The 3 Types of Rounder RK's

[tom hansen]

Tom,

you will be able to determine whether your two crosses have (had) any painted frosting or not - just look between the beadings and inside the marking. If it had painted frosting, there will be traces. You should alo be able to find out whether your two crosses have the real frosting - this will not go away.

I can't help you with the "one cross tested - all must be like this" approach. Does not work for me, I rather look at a broader base. Maybe this picture will help you to recognize the painted frosting on the "ex works, unpacked" Lazy 2 from Mike. Look inside the marking. See the painted frosting residue? Good!

Another interesting sentence from you and I thank you for that:

"I think the presence of painted "frosting" that Dietrich found on post war RKs was a suprise to everyone."

So it was no surprise to the alledged Rounder faker! They knew the right way to do it and did not do one of two accepted things:

- painted frosting (as on the S&L's and Lazy 2's)
- no frosting at all (as on your two Lazy 2's and others)

No, they used the real prescribed frosting method! They could have fooled the possible buyers with painted or none, but no. And as you said, the painted frosting came as a surprise just recently...

Dietrich

Dietrich-


I repeat. The two juncker "2" marked crosses appear identical with regard to the frosting. Both are mint. One was tested, the other not. The one that was tested showed no paint. This is not an issue of "one is like this, therefore all must be". I do not know. You do not know. To say that lazy 2 frosting is painted is pure conjecture. There is no evidence for this. Perhaps it is. Maybe it isn't. However, the only solid test of a lazy 2 so far showed NO PAINT. There have been NO LAZY 2s THAT SHOWED PAINT by SEM testing or IR spec, which is firm chemical evidence.

I really do not want to get into a rounder debate, as I am not interested in that at all. I just think that one cannot make blanket statements about the chemical nature of any frosting, when there is limited data. Here is what we do know

K&Q- rhodium
S&L- no rhodium- only silver
2 800 juncker- only silver
1 L/12- only silver
1 micro 2- only silver
1 3/4 ring- only silver with traces of Hg


From what we know, the fakers have not performed detailed chemical analysis of anything. Therefore they would not have known to paint, acid dip, or rhodium plate to appear wartime. I would guess that given the prevailing wisdom was acid dip, that would be the preferred method of fakers. I do not see how any of this has relevance to rounders in particular. Further, we do not have any information on the chemical nature of frosting on fakes, both modern and early Souval pieces, to make any extrapolation to other period and fake pieces. Perhaps such information would be helpful, particularly the technique use on Souval pieces.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

this is not a Rounder debate at the moment. I can tell that you are confused and I like to help you with that. There is no need for SEM or IR or whatever.

There were two ways to apply what we call frosting (please use frosting in the future, not paint, you confuse people. We are not talking about the black core paint here):

- the real frosting was applied via a chemical process wheras the copper content of the 800 silver (i.e. the remaining 200) was removed so that the surface became "high grade' silver. In addition this shows as a cristalline surface as I have shown in numerous pictures in this thread and others and I explain that very deep in the S&L article. This is not a question of SEM, IR but rather looking and seeing. It's easy, really. Furthermore, you can see a step between the frosting and the polished rim.

- the painted frosting is just what it is: paint or another kind of liquid applied to the cross and removed at the outer rim with polishing. Again, I never said that this requires SEM or IR or whatever - it just requires your eyes. If you cannot see the paint on the crosses I discussed in the article or on the pictures of Mikes Lazy 2 above, I really can't help you. You say "perhaps, perhaps not". This is not a question of "perhaps" - it's a question of purely seeing it, not more or less. Try it - you will see it!

This is not up for discussion - it's an undisputable fact!

The table of what "we know" is nice and interesting. Apart from the fact, that I do know a little more about that subject (but that will come later), this has nothing to do with the frosting nor the Rounder. We are talking here about a surface treatment, not a chemical composition of frame material. It seems that all the crosses you tested did not have painted frosting. Okay! Test more, maybe Dave can send his 935-4 to you for testing. It has painted frosting. maybe Mike can send his Lazy 2, it has painted frosting.

Now comes this:

"From what we know, the fakers have not performed detailed chemical analysis of anything. Therefore they would not have known to paint, acid dip, or rhodium plate to appear wartime. I would guess that given the prevailing wisdom was acid dip, that would be the preferred method of fakers. I do not see how any of this has relevance to rounders in particular. Further, we do not have any information on the chemical nature of frosting on fakes, both modern and early Souval pieces, to make any extrapolation to other period and fake pieces. Perhaps such information would be helpful, particularly the technique use on Souval pieces."

I do not know what fakers do nor do I know what they did not do in respect of chemical analysis. So this is a pure speculation on your part. But immidiately out of speculation comes a conclusion "Therefore..." Aparat form the fact (at least to my knowledge) that only one tested cross had Rhodium (and I don't even know what that has to do with this topic) you now conclude that the fakers of the Rounder were told by 'prevailing wisdom' to use an acid dip to apply frosting. In the reverse you immidiately state that you do not know what this frosting is anyway and therefore any conclusion cannot be drawn. This is all very confusing.

Just to come back to the Rounder and the relevance for me and maybe some other people:

- at least one Rounder has the chemical applied frosting
- this method was dropped (as far as I know by now based on multiple crosses and types) around mid war (date not specified)
- later war accepted crosses, such as the 935-4, the flawed S&L 800 and AT LEAST ONE pristine, ex works, packed Lazy 2 has the painted frosting
- at least two later war Lazy 2 crosses do not have any frosting at all
- I have not seen any post-war S&L 45 or 57 models with chemical frosting, nor any fake from anybody elase (Floch, Souval,...) with such frosting.

