The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Brian S]

I have always agreed with two types. At the point where the 935s appeared, different type.

For me, I'll summarize:

1) Type 'A' S&L clearly defecting until 935's RK.
2) 935 silver requires 27% less pressure to create.
3) 'Dent Row' is in reality most likely a material spill.
4) Pimples and defects a fraction of a mm appear on Type 'A' and 'B'.
5) Type 'B' is evidenced by 935's and perfect 800's.
6) Perfect S&L RKs are not showing up in the marketplace in steady succession over the years. (At least not that I am aware of, maybe someone else knows better.)
7) If Daughter dies were created in 1944, they could continue to have been created, up to this minute. (And are if the master ever existed.)
8) Repairs to dies were commonplace but not perfected until the mid-50's.
9) The 57 model die changed when the 'B' type expired.
10) If master existed, creating another 'A' type die would have been expedient and more attractive than the choice.
11) S&L survived the war. Die(s) survived the war.
Conclusion (for me): Single repaired die. (For the sake of the persons owning 'A' types, I hope I am right. Or it is likely 'A' Type dies are created today from the master.) And 'B' came after 'A'.

[Brian S]

Brian,
If you really think 100 pounds is inconsequential try this.

Clamp one arm of your KC to a stout table so at least half of it overhangs the edge. Next have your eleven year old stand on the end that over hangs.

Once you're done with that easy to do at home practical experiment, tell me that 100 pounds pressure is not enough. I would bet that the 100 pounds of pressure applied to that small area will indeed affect the silver frame and the much tougher iron core also.

Tony

This is my last response Tony...

Hanging an RK over an edge (which acts as a fulcrum) and applying pressure is NOT the same effect as laying it flat and applying pressure. That's basic Physics. When my son stands squareonly on the RK he is applying 100 lbs. evenly over the entire surface.

"Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum strong enough, and single-handed I can move the world." - Archimedes

[Dave Kane]

Ok, Dietrich...you had my cross and studied it, yes?


You brought forth the dent row on the lower 3oc arm. You offered it as proof of a 2nd (different) die.

I find fault however in your study because it gives the appearance of being arbitrary.

Surely you saw the dents in the upper 3oc arm on the Swaz side.....I suspect that you made note of the lack of dents on the reverse. Same type of dent and likely caused by the same type of material yet this isn't mentioned.

You had ample opportunity to study under great magnification the 3oc arm and the surface and compare it to the surface of the other arms and even the surface of arms on other crosses.

Rather, I think you were in such a hurry to find something 'new' that you overlooked items that would contradict the 'end' that you were chasing.

You have said that 'flaws' do not go away.....

[Dave Kane]

Where are they???

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have always agreed with two types. At the point where the 935s appeared, different type.

For me, I'll summarize:

1) Type 'A' S&L clearly defecting until 935's RK.
Yes
2) 935 silver requires 27% less pressure to create.
Yes, but not the 'perfect 800', see below
3) 'Dent Row' is in reality most likely a material spill.
Could very well be, most likely
4) Pimples and defects a fraction of a mm appear on Type 'A' and 'B'.
Yes
5) Type 'B' is evidenced by 935's and perfect 800's.
Yes, regarding pressure see above. Also evidenced by "1957" and swastika neusilver, un-magnetic and maybe others still to identify
6) Perfect S&L RKs are not showing up in the marketplace in steady succession over the years. (At least not that I am aware of, maybe someone else knows better.)
I don't know but you might very well be right there
7) If Daughter dies were created in 1944, they could continue to have been created, up to this minute. (And are if the master ever existed.)
Could? Yes! Evidence for that? No!
8) Repairs to dies were commonplace but not perfected until the mid-50's.
Hearsay, your honor! A thesis, that might be true or not.
9) The 57 model die changed when the 'B' type expired.
NO. I think they changed to C earlier and the B-Type was used longer. Flaws.
10) If master existed, creating another 'A' type die would have been expedient and more attractive than the choice.
The B-Type could be the attempt at a A-Type, only very minor differences and the flaw row might have been an accident, as you say.
11) S&L survived the war. Die(s) survived the war.
Yes!
Conclusion (for me): Single repaired die.
I cannot discount that possibility, but I also cannot discount two dies.


(For the sake of the persons owning 'A' types, I hope I am right. Or it is likely 'A' Type dies are created today from the master.)
Influencing the jury, your honor! This is trying to put the "FEAR" into the A-Type guys to press them into the 'repair die theory

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Based on quotes in another thread, it was readily apparent people were of the impression that if you have a 'B' type you're in trouble. I see the exact opposite if you believe in the S&L master die.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Ok, Dietrich...you had my cross and studied it, yes?
Yes?

You brought forth the dent row on the lower 3oc arm. You offered it as proof of a 2nd (different) die.
Yes! A second die in the sense of another S&L cross model.

I find fault however in your study because it gives the appearance of being arbitrary.
I take offense to that (if my dictonary did translate 'arbitray' correctly)
Surely you saw the dents in the upper 3oc arm on the Swaz side.....I suspect that you made note of the lack of dents on the reverse. Same type of dent and likely caused by the same type of material yet this isn't mentioned.
I was looking for similarities to other crosses, not dis-similarities. And that's exactly how I described the process in the article

You had ample opportunity to study under great magnification the 3oc arm and the surface and compare it to the surface of the other arms and even the surface of arms on other crosses.
Rather, I think you were in such a hurry to find something 'new' that you overlooked items that would contradict the 'end' that you were chasing.

