Gordon Williamson Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 A nice early high quality piece, frosted inner frame, rhodium plated outer frame. Perfect flawless. Large 800The rhodium, often confused as being the material used for frosting, is actually a microscopically thin plate over the silver outer flange to give it that mirror finish. It will often flake off with age and the edges of the plating where it has flaked can be seen here.
Gordon Williamson Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 Similar early piece (recognise this one Dave ), also with frosted inner frame and rhodium plated outer frame. Flawless. Small 800 stamp
Gordon Williamson Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 Another minty early unflawed piece with small 800
Gordon Williamson Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 Unmarked frame with non-ferrous centre. Frame unflawed.
Dietrich Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Hi Gordon!Nice crosses and I guess they are all of the A-Type (excuse me if I use this terminology). They all but the last with the non-ferrous center, seem to have the 'painted frosting which makes completely sense in conjunction with the Rhodium plating. However, I also have seen Type A's (but not type B's) with the etched frosting, i.e. the chemical process. Do you have any idea, theory or whatever, when and why S&L switched from etching to 'painting'? Or was it done parallel? Or what?I try to somehow find a time line or such, the more so in connection with the Rounder with etched frosting.Thanks,Dietrich
Gordon Williamson Posted July 22, 2005 Author Posted July 22, 2005 Hi Dietrich,Yes they are all what you refer to as "A" type. I'm not so sure the frosting is "paint" as such, but in the sense it was some form of compound applied with a brush its as good a description as any. It was described to me as a "caustic" compound, erhaps to allow it to "key" onto the silver finish - simply painting on top of silver would see it flake off. I suppose it could be some sort of compound like etch primer used for the base undercoat when painting metals like automobiles.As you say, the "painted" on frosting makes sense when used over a rhodium plated finish rather than an etch frosting into the silver itself.Perhaps the use, or not, of rhodium plating is the key to the issue of when one or the other type of frosting was used. How many type As have you noted where there is an obvious use of rhodium ? Incidentally, my Grand Cross also has clear flaking of a rhodium plating to the outer flange.
Dave B Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Similar early piece (recognise this one Dave ), also with frsoted inner frame and rhodium plated outer frame. Flawless. Small 800 stamp←Argh,the mental anguish....why did I sell this piece! Lovely crosses mate!Dave
Dietrich Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Hi Gordon,I have not really noticed this "Rhodium" plating on any S&L other then a late "painted frosting" Type A (heavily flawed). But I agree, this 'flaking' can be seen with quite some crosses!It is interesting to not that the SEM testing so far did only show one piece with Rhodium and that was a K&Q.I have some SEM time hopefully coming up and I will try to check into this. My main objective however at this point in time is to find out the micxture or composition of the 'painted' frosting (compound is really a better description, as you say).What puzzles me at the moment is this "etched" frosting combined with the polishing of the outer flanges. I could and can clearly see a step UP from the frosted area to the polished area. This would clearly indicate a frosting AFTER polishing - and that makes no sense. However, if you look at the pictures I posted in the "3 Types Rounder Thread" at WAF, you will see what I mean.Oh, so many things to discover, investigate, to brain over, .. fortunately I belong to the kind of people who don't have an immidiate answer to everythig. That helps the drive, you know!Dietrich
Gordon Williamson Posted July 22, 2005 Author Posted July 22, 2005 Hi Dietrich,Of course I do not know conclusively that this outer plating is Rhodium. My first thought when I first saw this on an RK was that it was a protective lacquer, but of course laquer is clear and the tiny flakes of this than come off are metallic and shiny, so Rhodium makes sense.But of course we shouldn't pre-judge the issue. There are already enough people out there who jump to erroneous conclusions without real evidence.
Gordon Williamson Posted July 22, 2005 Author Posted July 22, 2005 It could be that the flat polished outer flange was itself painted with an acid resistant coating (they use this in the printing trade). The whole frame could then be dipped in acid which would only react with the uncoated ribbed inner frame. The acid resistant coat can then be washed off the polished area.By the way, I have somewhere some shots of an early ("Type A") RK with unmarked frame which also has an unfinished eye. Something also claimed by some to represent a postwar piece !Any ideas about the etching? Dietrich←
Dietrich Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 (edited) You have to be damn'd carefull with short and fast judgements. However, I honestly think that the A-Type/B-Type Test will help a lot of people to make a very good judgement. I never looked at the ring that closely, one can see that quite often, by the way (as you know).This coating before etching was also my theory. Kind of masking the to be etched surface with a "Schablone", spray it on and then dip. There is this step - I can't discuss (nor do I want to) away!DietrichP.S.: wanted to show a picture, but size is to big. Making it smaller makes no sense - will loose the "poin". Edited July 23, 2005 by Dietrich
Guest Darrell Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 There are already enough people out there who jump to erroneous conclusions without real evidence. ←Exactly. We know who they are and I hope they stay away
Larry Lipps Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 I don't know if Willi spent a little too much time in the Beer Garden the night before or what, but contrary to the norm the 935 and 4 are right side up. What struck me as interesting was that not only were the numbers right side up, but their normal places were reversed as well. It made me wonder if there was only one tool that stamped both marks.
Gordon Williamson Posted July 23, 2005 Author Posted July 23, 2005 Very, very nice Larry. I've had several Steinhauer RKs and those from other makers through my hands, but never yet a 935 4. Lovely pieces.
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 Hello Gordon. I'm glad you're talking about S&L's here. You no doubt read Dietrich's great research in discovering what I am convinced is a repair to the die that created the row of 'dents'. You kindly used my S&L which we now know has the dent row. Can you still say based on workmanship, core and other features that this cross of mine is a wartime cross?Thank you.
Guest Brian von Etzel Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 (edited) Another minty early unflawed piece with small 800←Isn't that the dent row?And this a frosted RK? Edited July 23, 2005 by Brian von Etzel
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now