Of course you will always believe that the alledged fakers of the Rounder were told by "common wisdom" to use the chemical frosting to perfection (after dropping the silver plated brass frame, such as the frame on your 3/4 ring) and that they gave this up later (such as some other companies during the war) and applied no frosting at all (or painted).

I'm hard pressed to believe that and I'm very adamant about the logic, material aspects and approach in my research. Certainly, you do not need to believe that. But please do not mix up things and confuse the issue with SEM, IR, chemical analysis, Rhodium or such. This is not the topic here, it's about chemical applied frosting on a Rounder (Weiss-Sieden) as described in contemporary articles.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

By the way and just to expand a little bit on this frosting issue: The EK1's and EK2's also have the painted frosting as clearly can be seen on this picture. You can also see the plating. No chemical process - just a kind of frosting paint.


Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, is it possible being logical of course that your theory may be backwards....

It's entirely logical that forgers made the finest FIRST (silver, chemical frosting, fine finish) etc. and once the $ was recouped and the product 'in market' began to use less quality methods and materials and stepped up production by omitting steps and finishes

We see that 'logic' in Souval.....the very early crosses were 800 silver and very finely finished and treated with the chemical method of frosting. Eventually, we see plated frames, poor manufacture and zero frosting/finish.

The 'know how' to utilize the chemical frosting didn't die prior to '45.

Even in retail today we see fine quality when a product is introduced...bit by bit and year after year it cheapens down and ofcourse the price drops as well.

Apply that sort of logic and have a look at the following pictures....a nice SOUVAL from the 70's (I'd guess) but still utilizing the chemical/acid method.

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

of course one can construe everything to fit the theory and I certainly did not exspect you to get an "AHA" experience. So Juncker and S&L went from bad to high quality (the praised Lazy 2) and the holy grail of S&L 935-4 and the Rounder fakers did the opposite. Starting in the early 80's with the frosting to the regular unfrosted to the silver plated brass. Okay! I'll keep that in mind!

Now to the Souval. This is not even close to anything like chemical applied frosting. There is no chemical frosting at all, not even polishing the rims. Maybe the first picture has something that comes close to a kind of paint, but it's all over the map and has nothing to do with what you can see on you 935-4. You should know that!

I don't know what is so damn hard to understand with this frosting? It is NOT something that applies to the whole cross. It is a cosmetic enhancement of the cross that starts about 0.8 mm apart from the first step and includes everything after that including the beading. It ALWAYS (chemical or painted) shows a straight clear line around the cross and is not all over the map like with your Souval. The Souval or Souvals you are showing have nothing that could even be considered anything close to frosting, polishing or finish - even the EK1 I showed earlier has a lot higher standard of polishing and frosting.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich you are so VERY WRONG!!! The frosting was applied to the entire frame and eventually rubbed off with the jeweler stick or burnishing tool and that's why you can see a 'step' up from the polished frame to the frosting chemical/pained or otherwise.

The Souval has chemical frosting pure and simple....it has etched the frame and adheres except where it was rubbed off....not carefully I might add as we see in period crosses.

The various S&L crosses that are clearly POST WAR that I have looked at have etched in frosting.

Examine enough crosses and you will find frosting chemical/painted in all areas of the cross that didn't receive a 'final' finish.....heck look at the rings to start!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

I don't know how often we have to discuss this. But (to use you way of posting) YOU ARE VERY, VERY WRONG and you only need to look at your 800 S&L. The chemical applied frosting sits deeper, there's a step UPWARDS to the polished rim. And this is very clear due to the process. IF and I say IF the complete frame was 'frosted' the polished rim would be even or lower since filling the created cavities would do so. CLEARLY NOT THE CASE!


The Souval has no chemical frosting applied pure and simple!!! Now you can argue till hell freezes over. Or, I give you that since I don't have that cross in hand, IF it was done it was done so ****ty that it cannot be seen or recognized anymore.
There is neither chemical frosting applied to the ring, the ring area nor was it polished away. And I have looked at enough crosses to say so with the highest level of confidence.

Maybe, just maybe, you confuse the etching (= real frosting) and the painted frosting. Then you are correct. The painted frosting was applied all over the cross and then polished away.

But this is about the chemical (=etched) frosting! Not the painted one. And yes, your Souvals might have some 'paint' slapped on, BUT they are not chemically frosted (=etched) like the Rounder!

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

I honestly think you were talking about this painted frosting. There you are correct. residue inside the ring and inside the markings (as can nicely be seen on Mikes Lazy 2). And a step downwards to the polished rim.

But those are two completely different methods!

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

""I don't know what is so damn hard to understand with this frosting? It is NOT something that applies to the whole cross. It is a cosmetic enhancement of the cross that starts about 0.8 mm apart from the first step and includes everything after that including the beading. It ALWAYS (chemical or painted) shows a straight clear line around the cross and is not all over the map like with your Souval. The Souval or Souvals you are showing have nothing that could even be considered anything close to frosting, polishing or finish - even the EK1 I showed earlier has a lot higher standard of polishing and frosting.

Dietrich""


Where does this 'knowledge' come from???? Dietrich what is going on here...

Statements based in what?

Here are some pics.....I don't know what else to say but your theory is plain wrong

Frosting will and can be found in every nook and cranny of a cross unless finished and finally filed and polished.

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3