The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Tiger 1]

Brian and Dave,

Softer silver to solve a die problem? "Emphasis on NOT" to quote directly.

Without going into the book part again, please understand that any metal that is put into a die is usually as soft as that metal can get. Some of the terms are "annealled" or "dead soft". The metal being formed in a die will get "work hardened". This will impart strength to the object formed. Especially in metals that do not respond to heat treating.

Theorising about using a softer form of silver to prolong useful die life is as wishful thinking as rolling a raw egg on a warm sidewalk to get a soft boiled egg.

Sorry, guys but you have to take stock in how certain things really work. Don't take my word for it find out for yourselves if that's what it takes.

By the way, what the heck is a more 'fluid' silver?

Tony

[Dave Kane]

Tony, nothing was said about 'solving' a problem merely suggesting an action to prolong a die and stay in business...Fluid I think is when the silver is impacted by the hammer and is pressed, stretched or otherwise made in to the shape intended.

Why are you so sarcastic and arrogant when afterall we should all be chasing the end result....the fakes that permeate our hobby!

S&L was one of the oldest award makers in Germany and utilized Master Craftsmen to hand cut die for their product...if it were so simple to just 'create' a new die we wouldn't see FLAWED crosses at all.

I think that I have contributed enough photographic evidence to show a ONE die...

Tony, jump in and show us something different but ofcourse use pictures and not anything taken from the net...

Let's show proof....I have! You have shown only text!

[Brian S]

Dave, it's totally amazing the responses we're getting. We're stating the facts and our technical gurus are telling us NO.

Fact Type 'B' came onto the scene.

Fact Type 'B's most likely first pressing was in 900+ silver.

Why THEN. WHY THEN???

Good grief.

You two quote the gospel third and fourth chapter of the Die and ignore the facts.

And then you tell us how wrong we are. Amazing.

For two guys who quote chapter and verse you're missing the forest for the trees.

Type 'B', 930+ silver. At that moment in time. But you ignore it and quote quote quote die theory.

So pressing Jello would have made no difference to the wear and tear on that repaired die... Hard, harder, hardest, has no relation. Soft, softer, softest is irrelevant...

[George Stimson]

Here's a metal stamping company that's been in business since 1962, not even twenty years after the fall of the Third Reich. http://www.allnewstamping.com/

1962 isn't so long after 1945 that methods could have changed that much, and even if they did perhaps the people who work there can shed some light on manufacturing processes before they went into business. Maybe some interested party could contact them and find out some real information from a horse's mouth about manufacturing techniques, the evolution of metal stamping capabilities, costs of repairs versus costs of making new dies, etc., and then we would have something concrete to go on from an unbiased third party instead of speculation, theories, blow-up photos that really don't seem to prove anything, and (Gasp! ) information from books.

[Dave Kane]

George...I'm absolutely confused by your endless questions!! Why, why and more why!

This doesn't help but only hinders.....

Fact is that after the war ended (we) the US began to rebuild the German infastructure and introduced American technology and machines. The face of Germany changed and that is why it is so SIMPLE for collectors of cloth etc to say..'post war'...caps, uniforms or any textile..to include the material, thread etc, to be identified.

20+ years after the war is a 'lifetime' not only for people but for technology as well!

You were asked about painted 'frosting' so address that issue and please stop with the endless 'whys'!!!

[Brian S]

George, go re-read the post I showed you and cut and paste info from. Die treatments changed in 1954.

Here's part of it again;

Lots of info here;

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">http://www.postle.com/forging%20wir...20Alloy%20Wires</O:P>

<O:P style="MARGIN: 0px">

Postle Industries has had a long association with welding products designed for hardfacing, and maintenance and repair, dating back to 1954. At that time, the concept of using welding as a tool to help industry salvage and prolong the life of expensive parts was still new. It was common practice to throw away broken, failed or defective parts.

During the early years many new repair products and techniques were developed. Their introduction resulted from the endless needs and applications within the growing maintenance repair field. Today, the products for hardfacing and repairing cast iron, special steels, aluminum, and copper alloys, as well as application techniques for salvaging thousands of parts, are well known.

</O:P>

[George Stimson]

Are they saying that in 1954 the ability to repair parts was still new and that before that worn or broken parts were thrown away and not repaired? Wouldn't that indicate that dies were likelier to be replaced instead of repaired during World War Two?

[Tiger 1]

Maleablility is a property of metal that can be moved by applied force. Fluid generally applies to liquids or something that can move of it's own accord.

"Fact Type 'B's most likely first pressing was in 900+ silver."....'Most likely' is indecisive. It either is or is not to be a fact.

Words mean specific things. I'm sorry if I don't quite understand what is meant by what is written. Yes, we may be quoting chapter and verse but that has more substance than just say so. That's the point.......provability.

