Williams]

Brian...you may be on to something!!!

The 3oc arm on the 935/4 is considerably ROUGHER on the surface than the rest of the cross.

The ridges and valleys throughout the cross are crisp and very smooth where-in the ridges on the length of the 3oc show a very rough finish under just 30X!!!!

This is not apparent with just a casual viewing but becomes very clear under magnification.

Mystery solved I believe....ONE die and rehabilitated during its life!!

Dave if that was the case and master dies etc. are the norm why would one repair a die that way? Unless you had that die post war and saw a value in repairing it? Seems to me that argument would make all b types post war.

[Dave Kane]

Sal not at all...there are many other factors that are clearly visible in post war crosses that one doesn't need a loup to identify. It's certainly not only flaws.

They did have the die post war...'57 crosses until I suspect it began to give away again and THAT'S why they went to the new die for the later '57's.

[Sal Williams]

Sal not at all...there are many other factors that are clearly visible in post war crosses that one doesn't need a loup to identify. It's certainly not only flaws.

Hi Dave,
I know you believe in 1 die. Do you have a personal belief in a cut off in flaw or something else that determines post war for you personally?
Best, Sal

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian...you may be on to something!!!
The 3oc arm on the 935/4 is considerably ROUGHER on the surface than the rest of the cross.
The ridges and valleys throughout the cross are crisp and very smooth where-in the ridges on the length of the 3oc show a very rough finish under just 30X!!!!
This is not apparent with just a casual viewing but becomes very clear under magnification.
Mystery solved I believe....ONE die and rehabilitated during its life!!

Comparison 800 to 935-4. 3 o'clock arm, turned 90 degree

[Sal Williams]

Oh, I don't think you got what I was saying Dave. I was saying that if the common method of die making allows for a master of some sort, why repair a die,... unless there is a value in that particular cracked die. Say,... post war aquisition of that die for souvaniers for the troops. Possible S&L sold/lost that die and made a new one from the master for 57's. The other die was maybe illegally running off RK's consecutively. If they made a new die in 57 why not before? If S&L was making RK's post war from another die and had sold the cracked die which was also making RK's post war that could confuse the issue a lot no? possibly explaining the differing flaws and apparent timelines while retaining the marks you found if they came from the same master die