quote:
Originally posted by Houston Coates:
When I say hollow back I mean that the back is recessed not flat. IMO-not knowing much about casting- this would require a two piece mold probably of steel to withstand the heat. To make the mold I would guess it would take a lot of setup/programing and machine time which would have to be expensive. How else could it be done? Also-you indicated the poor quality had to do more with materials and processing not the mold. A simple lack of ideal materials during wartime could explain that-and as I said Tommy has found out some additional info which indicates a very good possible explanation as to what these are. I hope he will post it soon. If not -I will.
Houston,
When I stated reference to poor quality as an indicator of reproduction and materials used in construction as a possible reason for such, I was using it as only one of the facets that could contribute to identifying a reproduction, and was baseing the material aspect on opinion based on what I have seen, and limited knowledge on metalwork.
But the lack of quality in most cases is also found in conjunction with other inconsistancies such as mounting configuration, malformed casts and the list goes on. And to try and contribute it to late war does not fly with me personally.
Were talking about a formula molded cast, the quality would remain, if anything there would be a lack of finishing, not a loss of quality. Example would be the cone shaped devices to the rear of the bird, which were never used to mount the bird. But their quality is the same.
And to give credit where it is due, JR has done a fine job on his reference, and I am certain he has opinion on this as well. I just wish he would express it rather than throwing me pop quiz's.
Give me a few with this hollowback issue.
Best,
Kris
