Dietrich

This is not about the Rounder nor should it be. It is about a strange resistance to find out more about the production/manufacturing timeframe between 1939 and 1945. A resistance which is fueled - in my mind - by the monetary aspect and a uncomprehensable clinching to the status quo. If that mind set prevails we might as well go back to the days where K&Q was made in California and L/12 was a sure sign of a fake. Unfotunately, it only takes one stupid rumor to destroy a possible good piece, but it takes years of research and digging to dispell such a rumor. That's not progress and it seems to be 'on purpose'. Brian's cross pictures are a perfectly good example of what might be still out there. As well as Detlev's unknown maker cross. Dietrich

Prosper, on a pure monetary point of view, i.e. having a or an abundance of Knights Crosses and enjoying the annual growth rate, you are absolutelt right. Nobody looking at investment or security of mind should buy a Rounder or other 'questionable' pieces. I have said this so often, it's not ven funny anymore! But for me that is not the point. As Gordon said, there is still a lot to be discovered and learned and if you look into the early books, like Bowen and even Geissler, you will see what has changed since then! I'm certainly willing to learn and research, but I'm not doing it to run out and buy something newly discovered to enrich myself. I do it for my intellectual pleasure. Some people think that 'finding out more' is putting a dent into their investment (and into their 'aquired knowledge') Look at the famous 'unkonwn' in Detlev's price guide. Unknown maker with provenance. So they did only make one? Very unlikely. What about Deumer? What about W&L? As Gordon mentioned so often! It is kind of sad that the hobby has taken a monetary direction, fuelled by buying frenzies. There is never, ever a discussion about a new EK2 maker or even EK1 for that purpose. Never a discussion when somebody finds out that parts have been shared between makers of the EK1 or EK2. Why is that? Because of the money issue! Now you come up with an S&L frame and a previously unknown core (Mike P.) and all hell brakes loose! I'm sometimes very dis-encouraged by this attitude and have found myself very often thinking: should I even mention this new insight? Is it worth the hazzle? Sad, really sad!

Coming back to the cross in question. It is clear that there are very clear rounded corners, especially the lower two corners. I always had the theory thet it would make sense to have a 'rounded' frame coming of the die to avoid the nasty fitting process which caused so much trouble with some Juncker. There are EK1's and EK2's which have that in-build feature. Now the first question really should be: Is this a reworked type or a genuine frame of type Y? For me it's is pretty much clear that it is NOT a reworked EK2! Dietrich

Just as a side note and I really don't want to start a Rounder discussion - my Rounder is marked "7" and there is another one. But that still does not mean that the Rounder is real or made by Meybauer. However, whoever put that stamp on was thinking it might be possible or it is even real. Dietrich

Tha really depends! If it's an early unmagnetic Juncker piece with Neusilber frame I guess around $ 4,500.- If it's a unmagnetic Neusilber B-Type S&L it depends who is buying. If you are an unaware collector you might 'eat' the early cross story and pay substantial money. If you are a collector who has done his homework - you would pay nothing at all... Dietrich

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill, the problem with S&L nowadays is for sure a political one. Nobody will say anything about the Nazi-past. So you can scrap that. They are supplying the current Bundesverdienstkreuz and they will not even answer a phone call. To find a survivor might be possible. 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? Dietrich

Prosper, Grodon, I have some problems with the 'different' mounting' theory. For sure there might be differences each time you set up the dies for production, clearly. But the flaw pattern between the A and B Type is to different between each other BUT also too congruent inside each type to really believe in taht. If one looks at the pattern of lets say the A-Type and at a particulat flaw it's always the same shape. The same applies for the B-Type and the pattern is not the same between the two, i.e. it's exclusive. Furthermore, the different settings would also need to produce the dent row (something people really do not pay the necessary attention to) and the 6-9 o'clock knee flaw and making the 9-12 o'clock disappear. I just can't believe that. Maybe it is one die that was repaired, not two identical dies. I think the important thing here is to realize that there are (at least) two die stages: A and B. (new or repaired, doesn't matter). The first B-Type is the 935-4. And Prosper, yes, there are unflawed 57's and they are of the B-Type: They have the dent row and they have the 6-9 o'clock knee flaw. If one does not subscribe to the 'perfect duplication including flaws', it's a clear indication that the flawed B-Types are made after 57! So far my therory fits the time line. The task really is to find out which model was the last pre-45 B-Type: 800-4, incuse 800, 935 ??? I honestly do not know. Maybe the future brings more light to this. Dietrich

