Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club
George Stimson

S&L RKs -- made in Britain

Recommended Posts

Guest Brian von Etzel

I know of the publisher of the german "Militari" magazine who talked years ago with the VP of S&L that the post war swastika production is true. Gordon knows that too. So the question really is not whether they did it, they absolutely did. The question is: which types did they do! Would there still be somebody knowing this and would there be records?

Yes, but the one we've seen has a different core. How often will you ignore that...

Why doesn't anyone study the core progression???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

yes, there is one so far with a different core. But the heavily flawed B-Type with swastika in the article has no different core nor has the 935 a different core. To suggest that all possible post war S&L have a different core is not supported by the evidence. Unless, of course, one see's the 935 as pre-45 and also the heavily flawed B-Type (unmagnetic, non-silver). And I know you don't.

However, why don't you start an investigation into the cores? I'm sure it's worthwhile. Maybe something turns up!

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not own an RK of any type, and so I "have no horse in this race."

I was wondering, though, whether anyone had ever gone directly to S&L to see if they could shed any light on their wartime production methods or figures? It also seems conceivable, though just barely, that someone who was working at S&L in 1945 might still be alive somewhere.

Is there any possibility of going directly to the source on these questions of production methods and production techniques? In other words, to find out if there were indeed "parts bins" for components of RK's used as part of the production method.

Or is the entire subject verboten, particularly in light of the wandering dies?

Hi Bill,

I learned the answer to that way back in an early thread at WAF which Prosper was involved in. I thought the same thing asked the same question an got no response. So I started emailing and calling S&L. I found out as many before me had that S&L won't tell you ANYTHING! laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dave Kane

The one or multi die was discussed on another Forum....

Prosper may not have been privy so I'll post a few pics asserting my belief in ONE die albeit repaired!

There's no way these microscopic 'flaws' could be replicated by hand or by a mother die.

These pics span a micro 800, two large 800 and a 935/4.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Go back to a really old thread, I put some info into that.

At the very basic, there are techniques to essentially solder in repairs. Over the years those repair material have gotten better. It was in the late 50's when they were very much improved as IN EARLIER REPAIRS THE MATERIAL WOULD SLIP OUT OF THE CREVICES.

Also, we have learned that by blocking a die you in practice CLOSE CREVICES. Remember, all the evidence of a TIMELINE is based upon crevices and other die flaws. But by blocking the die you close these.

I know this doesn't sound like material you want to read if you are concerned with your theory resting entirely upon an aggregate of flaws, but the realities are otherwise. These were BOTH very prevalent means to repair dies and the modern die repair materials are readily available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, all the evidence of a TIMELINE is based upon crevices and other die flaws. But by blocking the die you close these.

The evidence of the timeline does not rest on open or closed crevices. Entirely not true!

Even if crevices could be closed (which they are not by the 'sandhill shape' of the flaws), it has nothing to do with the dent row, which is not a crevice but a buildup in the die which causes a crevice in the PIECE. So how does that disapera by 'clamping the die'???

Furthermore, the disappearance of the 9-12 o'clock flaw and the apprearance of the 6-9 o'clock flaw has also nothing to do with crevices or whatever other theory there might be coming to difuese the issue.

In addition, the flaw pattern and the flaw shape and the flaw location of late B-Types is completely different to the pattern and evolution of the pattern of the A-Type.

Dietrich

Edited by Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

I am not arguing the dent row. Remember I was the one who argued this was a clear indicator of a spill of die fix material. What really gets my goat is the contention that if this dent row is not "sharp" it's clear indicator of a later cross. On a well worn cross the area of the dent row is worn.

Also, on worn crosses I've noticed the eyelet shows specific wear at the point the ribbon hits the eyelet and swings over the ribbon thereby wearing it down.

These are present on both the Rounder and the S&L in my possession.

It's sad when "new laws" negate the obvious in this hobby.

