RK Paint Analysis

[Marc Garlasco]

Sometime back I had visited an art institute to have an RK's paint tested. The hope is the test will be one more weapon in our arsenal against fakers. I am also hopeful that it might help us determine the originality of some disputed pieces.

I FINALLY GOT THE ANALYSIS BACK!

That said, I have no idea what the hell it means. Please withhold judgement until I speak to the people there and have them explain it. If you have substantive statements that is wonderful.

So the record is straight, this is a Niemann-certified RK. I also posted very detailed scans and it passed WAF muster as it has all the hallmarks.

Enjoy,
Marc

[tom hansen]

Dioctyl sebacate? What the heck is that? Whatever it is, this is interesting information in that Marc has demonstrated the presence of a predominant COMPOUND in a paint sample that may give clues as to whether the piece is pre or post 1945. This has been the problem with elemental analysis of SEM, in that most of the elements were around since the beginning of time (there are a few "man-made" elements on the peridic table) and their presence or absence does nto definitively help with dates. Many compounds are synthesized and have patent dates and industrial use history to more closely determine when and where they were used. Great stuff !

[RoyA]

Dioctyl SEBAcate?

[Mike Coleman]

Dioctyl sebacate

I don't know if this information will help or confuse the issue but here is some information on this compound in particular and "paints" in general.

Dioctyl sebacate (DOS) is a chemical derivative of sebacic acid which is used in the manufacture of nylon. Chemical formula is C26-H50-O4 therefore it is a hydrocarbon compound and is soluable in various organic solvents such as alcohols, ethers, benzenes and turpintines or organic paint thinners. It is a type of rubber and is used as a softener and/or plasticizer. The latter property is useful in paint manufacturing. It allows for the production of thin films and sheet materials. It is this type of compound that allows paint to peel in stead of powdering or flaking off an object.

When refering to paint above I used quotation marks because it is a generic term that encompasses many different types of pigmented coatings. In the case of an item such as a Knights cross the desirable properties of the coating will be a thin film that will settle down over the raised details without distorting them, be adherent to metal (to avoid the use of a primer coat), be water proof, be very opaque so a single thin layer will cover, dry with no tac or stickiness, create a durable finish, create a finish that remains intact (meaning the black doesn't rub off on things like the ink on a dollar bill will), is heat and cold resisitent once dry (so you can solder the frames together and not blister or melt the paint) and is matte or nonreflective.

These qualities will usually be found in an enamal type of paint which for all intents and purposes is like a resin in that as the compound dries or cures it will polymerize just as a plastic does. That is what DOS helps it do. The general formulas for these compounds will usually include besides the pigment various solvents, anti precipitating agents, anti foaming agents (no bubbles when you mix or spray it), dispersing agents (so it doesn't bead up) and plasticizers. Note that besides DOS being a common additive to this type of paint barium stearate is also a common component and I believe barium is one of the elements ID'd in RK paint previously.

It would be interesting to see if the manufacturers have kept any records of their paint suppliers to see if there is any information available on the paint formulas they used. I have a formula book from an American chemical company that manufactured various products including paints that has formulas back to the 1920's. So companies do tend to hold on to that information as long as they are not burned or bombed out of existance.

I know this is rather wordy and long winded but someone may find it useful.

Mike Coleman

[tom hansen]

Great information, Mike. Thanks! Could you look in your chemical book from the 1920s and see if that compound is listed as a componant of the period paints? Thanks

[joe campbell]

poirot, clouseau, and holmes would all be proud!

joe

[Marc Garlasco]

This is NOT a rounder posting. Can we stay on topic of my stuff here?

[tom hansen]

Woops, Marc is right, let's keep this on track and not turn to a rounder topic.


I think that Marc has made a quantum leap here in the identification of a COMPOUND, which can usually be traced to patent and manufacturing use dates. Does anyone know if the compound in the K&Q paint is pre-1945? If so, I would think that would be good additional evidence of a period piece. Detractors could suggest repaints with old paint, but that is a reach. This seems like a wonderful tool that can be used to identify compounds that can help determine if the paint is period or not.

[Marc Garlasco]

Here is our answer from the art institute. I checked my work e-mail remotely and they must have sent this Friday. I will ask on Monday if this is still used in paint and if not when it was stopped:

Phenolic resins were first made in 1872, and
Bakelite phenolic resins were first developed c. 1907, both well
before 1945. The
reference book for this info is <UNDERLINE>Handbook
of Adhesives</UNDERLINE>, publ. by van
Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1977. It is the chapter on
"Phenolic Resin
Adhesives."