I'm not being sarcastic or arrogant. I'm exasperated.

Before we can go further we have to have common terms to share that have the same meaning for all sides of this debate.

I try not to quote theory. Sorry.

I have working knowledge of metal. Metal craft is something I have practised for many years. Both in my trade and as related to some aspects of my hobbies. I have experience with construction metal work, some foundry experience, long experience at gunsmithing, jewelry making, working damascus steel and a few other minor experiences. I learned this stuff long before the net and tried to bring some factual knowledge to this thread. I guess experience ain't what it used to be.

Previously the question was asked for anyone to show the repaired die that S&L used to press their frames. We heard and saw nothing in that regards. We heard about weld splatter and other types of maybe couldbe solutions that were put forth as 'fact' with not much proof.

What was attempted to be brought to this discussion was some modicum of information that was provable. Instead of accepting a message, a messenger keeps getting shot.

It's not about 'winning' as it is about truth. It's about speaking with a baseline of terms that mean the same to everyone. We are still not doing that.

A suggestion would be to look at the technology and the actual practises that were used during the first half of the century instead of the last half. I believe the US Government has a very informative publication on the whole process of how US medals and decorations are designed and minted. If memory serves me right it was published c. 1944 or so. Maybe someone can find that info.

I'm done for now as I don't have anything further to offer at this point.

Tony

[Tiger 1]

Are they saying that in 1954 the ability to repair parts was still new and that before that worn or broken parts were thrown away and not repaired? Wouldn't that indicate that dies were likelier to be replaced instead of repaired during World War Two?

Dohh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There you go again hitting the hornets nest with the logic stick!

Tony

[Brian S]

Tony, I really am sorry to be boring you and exasperating you to such extremes.

I am more sorry that you insist on broad generalities and 'truths' and think we should sit around and wait for the die to 'show up' here before we proceed.

We have what we have to look at and what Dave and I see we try to tackle with reason. Does that distrub you?

The 'messenger' is not being shot Tony. Your self-proclamation at martyrdom (that's twice now for you in this thread) is not usually a successful tactic.

I don't get it Tony. Until the master die worker and die show up, maybe we do the best with the evidence we have. It's a bit like forensic science.

...and, that's something Dave does have some experience with.

I'd only ask you to explain what we are seeing and what we have in hand and focus on the evidence that we do have. I'm sure you have a wealth of recent experience. But unless you worked at S&L in 1940-1945 your dissertations aren't getting to the details of the evidence.

[George Stimson]

"George...I'm absolutely confused by your endless questions!! Why, why and more why!

"This doesn't help but only hinders.....

"You were asked about painted 'frosting' so address that issue and please stop with the endless 'whys'!!! "

Dave, anybody is welcome and encouraged to ask questions in this Forum -- even the Moderator. (Now, if only people would give me some satisfactory answers....)

[Brian S]

Are they saying that in 1954 the ability to repair parts was still new and that before that worn or broken parts were thrown away and not repaired? Wouldn't that indicate that dies were likelier to be replaced instead of repaired during World War Two?

Yes, George. If the die was considered beyond repair. But, the S&L folks decided to give it a try. Wouldn't it be logical to try to fix before creating a new die?

Obviously the concept of fixing dies is not new or the folks I mentioned above would not have been in business for 50 years now.

[George Stimson]

Thank you, Brian.

Yes, it would be logical for S&L to attempt to repair the die, and it's quite possible that they did try. But we don't know for sure that they did repair it.

You, know, talking about a standard for acceptability of contentions, I like to use the standards that are used in courtrooms in this country, where speculation, conclusions, theories, etc. are not admissable as evidence. If what we are discussing here is as important as it's made out to be, I think we should have some real solid factual evidence at hand before we reach conclusions. Not theories, unexplained photo essays, hearsay, etc.... but factual, solid evidence.
We don't have to rush to get to a conclusion, do we?
(Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get on to looking at that S&L EK 2 frosting.... )

[Brian S]

To some extent I agree George. But we do not have the original die or anyone from S&L to tell us what happened. What we do have is the evidence. It's the evidence we examine and make the best conclusions possible. I see a repair, Dave sees a repair and evidence of a repair. But neither of us was there so we conclude as best we can with what evidence we have and given this forum hope someone will LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and try to see more. Modern methods, metalurology, etc. is nice, but LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and tell us what you SEE based on your best reasonal powers or in combination with experience. That's what we have today.

[George Stimson]

Brian, I learned a long time ago that it's not always possible to come to a conclusion. Very frequently I look at things and all I can conclude is, "I don't know." I don't have a problem with that. I would rather admit that I don't have an answer than to postulate one that might be incorrect.

But that's just me.