My new cased 1st pattern S&L RK

[Matthieu]

4.

[ekhunter]

Very nice! The finish and eye opening is almost identical to the 935 marked post war S&L crosses. Which leads one to wonder if these weren't made or put together at about the same exact time. 1957/58 ?????

[jt327gir]

Sweet RK! It looks much better than the one the thread started with.

[Leroy]

Originally Posted by ekhunter

Very nice! The finish and eye opening is almost identical to the 935 marked post war S&L crosses. Which leads one to wonder if these weren't made or put together at about the same exact time. 1957/58 ?????

The 935 with brass core (as shown in Dietrich's book) has no raised beading flaws, leading to the conclusion that it was made before 1957. Maybe a lot before.

The cross shown here is a great cross!

[Nigel N]

Beautiful RK Mathijs!!
Excellent detailing on the core, lovely silver frame with mirror finish, and lots of frosting too!!
What a great collection of RK's you are putting together!!icon_notworthy.gif
Superb!! -Nigel

[Darrell]

Here's those nasty knarly flaws on mine ....

[ekhunter]

Originally Posted by Leroy

The 935 with brass core (as shown in Dietrich's book) has no raised beading flaws, leading to the conclusion that it was made before 1957. Maybe a lot before.

The cross shown here is a great cross!

Maybe I should have just said put together, not made. Leroy, you have done some extensive and interesting research on the A, B, and C type crosses, and I love reading your work. I agree with what you say about the manufacture timeline, however and assembly timeline, I may need some clarity. The above cross that was being discussed has some striking similarities to the 935 RK that Stephen Stout just sold on page 6 of the estand. I believe that this is the exact same cross that was in Dietrich's book. My point was the unfinished eye, the painted finish is very very similiar to the 57 cross that we were discussing. So the frames may have been made at a different time, maybe 10 years apart, but the assembly process/finishing were similiar, and may have been put together/assemblied at the same time.. Take a a look at the sold cross and compare to the last one that we were discussing. Maybe someone here bought it and can post it. Interested in what you think. Thanks Darrell for posting yours. You can clearly see the raised flaw in your photos.

[Leroy]

There are similarities between Stephen's cross and the cross posted here, without question. I am the person who bought Stephen's cross, so I have the luxury of having it in hand. If I were not, hands down, the worst photographer on this forum, I would have already posted some photos!

The "eye" on Stephen's cross is much better finished than the "eye" on the cross in this thread. Even though it is not as completely "hollowed out" as seen on most wartime crosses, it is still very nicely done. The paint is also different (Dietrich's SEM work on Stephen's cross was one of the reason's I bought it - it showed carbon black paint consistant with wartime paint. S&L advised Andreas Klein when he met with company officials just a couple of years ago that they could not obtain this paint after the war as the company which supplied it was out of business.) S&L simply used new paint on 57 crosses. Although the cross in this thread is very nice indeed, and it would be an absolute pleasure to own, Stephen's cross, based on everything I can see, is simply "better". It's a hard thing to quantify. I would not have bought it, frankly, if I did not think that at least the component parts were all wartime made. (This is not, by the way, an argument that S&L for sure used brass cores during the war, but rather only that they had some of them, just like they had zinc cores, but the PKZ said "no".) Dietrich and I have already discussed the zinc cores (we didn't specifically discuss brass) and he agreed that there is no quality difference between them and the wartime iron cores made by S&L.

It is entirely possible that frames already stamped "935" were leftover after the war and Stephen's cross could be one of those, assembled very early in the postwar years, when the paint S&L may have had was still "useable". The absolute "cutoff" point for me, though, is 1957. The first few 1957 version crosses had frames with no beading flaws, and those frames were, I believe, wartime "leftovers". S&L, however, had to put the "B" die back into use in the first cycle of that 1957 production and, suddenly, you begin to see raised flaws on every cross.

There is an interesting (to me at least) thread going on right now, started by Chris Jenkins, who is certainly a pre-eminent RK collector (see:http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=428469). It's worth reading. I have just tonight made the statement there that, in my opinion, S&L stamped no new frames in the time period 1945-1957. It will be interesting to see what, if any, reaction this draws.

[Leroy]

I thought I should clarify one point so there would be no confusion:

Almost every S&L cross has some minor raised beading, or some type of frame, defect or "flaw" of some sort if you look closely. Most of these are insignificant when the "whole cross' is taken into account (and it's my personal, prejudiced, view that S&L crosses are the nicest!). When I talk about "raised beading flaws" I am talking about actually developing patterns of raised flaws where there are several raised flaws on a single arm ( (i.e. involving multiple beads), enough so that they are fairly obvious and, one would think, in need of some corrective action being taken. Dietrich has very well illustrated the type of flawing I'm talking about. This type of flawing eventually became so widespread on both the "A" and "B" frames (in, however, differing locations) that it had to be addressed, the "B" being the "fix" for the "A" and the "C" being the "fix" for the "B".

I also wanted to re-emphasize that the primary reason I think Stephen's cross could be an early assembly is because of the paint. I am unaware that any 1957 version cross has yet been the subject of SEM testing. If it could be shown that S&L was still using wartime paint on early versions of those crosses, then I would certainly re-evaluate that position. Whenever it was assembled, however, I think the frame itself predates 1957 production and was almost certainly wartime-produced.

[ekhunter]

Funny how many times these crosses change hands. Congrats Leroy on the cross. The cross was originally purchased in Germany over 25 years ago from an old lady in a back room of a relics shop. Of course, at the time of the purchase, it was sold to yours truly as an 'issue' piece.

[ekhunter]

Also, referring to the the other thread mentioned , I liked seeing the side by side comparison showing the B frames, especially the nice second pattern 57 with B frame.

[Leroy]

This is GREAT to know the background on this cross!! Thanks for this information!

I always wanted a 935, and when Bob Hritz told me that the 935 was the only S&L model he hadn't been able to find, I knew I should grab the chance, especially as this one was in Dietrich's book and the SEM work had already been done and published.

Thanks to Stephen, as well!

[Mike Yokum]

Nice RK Mathijs. You've got quite an RK/DK collection there buddy!