DOTTED DKiG results!

[Dave Kane]

The results are in regarding the SEM testing of the dotted DKiG marked '20'!

Tom asked me to post these data...

Have at it guys




Dots red paint

Na 12.62
Al 4.61
Si 37.13
S 1.44
K 12.79
Ca 2.44
Cu 4.31
Zn 5.7
Ag 2.4
Cd 4.0
Ba 9.1
Au 2.1

Zimmerman red paint


Na 13.8
Al 9.0
Si 37.22
S 2.46
K 9.0
Ca 5.0
Cu 4.5
Zn 1.26
Ag 4.7
Cd 6.9
Ba 1
Au 5.06


Dots enamel

Na 5
Si 28
K 11
Mn 3.3
Fe 1.5
Cu 2.0
Hg 1.47
Pb 43
S 1.7
Cl 1.0

Zimmerman enamel

Na 2.3
Si 34.1
S 2.2
Cl 1.4
K 13.0
Mn 2.6
Ag 1.5
Pb 42

Dots silver disc
Ag 89
Hg 1.8
Cu 5.8
Zn 1.4

Zimmerman silver disc

Ag 97.0
Na 2.21


Dots wreath

Na 2.0
Cu 61.34
Zn 13.8
Au 21.3

Zimmerman wreath

Cu 7.7
Zn 1.14
Au 90.3

[Hank C.]

So, not to sound daft, but we can say the dotted DKiG isn't a Zimmerman? Does that rule out other makers? Or are the posted results a means to completely show that the dotted DKiG is definitely not of 33-45 time period?

No horse in the race, and I can't afford any of them, so just curious.

thanks
Hank

[MH184]

Okay, it may as well be hieroglyphics as I'm not able to interpret this data, only that there is evidently a difference. Granted it is close in some elements but..........?


Does that mean the Dotty is fake or (which I assume) ?

[Biro]

Okay, it may as well be hieroglyphics as I'm not able to interpret this data......

Agreed!

Dave - Any chance you/he can cut to the chase?

Marshall

[mrg]

Looks that way, There appears to be alot of added Chemicals in the Dotted Dig? Possible change of Manufacture paint quality? In my opinion doubtfull. If my knowledge is correct paint these days have more elements to them than the paint of early years. Just a thought. All the best

[Don D.]

Unless there is something here that can be proven to be a post war compound then this just means they are simular yet different. You need a reliable sampling from across the production timeline to establish the baseline from which to compare the dotted DKiG with. Given the duration of production it is not unreasonable to expect the componants to exhibit some change in composition.

So, do we have a smoking gun or just more data to feed arguements?

[Bob Hritz]

First, I would like to thank Tom Hansen for expending the financial costs, the time, and the trouble to do this analysis. There is nothing for Tom to gain but knowledge, in this project. He put out half the cost of the cross and all of the cost of the tests. I put up the other half cost of the cross and I get the cross. Tom has donated far more than I have, whether the cross is original of a complete post-war product. That selflessness is something more rare than any German Cross.

I don't know how to correctly interpret the data. As one who has a monetary involvement in the project, I am hoping an expert at paint and finish analysis can be found, as was done for the paint on Iron Crosses.

From my understanding, the analysis is non invasive so the readings are for surface finishes. I would think there is data on post-war type finishes to compare with that of the sample, known 1941-1945, Zimmermann cross and the 'dotted-date' type Zimmermann marked cross.

Have the pins, hinges (and retaining pin) and catches been compared as to size and manufacturing technique? I am also curious in the size measurements of the 2 crosses as well as weight comparison. Is there any evidence as to the material of the base plate, ie; CupAl?

I am looking forward to great study on these samples.

Bob Hritz

[Dietrich Maerz]

SEM is a non destructive method to determine the composition of the basic elements of the material tested. The intrusion depth can be varied but is in the micron area. I would assume that this test was done to get strictly surface material composition.

The result is a percentage listing of each element found in the material tested. The sum is typically close to 100% - the deviations are due to sampling statistics. The longer one samples, the better the result. And the more samples taken, the better the average result.

So it must be clear that even when one investigates one and the same material in different spots the result will vary - not "big" but still there.

Basically what one gets is the percentage of all elements found and this one can compare to another sample.

This is what was done here and in a nutshell it is like this:

- the red paint is pretty much the same
- the enamel is pretty much the same
- the silver disc is pretty much the same, both are high grade silver

The biggest difference is in the wreath. The 'original' Zimmermann shows a 90% gold content (plating only) and the 'dotted cross" only 21%. This could very well be the result of plating thickness, meaning the gold layer of the dotted is thinner or the penetration depth was different between the two test.

The base material of both wreath' seems to be the same, i.e. made of copper and zinc, i.e. brass.

The results of a SEM test can only be definitive for us collectors if a deviation can be found that does not fit into the timeframe of the manufacturing are. This was the case with the Rounder where the paint finally turned out to be modern epoxy (via FTIR investigation), but already the Rounder SEM gave reasons to doubt beacuse of the complete different element composition.

This is clearly not the case here. I would venture that a modern production would have shown up in the red paint and the enamel - which it didn't.

All that can be said here, IMHO, is that there is not such a big difference to raise a flag in regards to the SEM results. Which does not necessarily mean that the 'dotted cross' is proven to be pre-45.

All it does is that SEM did not prove that it is clearly post-45.

And we should not forget that just one sample is not necessarily representative for all, good or bad.

However, an important test and an interesting result.

Dietrich

[Hank C.]

...edit...
However, an important test and an interesting result.

Dietrich

Thank you for putting it in layman's terms.

best
Hank

[Marc Garlasco]

Nice to see continued scientific examinations, but Don raises a valid point in having a baseline. I would love to see an FTIR test on this though.
Marc

[MH184]

Thank you for putting it in layman's terms.

best
Hank

Agreed Thank you Dietrich

[Darrell]

Thanks for the explanation Dietrich.

I suppose the case remains open.

It also shows that the results give this variation (or whatever you want to call it) more creedance and acceptance than before.

I'll call a spade a spade and applaude the efforts done to perform this testing.

HOWEVER ... I'm sure deep down inside a "certain" somebody is EXTREMELY disappointed with the results.

[Bob Hritz]

Darrell,

I don't think that anyone is dissapointed at the results.

The entire study is far from completed and I will put the cross out to anyone who would like to do an FTIR test.

The results are not in for certain, although I have a vested interest. I will leave testing and results to others who have no personal financial interest in results, other than to learn.

I am happy to see these results as they reaffirm my personal belief that these are wartime produced Zimmermanns. However, more testing is needed to have a more solid footing for the decision of post-war or wartime. The study is not over yet and I will refrain from any celebration or sadness.

Bob Hritz

[Darrell]

Darrell,
I don't think that anyone is dissapointed at the results.
Bob Hritz

I won't go on and wreck a thread with ranting, however, if you were privey to some of the personal attacks elsewhere (about this same piece), you may have different thoughts on that Bob.

But that's for another forum, and I'll end it there.

[rkdek]

As Dave points out, the biggest difference is in the wreath.

This is also where the visual difference is e.g. the dots.

Just a theory, could these crosses be postwar assembled with wartime parts except for the wreath which could have been produced postwar?