[Mike Coleman]

period compound

The above certainly puts the compound mas a "period" additive and its use in resin adhesives would certainly fit the criteria for a good coating on an RK. I will go through my formula book and see what I can find at any rate. I also would like to suggest that one not be confused by the use of the term "plastic". It is an old term for a set of physical properties that includes being flexible. Today it has become synonymous with a series of 20th century man made compounds but its use in talking of physical properties is much broader and one should not thinks in terms of modern "plastics" when terms such as "plastisizer" are used.

In regard to Barium being poisonous or unstable that is true of it in its elemental state. It is not true in its ionic state. The same can be said of Sodium, Chlorine, Potassium and many other elements that are found in our bodies. Anyone that has had an upper or lower GI series of x-rays has either swallowed or had introduced into their lower intestinal tract copiuos amounts of Barium and lived to tell about it. Barium is still a paint additive today and is usually found in cheaper lines of artists pigments - what some refer to as "students' pigments".

Happy (early) Father's Day to all you dads out there.

Mike Coleman

[milsurp]

Good work Marc.

[tom hansen]

The above certainly puts the compound mas a "period" additive and its use in resin adhesives would certainly fit the criteria for a good coating on an RK. I will go through my formula book and see what I can find at any rate. I also would like to suggest that one not be confused by the use of the term "plastic". It is an old term for a set of physical properties that includes being flexible. Today it has become synonymous with a series of 20th century man made compounds but its use in talking of physical properties is much broader and one should not thinks in terms of modern "plastics" when terms such as "plastisizer" are used.

In regard to Barium being poisonous or unstable that is true of it in its elemental state. It is not true in its ionic state. The same can be said of Sodium, Chlorine, Potassium and many other elements that are found in our bodies. Anyone that has had an upper or lower GI series of x-rays has either swallowed or had introduced into their lower intestinal tract copiuos amounts of Barium and lived to tell about it. Barium is still a paint additive today and is usually found in cheaper lines of artists pigments - what some refer to as "students' pigments".

Happy (early) Father's Day to all you dads out there.

Mike Coleman

Thanks Mike. The contention that barium= poison = fake was NEVER made by anyone, nor was there the silly contention that rounders explode, and is a distortion of events. I have given my share of upper and lower GIs with barium and have never killed anyone with barium. It tastes like crap, but that is about it and is passed harmlessly through the GI tract. Any mention of the rounder creates such a visceral, so to speak, emotional response that I doubt any meaningful, objective discussions can ever be made about that piece let alone the paint that is used there. I frankly do not care.

I do think, however, the technique that Marc has shown will be very helpful for those interested in determining if the compounds in the paint on their pieces pre date 1945, whether it is RKs, EK1s, helmets or whatever. This was certainly helpful on the K&Q that Marc tested, as there were theories that the K&Qs were being made currently in California. Alot of the information that has been shown with regard to flaws, SEM, and now Marc's IR spec information helps to effectively dispel those contentions, as there is no evidence of modern paint presented so far for those pieces.

[Mike Coleman]

IR spec conclusions

Tom,

I am not trying to be contentious but I don't think we can make a statement based on the IR spec information that would dispel a theory of the K&Q RK's are not being manufactured at present time. What the IR data tells us is that the paint contains a compound that was in use in paint formulas prior to 1945 but that compound is still in use today. I think that what can be safely stated is that this particular bit of information tells us a K&Q RK could have been pre or post 1945. One may say that that doesn't help one bit. In actual fact it does but perhaps not as much as one would wish. What it does do is blow a sizable hole in the arguement for these having to be modern manufacture. We now know that they don't have to be modern but could be pre '45. That to me is a significant step and a good start. Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps but I think for several reasons we need to select our words and draw our conclusions very carefully when the value of peoples' collections are on the line. And again this is based on only this one bit of evidence and disregarding any other information and evidence.

Mike

[Marc Garlasco]

Mike,
An excellent point. This information, coupled with the known die charachteristics from awarded pieces, period photos, and other information all comes together. We must use a holistic approach in the analysis.
Regards,
Marc

[tom hansen]

Mike- I agree that the IR spec data alone does not dispel the contention that K&Q crosses were manufactured after 1945. Like S&L, there probably were K&Q RKs made after 1945. The data from IR spec, analysis of physical flaws, and the SEM information taken together, as Marc has suggested, makes this less likely, but is not definitive. Based on the information we have so far, I would be more comfortable with a K&Q in my collection. Each cross needs to be evaluated individually, and the presence of a binder which pre-dates 1945 is a positive, but not definitive, in the suggestion of a period piece.