Prosper, I haven't read the article in a while but I don't recall that I rely somehow on part bins or such. Also, of course I do not know what happened to any material at S&L after the war, stolen, taken by employees, put in the safe by the boss? Anything is possible. Still does not change the time line itself, only the position of this line in time. I only wanted to show that there are two die types (one and the same repaired or two - doesn't matter). And you will see that the 3 o'clock flaw pattern is not the same between A and B Type - but the imprtant thing are the dent row and the knee flaws. Dietrich

I would need the lower ingoing portion of the arm. Thanks, Dietrich

I'll send you via e-mail and hope the address is still correct. Dietrich

Brian, I don't understand what you are saying? What are the absolute dates? But again, for me and only for me the subject is clear and everybody else can take out of it what he wants. If you believe that flawed A-type crosses are post war, so be it. This topic will be discussed again and again till it's so twisted that nobody treally knows anymore what's real and what's not. And that's fine, too. Dietrich

Prosper, If you read my article you will see that there is a difference between the pre 45 flaw pattern and the post 57 flaw pattern. They are not the same and therefore cannot be treated the same. And this is not a theory it's a physical fact. However, the romantics in the collection community have sometimes a huge prpoblem with physics. It has not set in that S&L had (at least) two dies (or one repaired die) and that the flaw patterns are not the same and other indicators are there also. Again, this is not theory, it's fact. Either two dies or one repaired die. This makes the whole flaw issue a mute point, at least for the A-Types. The cross you show is an A-Type, the starting flaws of the A-Type are there, no dent row: it is clearly and w/o any doubt pre-45. It is not a question of possibility versus probability - it's a question of physics. And thanks for the clarification regarding the S& dies.

I actually do not agree. There are ways at least to identify the early type and under the safe assumption of soem solid precendence I would buy a flawed A-Type any time without hesitation. And I would NOT buy a FLAWED B-Type. But the S&L debate is more driven by other things then pure rational. Dietrich

How sure are you that those were actually S&L dies? Was there are company mark on it or could you identify the beading?

Chris, If it's a B-Type (which I think it is) it has less flaws than some of the 57 S&L using the same frame. So at that point in time the dies were still in the ownership of S&L - unless the 57 edition was a firmed out job to GB, of course. Dietrich

And the reverse. I must admit that I cannot clearly see whether it's a B-Type, but other say they saw it, so it is clearly post war! BUT it is not Made in GB or anywhere else. This is still "Made in Deutschland"

The question might be elusive and -IMHO - rather academical. Maybe we can reduce it to just (another) simple rumor. Fact is that S&L produced post-war swastika crosses which now can be identified with a relatively high level of certainty. It must be a B-Type, but it must not be with flaws! That is the tricky thing for beginners in this hobby. DN starts this post-war with the 935 and includes the 800-4 as pre-45. Flawed A-Type crosses are perfectly OK, even if heavily flawed. There's no doubt in my mind! So flaws are not really the indicator, only together with B-Type. Here is another post-war example with the strange placement of the marking. Currently for sale at a swiss auction and labeled "Typical knight's cross of Steinhauer&L?ck before 1945 for private purchase" As for Gordon's unicorn? Another collector rumor, I guess.

Please have a better picture availabel - I'm nearly convinced there's a dent row! So far of all the tested RK's onlt one (K&Q) had traces of Rhodium -so I can't tell. Frosted in the sense of the 'painted' frosting: yes. Look at the 935's! Dietrich

Hi Coastie, it's really not that tough - at least to come to a well founded opinion. This cross is in my opinion a post war production. Why? Because the frame is not marked (I guess), the core is non-magnetic and the flaw pattern is extensive and not congruent with the flaw pattern of the A-Type (which is pre-45). So you have a B-Type cross which is completely against the regulations which were in place when the B-Type came out first with the 935-4 model. Those regulations were iron core and silver frame which is the case with the 935-4 and 800-4. I bet that the cross has the dent row on the lower portion of the 3 o'clock arm. I can't see it but I'm convinced. regards, Dietrich