Edited by Brian von Etzel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

George, it was an incomplete answer. I can try to find that info, it was quite a labor to dig it up on the Internet. I found a manufacturer of die repair materials who gave a history of the company and they mentioned the late 50's die material upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

I have to say that pure logic tells me that if I see a dent row like the one on a 935-4, which is pristine, clear and has 11 dents and compare that to one that is prooven to be later, i.e. one on a 57 cross where the dents are less defined and even less in number, that this is an indication of die wear and therefore time line.

Now I agree that one cannot deduct necessarily that this must be the case with all dent rows. Certain wear can play a role if the cross shows other indication of wear. For instance, I would certainly like to see a dent row more worn on the reverse than on the obverse for obvious reasons. If both, obverse and reverse, show the same reduction in number of dents and 'weakness' of dent definition, I would tend to call such a cross a leter manufacture than a cross with better defined dent row. Only a difference between obverse to reverse is a sign of wear, IMHO.

It is clear and proven that over time the features got weaker the same as over time the regular beading flaws got more in number and placement. Just a normal wear pattern which one can see with EK1's also (Meybauer, for example). And this deterioration is undetachable bound to the use of the die, i.e. the making of the rim and is therefore also bound in time.

Dietrich

Edited by Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

So, according to John Kurd, when he first saw this S&L, "nice worn genuine S&L", crosses don't get worn on the 800 silver beading? This doesn't happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

not at all. That's not what I was saying! Of course crosses get worn.

What I'm trying to say is that the wear usually is more on the reverse than on the obverse and more on the bottom than on the top. You know that, too. It's physics and method of use.

If a dent row - for example - is in the same detoriated stage of less dents and less pronaunced dents on both reverse and obverse then this is IMHO not wear due to a used cross but wear due to die wear.And then it is an indication of die use along a time line (compared to earlier and later crosses) and not an indication of use of the cross.

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Until this whole thing became a 'cause' I was constantly told how nicely and evenly worn. Now it's worn 'only on the dent row' as an excuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dave Kane

I don't think that Crosses 'wear evenly'...

That would be a major red flag for me....as the desk General's Cross will show wear likely at the rear while the poor guy at the front would would suffer 'wear' to the front, side...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until this whole thing became a 'cause' I was constantly told how nicely and evenly worn. Now it's worn 'only on the dent row' as an excuse?

I don't understand what you are trying to say! I guess you are talking about B-Type crosses since only those could fall under the title of this thread.

And B-Type crosses show over the time of their production a wear in the dent row - apart from any other wear they might have been subjected to. That is also clear.

I never said anything about "worn on the dent" row in the sense of dent row alone. And this is not an accusation nor an excuse.

I try again: IMHO, a B-Type cross with a worn dent row and not other wear on the cross that is due to the cross being worn, is a cross that is manufactured later than a cross with a more pristine dent row and no other visible signs of the cross being worn. And that is the time line.

This whole thing was meant as an answer to your sentence and I quote :

"Remember, all the evidence of a TIMELINE is based upon crevices and other die flaws. But by blocking the die you close these."

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dave Kane

Brian, Dietrich surely doesn't have the last word on what is right, wrong, period or otherwise! I absolutely disagree with his asserttion of 'wear' patterns on certain Crosses but that doesn't negate my suspicions regarding 'even wear'!!!

You are the one who related this to your Cross and I responded that I don't like 'even' wear..it suggests to me a 'purpose' and unnatural result!

Shout all you want, divert wherever you will but in the end you must accept the logical!

Visit the v Bock thread on another site.....all was real, period and original that is until this morning!!!

:D

Edited by Dave Kane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have to defend the cross and where the wear is... The insanity... I have my ways of determining honest wear and I've told you, they are indisputably genuine methods.

Brian,

So you are talking about your cross???? I certainly was not! This thread is about the British made crosses and some discussion about the B-Type over time. There was no "attack" on your cross so why do you think you need to "defend"?

In the spirit of this forum - I'm out of this thread. I will not discuss your cross!

Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Yes Dietrich, B Type crosses 'could' fall under this thread if the die went to an English location and restrikes were performed. But did they have the core die or only the frame die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×