Got it!!
-
Regards,
Dave -
It took a while but I needed the lighting to be just right!!!
Here are pictures of the area highlighted by Dietrich in his well put together article that helps us identify post war crosses. So there's no misunderstanding (here) I played a minor role in this great effort but at the conclusion had to disagree with ONE finding or theory and that was the MULTIPLE DIE possibility.
It was suggested that flaws appearing between the 9oc and 12oc arms on early and mid war Crosses were ABSENT on the 935/4 frames thus bringing forth the suspicion of 2 or more die.
The FLAWS are present on the 935/4 frame but one needs the proper angle and lighting to bring them forth. I don't know why they are hard to see on the 935/4 frame but the fact is that (they) are present STRONGLY affirming that only ONE die created the early, mid and later war S&L Crosses!Last edited by Dave Kane; 06-10-2005, 09:13 PM.Regards,
DaveComment
-
1Regards,
DaveComment
-
2Regards,
DaveComment
-
3Regards,
DaveComment
-
4Regards,
DaveComment
-
Dave,
I'm quite sure that some of your suggestions have benefits and it could very well be that it was one reworked die. May I make a suggestion for the benefit of the reader? It would hugely help, if you could 'name' your pictures! With that I mean:
- what type of cross?
- what area? obeverse or reverse?
- can it be seen on both sides?
- what frosting and what effect has the frosting on it?
- are the other identifiers (like the dent row and the knee flaws) present?
- which one is an A-Type and which one a B-Type?
For somebody just looking at this page and the last pictures, the benefit is absolutely zero or better confusing regarding my findings and confusing regarding what you would like to say! It could be a K&Q for all he knows! And no way to reproduce anything since one doesn't know where to look.
Why don't you take the time and write a little article why you think it's one die in different stages?
DietrichComment
-
Dietrich, you highlighted in red the area between the 9 and 12 oc arms and said that flaws appeared in the early S&L 800 crosses but NOT on the 935/4 thus the suspicion of multi dies.
Fact is the flaws are there!
I thought my post clearly said the pics are of the 935/4!
Another article would be only a be a bunch of words asserting my findings....what I think people find easier to absorb is PICTURES and comparrisons of which dozens in favor of ONE die appear within this thread alone.
The flaws shown in these last few pics appear both front and rear with the front being a little easier to make out.
I'm somewhat confounded Dietrich by your last statement regarding someone just looking at the last post/picture....if folks are not interested enough to read the entire thread or at least skip through the many pages WHY repeat in condensed form the entire discussion and direction?Regards,
DaveComment
-
Dave,Originally posted by Dave Kane
I was asked to do so and I thought it might be a good tool to help people at least to get the basics down. In the end it really isn't important whether it was one die or two, important is to be able to tell which one is which and - more importantly - which one is the later one, extending into the grey area of post war manufacturing. If you read thru the whole thread, your head spins and one might be more confused than before ...
DietrichComment
-
Ah yes....the 'easy' way to answers!!! Let someone else do the leg work and then just benefit from the result.....typical of the times! Instant gratification, information at the press of the button.
However back to 2 die etc., I think it's very important to narrow it down because as I have said before the (fraudulent) dealers WILL use the 'multi die' thing to their advantage unless we get this thing of post war v. period down to simple black and white, yes or no and get rid of the ambiguous descriptions and silly assertions.
The article leads a 'casual reader' toward the multi die thought because of the assertions regarding (this) flaw and that the frames were different because of a non filing of the inner corners...
Here's one that is filed and fitted....
Again, I'm all for exposing the post war made crosses BUT we still have work to do!
Regards,
DaveComment
-
[QUOTE=Dave Kane]
The article leads a 'casual reader' toward the multi die thought because of the assertions regarding (this) flaw and that the frames were different because of a non filing of the inner corners...
[QUOTE]
Dave,
I don't think that I was leading somebody to the multi die. As I said very often -and I say it again here - it was and is my theory to explain what I found. What you call "this' flaw is not just some freak thing - it can be observed all over the pieces I call B-Type and it is consistent. It's not an assertion - it's reality!
I also do not see what impact a single or multiple die would make on the dealers or the recognition of a late piece. A late piece is a B-Type, the 935-4 is for me the first B-Type. 935-4's were found in Klessheim as the ONLY B-Type. Now everybody can take it from there...
Whats wrong to put a paper together that condenses all this into one or two pages? I'm not asking anybody to believe what I found, BUT anybody can see what I found and come to his own conclusion.
Was I 100% correct? Of course not, but I was sitting down an tried to find out something helpfull which I shared with the community. That some people, including maybe some dealers, don't like it comes with the job.
DietrichComment
-
I know this! I used the 'casual' reader and the 'instant gratification' to describe the folks who may be taken in by never ending stories and explanations.
You surely have brought out a 'landmark' that will enable those who study, research and truely want to learn about these things a benchmark to go by......
I guess you are right in that we can't be 'our brother's keeper' but for me it's frustrating to (allow) an 'out' when we are so close to solving an ongoing (50 year?) fraud and being able to say WHY!
Regards,
DaveComment
-
Dave,
where is the out? I don't get it?
Only a B-Type can be post war! Fact!
The only B-Type with provenance is the 935-4 (so far). Fact!
A B-type that is not a 935-4 is, at least IMHO, very, very supective! I would never buy one nor would I - if asked for opinion - tell somebody to buy one. Based on facts which EVERYBODY can see and learn on his own.
If people want to buy a 'funny marked' or non-magnetic or Neusilber S&L B-Type, so be it. They will always be for sale!
DietrichComment
-
To you and me Dietrich there isn't an 'out'.....but because of the draw of the hobby and the (natural) appeal to a BARGAIN......
Yes, you are right it will continue...
Maybe deep down I am indeed a romantic
Regards,
DaveComment
-
I am not the type of guy who says "I told you so". No, OK, I am and I love it.
As I said all along, S&L used a different core in their postwar 1939 piece.
Period. Done. Finished with it.
Post #12, ignored by the pundits here...
http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1525&hl=Comment
Comment