Dietrich

Nope! Not quite so! And not that easy! First of all, to make the above statement, you need to answer my questions. Don't forget, behind the assumptions I was making is some credible evidence. I don't think you can or will call numerous people liars or part of a great conspiracy just to make it 'questionable'. Furthermore, there is more than just the flawed/unflawed issue. There are the multiple other S&L types which are unflawed and surely need to be addressed. Some of them are or were still considered pre May 45. I don't think so and that debate is for sure not over. Or do you know where thoses types fall: 800-4, 935, 800 incuse, 800 B-Type? Pre or post May 45? And lastly, the community hopefully realizes that there are two types of flawed crosses. A-Types and B-Types. And do not mix them up! The S&L saga is for sure not over and I never claimed that it is. However, it is a better picture than it was 3 years ago and I hope the awarness level regarding the B-Types has been raised inside the community. And, I might say, I did not make friend with dealers by trying to do so...

You can twist, turn, divert or whatever, but you will not find any 'utter conviction' in this threat ..... at least not from me. I hope that the mayority of the reader understand what I'm trying to say and on what I base my arguments on. To push me into the corner of a 'stuborn authority' will not work. By the way, I'm waiting for your answers.

Patience, young man, patience!

I do NOT know and I never said I did. To quote myself out of this threat: "The only other thing I can say is that, having had multiple examples of the 924-4 and 800-4 under my microscop, taking ton's of pictures, that the dent row of the 800-4 is very close to the 935-4. Based on that I would think that the 800-4 came shortly after the 935-4. But that 'shortly after' could already be 1946!" "If the die was repaired after 57 then the 935-4 which are alledged to be found in Klessheim are also post 57. And so are the 935, 800-4, 800, 800 incuse. Surely a possiblity if one discounts the Klessheim provenance" "As I said several times above, I personally think that the 935-4 is the first B-type. I base this on multiple examples I could study under the microscope and subsequent comparison to the other models - concentrating on the wear and definition of the dent row. Also, I happen to believe that the reports of the Klessheim found are correct. But that could be debated since it could be a 'fairy tale'. Fact is t this point in time that none of the B-types are solidly attached to a legitimate recipient." "The only difference to what I am thinking is the 935-4 model. I believe this to be a good one and the others to be in a 'grey area'. Whether this grey area is 1946-1957 or 1950 to 1957 is for determination of 'genuine' irrelevant. The other difference, however, is the possibility of pots-war flawed A-Types." I cannot see anywhere here or at any other place where I categorically state that "I know". So let's dimiss this question as a "Fangfrage" Again, I do NOT know But several things can I state: First of all, I happen to believe that some people are telling the truth. You know of two of them, at least. Secondly, as outlined several times, I also happen to belive that the 935-4 is a pre may 45 product and I also base that on (for me) reliable sources. I one accepts that, the question is answered. Now, since we are into absolutes now, let me ask you this: How do you know that flawed A-Type crosses are post war? How do you know that the 935-4 was NOT at Klessheim How do you know that all the provenance for flawed A-Types must be wrong And I know that you don't know!

I have outlined my position several times. That's all I knwo about this subject. Take some crosses and look for yourself. But we are making progress: PK, post #13: "How, in your opinion, were the frame dies repaired? What process did the diecutters use? Would it not just have been simpler to cut new dies or even to do as most firms of the time did and outsource the components they needed?" PK, post #88, regarding the repaired die: "That was never in dispute, as far as I am concerned.

Keating mixes up the time line and the evidence. First of all, Dr. Hansen was NOT the only one conducting an investigation. He was, however, the one who nailed down the compound and he deserves credit for this and his overall drive to find the truth. His findings were published at WAF quite some time before he became a Moderator at MCF. Keating is constantly ignoring this. Regarding the withdrawal of the article about the Rounder Keating brings up again and again I can only say that at the point of writing this is what I thought. Just as Mr. Williamson thought the Rounder to be genuine when he published his book, just as a lot of other thought about the subject. Now I openly admitt that I am not infallible and I still have to meet somebody who is. Of course, now everybody knows ... I resent the notion by Keating that I (and others) did supress information deliberately. It is not true and I can only speculate why he suggests so. He also seems to forget that it was my Rounder, which I did send to Dr. Hansen for his first SEM investigation. And all those findings where published as WAF also. Now back to the issue at hand: Keating and anybody else can think whatever they want. I'm not preaching a religion and nobody has to believe it. I think, however, that the findings have helped the community to have a better grip on the issue and I'm delighted that Keating at least agrees with the A and B Type.

