Dent in case above serial number 65 FLH and 65FL

[upsrod]

My 62 and 65 have the identical dents...my 58 has none!

[KNUCK]

I just looked and I am also a member of the "dent" group 65flh3725. Saw it before but never gave it a thought till now.

[panz4ever]

Mine is 11983 (came to life late in the production year) and it has no dent

[rbenash]

Ahh, man this is a hoot. Let's keep it going. It would be interesting how many cases were created with this one defective pattern.

[T. Cotten]

Ahh, man this is a hoot. Let's keep it going. It would be interesting how many cases were created with this one defective pattern.

Defective???

Both of my '65s have the "Underdoggie dimple", as I probably already posted.

I would scratch my chin about any '62-'65s without it.

.....Cotten

[rbenash]

Defective - meaning it's a defect in the surface of the pattern used to create the mold or in the mold itself.

A flaw in the casting.

I'm thinking they used more than one set of molds for the castings and that one of them had the surface defect or imperfection form
the start (defect would have been in the pattern used to create the mold) or it was something that happened to the mold during production
at some point and it was never removed from the production set of molds being used.

[T. Cotten]

Ray!

If it were actually a "defect" or a "flaw", cases would break or weep there, but they do not.
Its just another "beauty mark".

....Cotten

[rbenash]

Oh I get your question. That's not what I meant. It is a surface flaw only. Didn't want to offend by the word "defect" :-) Just saying if we are only trying to figure out
where the dent started it was with the pattern, mold, casting process. That's it brother. It is a production flaw regardless in my opinion. Same kinds of anomalies exist in
the vintage cast iron world.

Patterns are made, molds are made from them, metal is poured into them. This is a surface flaw is what I'm saying. There would typically be a limited number of patterns, then
they were used to make the molds and at some point along the way this little raised thing happened in the mold or else it was a non intended "relief" in the pattern.

Another case would be that the molds (created from the pattern) ended up with some sort of raised area that created the markings.

Yet another case would be - was it from tooling/clamping during machining process? I would think not likely as it's just too consistent in the photos/examples.

I really think it is a flaw/defect in the mold or the pattern used to make it.

I'm really focused on the markings. Flaw, defect is only meant to mean how the markings were introduced. It really shouldn't be interpreted as a defect of the final part.

It's just a surface thing - but still represents a flaw in casting be it pattern making, mold, clamping process during machining etc.

Talk live if you want??

I understand flaw/defect means something different to you based on your comments. I'm speaking of flaw/defect based on the patterning/casting/machining process only.

There's a difference in terms of this discussion :-)

[T. Cotten]

Golly Ray,

The MoCo wasn't producing porcelain.
If the Factory considered it a flawed or defective pattern, would they have continued with it for four years?
It is character that you may distain, but others find a guarantee of authenticity.

....Cotten

....

[rbenash]

Don't know what you are trying to get to here Cotten?

I'm just talking about my knowledge of casting process and how marks could get on or transferred to a final product and how it might relate to this anomolie (sp?)

I didn't bring up porcelain - just saying :-) I think you and I would be good friends in regards to attention to detail :-)

Wasn't even suggesting MoCo/Porcelain, sheesh. Seems like the word defect offended, sorry.

It was a minor surface flaw is all. Of course they would just move ahead, why wouldn't they?

It's still a defect when you are talking about how it happened from the perspective of a casting geek is all.

And that's pretty much all this thread get's too IMHO.

Not trying to pick on Mo/Co

That's pretty much it, other than just trying to figure out how the word defect got you all cranked up :-)

[T. Cotten]

Pure and simple, Ray!

It ain't a flaw, and it ain't defective: It is the real thing.
Hope you ain't an AMCA judge, because the system has done enough damage already.

...Cotten

[rbenash]

Hah! Just don't blame that judgin' stuff on me Cotten :-)

Just scratching my head in public on how those marks got there is all.

Really not trying to give anyone lice in the process :-)