The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[Dave Kane]

I understand Dietrich but therein is my frustration....I understand that folks will believe what and whom they choose to deal with. However, the crime of FRAUD does not take that in to account...they are still a vict.!

My 'bent' here is yes or no...black or white and I feel so frustrated by showing what I consider proof that is overlooked, discounted and generally disregarded and replaced by pages of these 'ifs'!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

But with your 'easy die creation' theory, the 'B' type is identifiable ONLY because of the material spill.

Not quite. As I said in the article, it was clear to me that just one feature is not enough to come up with two dies. I looked closely to find another similarity and I found that with the knee flaw, which is constantly pushed under the table.

The dies that came after the 'B' type were indistinguishable from the 'A' types because they had no spill.

No, there is also the knee flaw

Remember YOU and many of your readers have told us, the master daughter creates perfect copies.

If it would be perfect copies, we would not have found the B-Types. And there is no indication that there are more then two types. None at all. The findings of the A-Type flaws are consistent inside the A-Type population and the same applies to the B-Type population.

You can't have it all ways Dietrich.

I don't want to have it all ways or any ways. All I'm saying is that I did identify two cross types and that my thesis is that S&L had two dies. More evidence and more investigation might very well show that it was only one die that was repaired. I honestly don't know one way or the other. I thought (and still think) that I should come up with at least one possible explanation how this could be and I choose the two die thesis. And not only based on the flaw row but also based on the knee flaws.

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

I neither know about the existence of multiple dies nor do I know about the existence of a repaired die. Technical possibilities for both scenarios exist. There is also good evidence for both theories. And it is theory at this point in time, for both sides.


Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

My 'bent' here is yes or no...black or white and I feel so frustrated by showing what I consider proof that is overlooked, discounted and generally disregarded and replaced by pages of these 'ifs'!

Dave,

I'm surely not overlooking what you showed! The minute flaws are a strong indication for a repaired die. However, the same 'overlooking' applies to one of my arguments: the knee flaws. And also the comparison I showed between the two arms (800 and 935) were I at least do not see any rework but also see some differences in the appearance of the actual beading corners, i.e in an area that was most likely not touched by any possible rework.

Yes or No! Black or White! Good or Bad!

Maybe it is not that simple! Two weeks ago it was mostly accepted FACT that all types of S&L came from one die and looked all the same. The perplexity was in the impossibility to reconcile the time line.

That is gone now - forever! Now we have a better grasp on the sequence of events. Now we know there were really two die types. The old 'Yes" or "No" has been completely replaced!

Why rush to a new "Yes" or "No"? A new "That's what it is!"?

If it helps you here is what I can say with all honesty:

I do not know with 100% certainty whether there were two dies nor do I know whether there is one repaired die. I only know that there were two types of crosses and I can identify them clearly with several features.

Does that help?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

At least 100 posts ago, I said, Dietrich, that when the die was repaired, it was repaired by an expert. And he fixed the knee flaw.

So logically, Dietrich, you know S&L survived the war, therefore, so did the Master. Why didn't S&L just make yet another die from the Master when the '57 failed? Why did they resort to such an unattractive die for the sake of expediency they hurried out an ugly die. Why Dietrich? One die? And hopelessly failed?

[Dietrich Maerz]

At least 100 posts ago, I said, Dietrich, that when the die was repaired, it was repaired by an expert. And he fixed the knee flaw.

So logically, Dietrich, you know S&L survived the war, therefore, so did the Master. Why didn't S&L just make yet another die from the Master when the '57 failed? Why did they resort to such an unattractive die for the sake of expediency they hurried out an ugly die. Why Dietrich? One die? And hopelessly failed?

Brian,

yes, he might have fixed the 9-12 o'clock flaw, but why did he 'introduce' the 6-9 o'clock knee flaw?

Yes, I know that S&L survived the war. I also know that the B-Type die survived the war. More then that I do not know.
I do not know what happened to the master. One could say it was lost, destroyed, stolen, ... since the 2nd 1957 model could also be an indication that they didn't have the master anymore. It's all speculation.

And the B-Type die was used after the creation of the 2nd 1957 model. Clearly. Not necessarily by S&L, but somebody used it. So for those guys it was not hopelessly failed.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Brian,

yes, he might have fixed the 9-12 o'clock flaw, but why did he 'introduce' the 6-9 o'clock knee flaw?

Do I need to quote Dave and remind you that you haven't examined that many crosses... This flaw may have developed slowly or after a few runs, who knows. But your comment that HE introduced it, you're being sarcastic and we both know flippant with the unknown, with what you don't know and haven't seen...

Yes, I know that S&L survived the war. I also know that the B-Type die survived the war. More then that I do not know.
I do not know what happened to the master. One could say it was lost, destroyed, stolen, ... since the 2nd 1957 model could also be an indication that they didn't have the master anymore. It's all speculation.

Highly illogical. Let's destroy the master but keep the rest? Not a reasonable response. More a response that is refusing to be reasonable.

And the B-Type die was used after the creation of the 2nd 1957 model. Clearly. Not necessarily by S&L, but somebody used it. So for those guys it was not hopelessly failed.

From some of the crosses I've seen, it was horribly fugly. That is in my opinion hopelessly failed.

Dietrich

I can see where this is going. Or not going. I'll wait until another post brings out some more evidence or more crosses are examined. For me it's so obvious this is a repaired die and I'm ending it there on a Friday.