There are a lot of unflawed 57 B-Type crosses. That is exactly the point. Please read again my post # 80. I don't feel pressed at all, by the way. There is not even one piece of physical evidence you could not verify on your own. And thank you for being diplomatic with me! Again I do not understand why you are bringing this up again and again. I take - as an example - your story about the sale of the flawed die in England also at face value. Maybe it's not true, maybe it is true. I happen to believe you. So in other words, I just should leave, keep my opinions to myself, stop peddling here? May I kindly remind you that the owner of this site was opening this threat and specifically expanded it to the subject of the S&L dies. I gave my opinion, which - so I hope - I'm entitled to. Sure, I'm arguing with you on a factual basis, explaining my points. I don't consider this peddling. Nor do I in any way shape or form handle you in a disrespectfull way. Furthermore, nobody was ever banned from any site for disagreeing with me. Not banned by me nor anybody else. This is a track record some people do not have, by the way. Don't forget, Dr. Hansen was also banned form this site where I have no saying. You should also allow me to answer to some of your points, especially when they are not quite correct in relation with the Rounder (which I did not bring up constantly). Why don't you just concentrate on the S&L issue and your viewpint in contrast to mine. However, if the owner of the site contacts me and asks me to "stop peddling" or drop the issue, I surely will do so.

Please tell me where I was aggressive and abusive to you or anybody else and I will edit my post and issue a sincere apology! I don't know why Keating is bringing this up again and again. I have stated several times already my position on this - the last time at the beginning of this threat. And for the record, the findings of Dr. Hansen were published at WAF and they are still there for everybody to see. The only reason I can see here is to somewhat discredit my S&L theory by muddling it up with this never-ending 'Rounder' thing. By the way, "these fakes and fantasy pieces" are not my invention and have been published by others before. People who are and should be in good standing. I know this is not directed at me, but again for the record, I consider myself very serious minded. I for sure do not hammer at you, I'm only trying to express what I think and - believe me - I do not exspect you to change your mind. But this is a discussion forum and others are reading, too and might enjoy the several aspects of the debate.

Me again, sorry. But the editing by the poster while I'm typing a response is sometimes throwing me off. There is a difference between "theory"/"thesis" and "misinformation" - at least in my understanding. I clearly state why I think the die was repaired during the late war period. A misinformation in my book is presented if I would deliberately and categorically state so, but I would know better. So please "tolerate" my theory. No need to tolerate misinformation since there is none.

I didn't challenge you but thanks for the list anyway! For which one's did you serve as an editor, if I might ask? Just curious.

You finally got it! Thank you!

No, I don't! At least we have an understanding that the die was repaired at one point in time. So that is good! There are a multitude of B-Types on the market: - 935-4 - 935, magnetic and unmagnetic - 800-4 - incuse 800 - regular 800 - unmarked, unmagnetic - 57 model The earlier examples do not show any beading flaws, the later do so. So it would seem logic to assume that the models w/o beading flaws are stamped earlier and since we have 57's w/o such flaws and furthermore the models 935-4, 935, 800-4, incuse 800 and 800 do also don't show such flaws. From that I would conclude that those were made before 1957. As I said several times above, I personally think that the 935-4 is the first B-type. I base this on multiple examples I could study under the microscope and subsequent comparison to the other models - concentrating on the wear and definition of the dent row. Also, I happen to believe that the reports of the Klessheim found are correct. But that could be debated since it could be a 'fairy tale'. Fact is t this point in time that none of the B-types are solidly attached to a legitimate recipient. Also, as I already said above, I consider all the post 935-4 models as in a 'grey area' and several of them are firmly considered to be post war already. Such as the 935 and the unmarked, unmagnetic. The original S&L debate was initially centered about the beading flawed crosses. All of them were considered post war since there were the very ugly unmagnetic unmarked pieces which also showed beading flaws and were clearly post war. The existence of non-beading flawed 57 crosses would make one think that ALL beading flawed crosses are therefore post-57. However, some people clearly testified to the existence of pre-45 flawed crosses. This was the riddle. The discovery of two die stages in conjuction with the different beading flaw pattern at least did prove one thing for sure: The pre-45 A-Type crosses with flawed beading do pre-date the 935-4. Thus the existence of genuine flawed crosses (A-type) was proved when taking the 935-4 Klessheim found into consideration. There is, however, one scenario that is perhaps possible. And I guess this is what Mr. Keating is aluding to: IF the die was repaired in (lets say and for the sake of discussion) in 1950, logic would tell us that crosses possibly produced between May 1945 and 1950 would all be heavily flawed A-Types (since not yet repaired) and all other non-beading flawed B-types must have been produced between (to stay with the example) 1950 and 1957 (after the repai) or maybe some even later. The only difference to what I am thinking is the 935-4 model. I believe this to be a good one and the others to be in a 'grey area'. Whether this grey area is 1946-1957 or 1950 to 1957 is for determination of 'genuine' irrelevant. The other difference, however, is the possibility of pots-war flawed A-Types. My position hinges on the Klessheim found of 935-4's and - to a certain extend - on the quality of those crosses. Up to now, the following B-Type crosses made by S&L are considered 'genuine' in the lierature: 935-4, 935, 800-4, 800 incuse, 800. I do not share this believe. How could such a stance be considered dealer friendly, by the way?

