The Two S&L Dies for RK's

[tom hansen]

So what do you make of that as well as the "non-blip", "pre-blip" area on Brian's cross?

[Harry]

I don't know whether Detlev uses the landmark as a defining criteria for pre or postwar....I never asked him! He did look at two crosses I sent him, the 935-only iron core and the zinc-cored flawless and he deemed them both post war. Pre blip I am unsure about, The minor pimple on Brians cross is in a different place than the Blip, same level (in line with 6th/7th ridge) but the pimple is more in against the step-up to the beading........If you look very close at the three blip pics I posted, you will see this same mark as a separate item nearer the step

[Dietrich Maerz]

Detlev's piece was an unmarked, non-magnetic S&L (I asume B-Type ) A no brainer, IMHO. Still, the package fetched € 3,500.-!! Can somebody tell how much the other orders and the Soldbuch would bring separate to determine how much a post-war non-magnetic, unmarked S&L is worth nowadays.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Harry- If you take a look lateral to the pimple on Brian's, you can see the outline of what appears to be something in the same shape of the "blip" there. I would be odd to have it in the same shape and position if it were not related. I have no idea what that means, but the fact that it appears finished is interesting. If it was post war, why bother finishing an imperfection?

[Erickn]

800 4

Harry,

this is a very interesting point! First of all - regarding your obsrvation - the blip can only be found on B-Type frames. However, not on the frist one, i.e. the 935-4. So it seems to be another mark for determination!

I think more data is needed! How about the following B-Types:

- 800-4
- 800
- 935

Do those have the blip or not? This would help a lot in establishing a time line, but still would not tell anything about the cut off between post and pre 45.

Dietrich

No Blip!

[Erickn]

One more- 800 4 front

[Brian S]

Here is the dent row of a 935, declared by Detlev as postwar. Look how pristine the dent row is! Am I missing someting here?

Dietrich

Even Detlev can be wrong, I think he'd be the first to tell he doesn't know it all but errs on the side of ensuring he's not selling postwar strikes. Good for him. Perhaps this is the evidence he needs to further consider.

[Brian S]

The minor pimple on Brians cross is in a different place than the Blip, same level (in line with 6th/7th ridge) but the pimple is more in against the step-up to the beading........If you look very close at the three blip pics I posted, you will see this same mark as a separate item nearer the step

Let's make sure Harry's information is not lost here.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here's the dent row of Erikn's cross. I hope he doesn't mind. fairly good defined, but lesser than the 935, I would say.

[Brian S]

Comparing Harry's photo with the blip to the two sides of mine I see clearly there is no blip on mine and the other mark on Harry's where mine is crescent shaped seems more pronounced.

Again, there is no sign of finishing on my cross. The pre-blip is just plain invisible to me. Under magnification, the eye, there are normal discolorations to the silver over the years, but no pre-blip. Maybe when we get Harry's better photos we'll be better able to discern the exact where.

Harry, you have a better frame of reference certainly than Tom, do you see any signs of the "pre-blip" on my cross???

[Dietrich Maerz]

If the blip is a sign of post war (or at least later than those w/o blip), why has my S&L 57 RK no blip and a fairly well defined dent row? Would that not put 935's with a blip and all other bliped 'behind' them, i.e. younger? And why is the dent row more pristine with the 935 than it is with my 57 RK? Would that not put the 935 before 57?? With a blip?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

So, Dietrich, YOUR '57 cross becomes the single piece from which to date all others???

Wow, that's a bit steep.

We've seen '57 crosses with all types of frames. S&L was not a first in first out cross maker. Frames went into the bin and went when they went.

And now you'd like to propose a blip, a die flaw, heals itself?

Is this rhetorical?

Has someone hijacked your account is making preposterous posts???

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

I knew you would react like that, but that's okay. So for the sake of discussion just assume this:

- it might not be my cross

So what would that change in your opinion?

The cross still has no blip and still is a S&L and still has a fairly well defined dent row. And it was made in or after 1957 - a firm date in time. This is not my imagination nor is it rethorical nor preposterous (have to look that one up..)

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Yes, it is preposterous that you would state that because you have an S&L '57 core that the frame is made in 1957.


I think perhaps you should do some interesting reading on these frames.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Brian,

help me in my preposterous postings. (I looked it up!) I did not say that the frame was made in 57, I said "i"t, i.e. the cross, was made in or after 1957.

Are you saying that the frame of this 57 cross was produced during the war and later assembled? Back to the bin theory? It's not a silver frame, by the way.

Dietrich