There IS no MASTER DIE today because there WAS no master die in 1944.

Material Spills on a die don't just happen by accident. Not the kind of material that adheres to the die like this material did. (But you continually refuse this logic.) An accidental spill of normal material would have cooled by the time it spilled from a distance. An accidental spill of die repair material would have been directly over the area and hence it adherred. That's just logic. The "I just don't know" is a cop out. A denial. Accidental cross solder spill would have immediately popped out of the die, not stuck there in pressings to 1957.

I understand the refusal here to accept logic from evidence. But that's all we have and probably all we'll ever get. In lieu of further evidence, good luck.

For me, the single die is obvious. For you, who believe two dies, better believe 5 or ten. And out of those 5 or ten, ONE is identifiable by it's material spill, ONE is identifiable by its developing flaws, and 4 to 6, are perfect S&L restrikes.

[Dietrich Maerz]

[QUOTE=Brian S]
For me, the single die is obvious. For you, who believe two dies, better believe 5 or ten. And out of those 5 or ten, ONE is identifiable by it's material spill, ONE is identifiable by its developing flaws, and 4 to 6, are perfect S&L restrikes.[/QUOTE]

Brian,

I really think you are not reading my posts. Didn't I just say?:

"All I'm saying is that I did identify two cross types and that my thesis is that S&L had two dies. More evidence and more investigation might very well show that it was only one die that was repaired. I honestly don't know one way or the other."

And why are you saying this? "The "I just don't know" is a cop out. A denial"

So if I'm saying 'I don't know' I deny 'whatever the truth might be'?

And the "HE" which you construe as being sarcastic was my reference to your "expert", not more.

You don't need to remind me that I only examined a few crosses. Everybody knows that and it is clearly pointed out in the article. I did however, as you know, check with a lot of other people about my findings and got them all confirmed.

What is so critical about to come to a definite conclusion about the die issue right now and today?

But let's stop it here, I agree. Let's look at more crosses.

Dietrich

[Thomas H]

Hi,

Where would you put this KC in the timeline

http://www.germanmedals.com/home.html

Quote site:

The cross is unmarked but a typical example by the firm Steinhauer & Luck, the loop is silver content marked "935". The core is non magnetic and considered to be a very early piece by this manufacturer. A beautiful and rare award.

Is the loop attached later in the war or ....

Thomas

[Dietrich Maerz]

Thomas,

that really depends. If it's a B-Type (and I bet it is, but don't know) I would put this cross after the 935-4 and also after 1945. If B-type, it's a postwar poduction.

Dietrich

[Tiger 1]

There IS no MASTER DIE today because there WAS no master die in 1944.

Material Spills on a die don't just happen by accident. Not the kind of material that adheres to the die like this material did. (But you continually refuse this logic.) An accidental spill of normal material would have cooled by the time it spilled from a distance. An accidental spill of die repair material would have been directly over the area and hence it adherred. That's just logic. The "I just don't know" is a cop out. A denial. Accidental cross solder spill would have immediately popped out of the die, not stuck there in pressings to 1957.

Good morning Brian,

Is your first sentence quoted above about the master die a FACT? Can you prove it to be so? I'm not arguing, just asking for proof of that definate statement.

In the second part. Are you suggesting that the KCs were soldered while in the frame pressing die? As per the "Accidental cross solder spill......" ?

Still curious and still in pusuit of the answer.

Tony

P,S. Brian, PM me a mailing address and I'll send you some info that I have available. No strings attached.

[tom hansen]

My brother in law, who has been a tool and die maker for 25 years, was over for mother's day. He looked at these images and the thread. This is just his opinion, but the guy makes his living doing this. He said from the presence of the exact same minute flaws and the "movement" of the major flaw at 3 oclock that it appears to him to be a single repaired die. He said the transcription process that Tony and Dietrich describe is quite accurate and was used at that time. He also said that this process is very time consuming and that a die can be repaired by heating the die and applying a silver solder "weld" to the flaw. The cooling over this area creates a "spider web" appearance over the repaired area. Later in the 50s he said they changed to a "cobalt weld technique" to perform this. I did not follow everything Kevin was saying from a technical standpoint. One thing that is interesting about the "master die" he did say is that despite trasription, it is not completely perfect and there would be some very minor differences between those produced from different daughter dies.

[Brian S]

The cooling over this area creates a "spider web" appearance over the repaired area.

That's exactly what Dave and I were seeing.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I got a very interesting cross in the mail today:

A S&L Knights Cross with Swastika, unmarked, unmagnetic with relatively nice finish.

The only unmagnetic, unmarked I had in my hands so far was the heavily flawed example of the article. Heavily flawed at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock arm and my thesis was (and is) that this cross is one that was created close to the end of the livetime of the B-Type die (type).

The weight of that cross was 27.5 gr with loop.

Here is the cross I got today. Weight with loop 24.4 gr.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The inner parts of the loop is unfinished as we very oftne see with 57 edidtions. The cross is unmarked. AND has no visible (typical) flaws at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock arm, the frame is what has been considered 'unflawed' 3 weeks ago.

[Dietrich Maerz]

However, the cross has the dent row in a fairly pristine occurance, i.e. stronger pronaunced as with the 57 crosses. Both on the obverse and reverse. Therefore a typical B-Type and manufactured after the 935-4, IMHO.