I can clearly see why Mr. Keating does not understand my assertion because he constantly fails to understand two very basic things: the B-Type has the dent row which the A-type doesn't have and the beading flaw pattern of the pre-45 flawed A-Type is different to the beading flaw pattern of the later B-Type, as outlined several times in this threat and even supported by a diagram. The suggestion by Keating that the B-Type was repaired in (maybe) 1962 does not check out with reality (B-Type frames with dent rows for the 57 model). I suggest another study of the article. I do not know what magazine Keating is editing and what article he writes. I'm sure that the magazine in question has some advertisement but I'm also quite sure that Keating has no sinister ties to any shampoo advertisement that might be placed in his magazine - something he seems to suggest was the case with me and "supporting militaria dealers". If de didn't want to suggest that, I apologize in advance to spare Keating an answer. Apart from the strange obsession with my 'writing' I like to remark that I do not aspire to be a writer but rather a presenter of my findings. The proofreading thing, however, makes only sense if the proofreader or editor or serious scribe has the mental capacity or the openess to understand the contents of the work in question. I find it far more convenient to stand on my own feet and face possible critique without having the 'out' of blaming an ignorant proofreader for introduction of mistakes or mis-interpretation. Since Keating is so convinced that the published findings are incorrect I suggest to him to write an article refuting the findings step by step, with pictures and supporting data so everybody can follow his reasoning. This is the normal way in such a case. As a writer and editor it should not be a problem to him and I'm sure he has access to proofreaders and fact checkers. Cheers DM

It is interesting to note that, if one goes with Keatings assertion that the die was repaired after the war, that all the B-Types shown in mayor publications are considered post May 45. Just for the record, I never said this since I don't know. For me and my humble opinion the die was repaired late in 44 or maybe early 45 and produced as a first model the 935-4 (which was found at Klessheim). After that the grey area starts. If one accepts two things (which does not seem to be the case here): the dent row and the different flaws as signs of a repaired die plus the digfferent beading flaw pattern between A and later B-Type. Neglecting this subtracts the basis of the discussion. From earlier discussions I remember very well that Mr. Williamson had no problem with flawed S&L's (the Barkmann cross, I think) and also has no problem with the 935-4, 935 magnetic and 800-4 as expressed above - so in his opinion they are pre-45 and therefore the die must have been repaired well before May 45 to crank out thoses crosses. If one reads thru the threat again one will see that I never had any problem with any flawed 57 type, 1st or second pattern. For two reasons: I don't care about 57 and all he crosses in the "grey area", i.e. the 935, 800-4 incuse 800 and 800 B-type have no flaws at the beading at all (other than the dent row). The very late unmagnetic, flawed crosses and the ruined die Keating is mentioning was never ever under discussion by anybody. This being a Gentleman forum I will humbly subtract myself from the discussion. Nothing that was expressed here has changed my viewpoint to which I'm entitled. I choose to stay with it in the the same way others do. Time will tell ....

I don't know why this 2nd pattern is so important to you and Gordon. It doesn't matter at all. The big question is and always was which swastika models are pre or post war. I will not show this or any other 57 cross in the book. I'm not interested in thoses. The only purpose of the 57 (1st pattern) was to establish a fixed point in time regarding the wear of the dent row. As such, the 57 is definetely weaker in definition as the one of the 935-4 and - strictly based on logic and a certain knowledge in machine tools - I consider those as a later strike.

I'm not basing originality on markings. I'm basing the types and the possible time sequence on the wear of the dent row - as outlined above. I was only asking your opinion about the types for better definition. We all know that unmagnetic for S&L is post war. So magnetic 935's could be pre May 45? Here's the thread about the 2nd pattern 57 cross: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=196370

I'd like to ask you this question again. What do you think?

It has been confirmed by somebody who has very detailled pictures of the cross in question that it is and always was a 2nd type 57 pattern. Why the cross you show has some flaws is irrelevant for my purpose since it is clearly a 2nd pattern - also! I'm only interested in the evolution of the original die.

Yes, I know! It could very well be that the 935-4 is already post war. How would you explain the dent row and the difference between the 935-4 and the 57 as shown above?

If the die was repaired after 57 then the 935-4 which are alledged to be found in Klessheim are also post 57. And so are the 935, 800-4, 800, 800 incuse. Surely a possiblity if one discounts the Klessheim provenance. One thing does not fit into this scenario. The difference in die use (dent row 57 less pristine than the others).

Oh so true. The split bead - as pointe out by Dave Kane - is a very nice indication for a repaired die. I would not think that one could duplicate such a feature. And there are others. Here's the split bead:

Now I got it! The comparison between the beading flaws of the A-Type and the beading flaws of the B-Type was a kind of lacmus test. It would have been very difficult to sustain the theory of B-Types as a 'new' incarnation of the A-Type IF the beading flaws of - let's say - a 80's made cross would be the same as the ones of a pre 45 A-Type. Don't forget, the big debate was and still seems to be about the beading flaws and the occurance on different crosses, i.e. those with provenance during the war and the crazy 'english' made ones. When one realizes that the flaws have a different pattern it becomes clear that two different types of the same phenomena are present. Dietrich

Peter, I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Dietrich

This is the comparison between the flaw patterns of the 3o'clock arm. Not the same. Flaws to not come and go.

Same area of a heavily flawed B-Type showing the dent row.