Now if you think that by attacking my integrity and accusing me of rush to judgment or rush to find something 'new' I will bow to any conclusions you have about this, you are completely wrong. That will not work my friend.
The end I was chasing has not been reached: I was convinced that the flawed 800 will show something that would indicate postwar. That was the initial goal. And all people who did send me crosses knew that. Including you. Now there are two types of crosses and everybody can identify them on his/her own. And the flawed 800 are the earlier ones and the 935-4 the later ones. That was NOT the 'end' and you know that very well...



You have said that 'flaws' do not go away.....

The flaws I did concentrate on, did not go away - they are on the 1957 and they are on the heavily flawed unmagnetic cross. Wht should I concentrate on flaws on one cross when in that spot even the reverse is different then the obverse. What 'end' would that serve? And to what different conclusion would that lead to in your opinion?

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

I'm not suggesting anything negative regarding your integrity...I know better and I know you better!

What I am bringing forth is that you had opportunity to address these many contradictions yet seemed focused only on the dent row and suggesting a 'new' die...

Refer to your post #326....


It's frustrating that the 'entire picture' is not offered prior to arriving at a conclusion.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

I went thru the trouble of doing this and the work of putting it together. I knew from the very beginning that I would be attacked for whatever reason.

I clearly stated that this is my thesis and I did not and do not exspect that all what I wrote will stand the test of time. There will be more to come and this is just the start.

My personal conclusion was "two dies" and I did put this thesis forward. Some don't agree. Okay! Other do. Does that make the whole thing invalid? Surely not! I'm content with my A- and B-cross type finding, and so are you, by the way.

For me this was the entire picture at that point in time and I ended my article with "There's for sure more to come ...." I knew then and know now that there is more to come. Who am I to think I know it all?

What do you want me to do now? Revoke like a heretic?

Further investigation into this matter might very well prove that it's a repaired die. Or maybe additional evidence for two dies comes up. Why is it so hugely important for you that I personally revoke the two die theory, thesis, assumption, personal conclusion, working idea, ...

I honestly do not get it! I cannot say more then that was my thesis when I wrote the article.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Dietrich, without your article there would have been no discussion. I believe now that we've had time and taken the energy to dissect it, we've raised enough new views and factual information to suggest a single die is more likely.

Taking your time to review everyone's input and evidence and reconsidering doesn't make anyone a heretic. But you decide what's right for you.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Based on quotes in another thread, it was readily apparent people were of the impression that if you have a 'B' type you're in trouble. I see the exact opposite if you believe in the S&L master die.

Brian,

that will always be the problem. "People" conclude or extract what serves their purpose or picture of the world. Just look at the different interpretations of the Bible or the Koran. (Not that what we talk about has any resemblance in significance to those books, not at all. Just an example).

There's nothing one can do. Nothing at all.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, we know the direction that (we) want to go BUT unless we can define this 'jump off' spot I believe all efforts toward the final goal will be compromised.


The 2 die theory is just too loose and without a 'common ground' the mights, could be's etc. anything built atop this can and will be taken apart.

If the additional dents aren't addressed then surely we will hear allegations of yet more daughters, aunts.........

I'm anticipating.....yes, the Swaz side was the result of an earlier stamping and the reverse why that was a bit later so that's why they don't match...and any combination thereafter.

I know we can't help the 'spin' put on something like this but we can try to narrow it down.

The statement made about all of the non-magnetic, non-silver 'EARLY' crosses as the dealers would have it demands that we do this right and eliminate any possiblity of an 'out'!!

ONLY the S&L "early" crosses demand LESS $$$$ than the early crosses of other makers...why?

We need a common ground and at the same time a solid ground on which to continue!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich, without your article there would have been no discussion. I believe now that we've had time and taken the energy to dissect it, we've raised enough new views and factual information to suggest a single die is more likely.
Taking your time to review everyone's input and evidence and reconsidering doesn't make anyone a heretic. But you decide what's right for you.

Brian,

if and when I think that my THESIS about two dies is wrong I will clearly say so. You know me.
I will say, that at this point in time it is not important to me because it has no bearing on the real task ahead.

I will also say that after this discussion that there are certain indications for a repaired die (not the material spill - this could happen to any die), but more the minute 'fingerprints'.

But don't forget, there's still the knee flaws that cannot be explained by the 'repair die theory'. Why would one set go away and another set would come?

To "switch" over to "your" side would be the same rush to judgement then I was just accused 1/2 hour ago..... No need to do it twice, or?

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

a multiple die theory would indeed very loose! A two type cross fact however is very tight. There are only two types identified today and whatever a dealer offers from now on will better be an A or an B Type.

Now I see the danger of the 'out' of a dealer by saying C or D or E Type by riding on a multiple die theory. That I personally would not buy at all.

Why? Because of the time line without gaps: A-Type - B-Type - 1957.

But some dealers will make up whatever they wnat and some people will believe whatever they are told. And that's just how the economy works. I cannot change that. I can only change it for me and for the one's that can follow (right or wrong) my thought process.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Wrong Dietrich. A multiple die scenario is entirely logical if you believe in the master die and the reproduction of dies via the pantograph or any other process. Now try to think logically please and it's not heretical... If a die can be created off the master then another die can be created, and another. But with your 'easy die creation' theory, the 'B' type is identifiable ONLY because of the material spill. The dies that came after the 'B' type were indistinguishable from the 'A' types because they had no spill.

This is pure logic and goes purely to the master daughter S&L dies you've held onto.

It's entirely intellectually dishonest to tell me there was a master die, a 'B' die, but no more? Why? So easy for one but not two, three, four... Remember YOU and many of your readers have told us, the master daughter creates perfect copies. So it entirely stands to pure reason, only the 'B' type, so far, has shown itself because of the material spill.

You can't have it all ways Dietrich.

You've always represented the person in this forum who takes a evidence only approach to everything.

So you tell me why this is not possible, multiple dies.