The 3 Types of Rounder RK's

[tom hansen]

- 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!



Dietrich- I am not confused. I know what frosting is. I have looked at both these crosses with a 30X loop and I can see no evidence of painted frosting. Sorry- it just does not seem to be there. One has been evaluated under SEM and shown conclusively not to have painted frosting. The other looks the same, but has not been evaluated.


I am not suggesting anything about rounders and the relationship to what fakers are doing, one way or another. I have not suggested anything about what has been done on rounders. Again, I am not interested in rounders one bit. I just think that before it is printed and universally accepted that lazy 2s have painted frosting, that there should be some evidence for that. The two I have, both mint, have no painted frosting. That is all I can say. Do you suppose that by chance I have the only two anomolous non-painted juncker lazy 2s? Maybe some are painted- who knows. However, there are certainly some that are not.

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich...here is the chemically frosted cross you held in hand and which you refer in this thread! Threre's frosting residue everywhere...within the 'V' of each arm, on the ring and between file marks on the ouside faces of the frame.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

I guess we are missing both the point here. There are two ways of applying the frosting:

- a kind of paint
- an etching process

The etching process erodes the silver and goes into it. The painting process sits on top. I'm convinced that not the the whole cross was etched and then polished. I think the relevant parts where covered by some protective paste or such. Just look at the picture. The etching sits below. The border line is not a "polishing" line but rather an 'etching' line.
This is not about "whole cross" or "not whole cross". For me and the visual evidence I have the whole cross was not etched.

I did not put any therory forward. I was just describing the two processes and stating that the Rounder I showed has the chemical (=etched) process applied. Something that was no longer common after a certain point in (mid?) war. Aftere that the used method (if at all) was painted frosting.

Now you showed you Souval and said it has the chemical (=etched) frosting, someting I cannot see at all. Compared to all the pictures I have, this comes not even close.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

here's another one. If the frosting (=etching) was applied earlier, why is the polishing line eaten away by the etching process? I can only speculate to say that the remainder of the cross was somehow covered. Based on thsi picture an post-etching poloishing is impossible.

But for me this is not important! Important is to know that there were two ways of applying the frosting: one painted and one etched. And the etched was the described method up to a certain point in time in the war and the one Rounder I showed has exactly that. That was all. For me this is very strong positive evidence.

[Dave Kane]

No point missed at all Dietrich...this IS the cross you studied and KNOW it's ACID etched frosting. This IS the large 800 S&L cross you had.

This IS acid etched and shows remnants of frosting all over the cross.

It's the same as ANY OTHER frosted (acid or otherwise) cross! The entire frame was washed, dipped, brushed and then "CLEANED" leaving the inner ribbing and a portion of the flange with the frosting.

You earlier statement regarding the selective and precise application of the acid/frosting/paint is just not correct and should be revised as it is incredibly misleading.

[Dietrich Maerz]

[QUOTE=tom hansen
I just think that before it is printed and universally accepted that lazy 2s have painted frosting, that there should be some evidence for that. The two I have, both mint, have no painted frosting. That is all I can say. Do you suppose that by chance I have the only two anomolous non-painted juncker lazy 2s? Maybe some are painted- who knows. However, there are certainly some that are not.[/QUOTE]

Tom,

the cross from Mike has clearly painted frosting and it is in a not yet opened cellophane back. You say "Maybe some are painted". I say at least one is painted. If your's are not that does not make then better or worse, they are still absolutely fine and genuine Lazy 2's - they just left the factory without painted frosting - for whatever reason. The finish is clearly not the same as the one Mike ownes (and which is also beyond any doubt genuine). That's all.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

No point missed at all Dietrich...this IS the cross you studied and KNOW it's ACID etched frosting. This IS the large 800 S&L cross you had.

This IS acid etched and shows remnants of frosting all over the cross.

It's the same as ANY OTHER frosted (acid or otherwise) cross! The entire frame was washed, dipped, brushed and then "CLEANED" leaving the inner ribbing and a portion of the flange with the frosting.

You earlier statement regarding the selective and precise application of the acid/frosting/paint is just not correct and should be revised as it is incredibly misleading.

No Dave, I'm still not with you and what you say is not correct. And it does not matter which cross it is or not. It applies to all, as you say correctly.

You have not touched base on the etching line. How can the etching process eat away the polishing lines which are applied later???? We all see what we see and I see a selective (masked, covered, ...) application of the frosting and the visual evidence is there for me in the pictures shown.

And it is also not true that the process was the same for eched frosting and painted frosting. The painted frosting does not do anything to the silver material. Some crosses do not even have the 'paint' applied correctly all over the cross.

But this is your opinion and I leave you with that. It has no consequence on the process and the way it looks. Even if you think it's "incedibly misleading" (which it is not ) it will do no harm to anybody as long as people are able to distinguish between painted and etched frosting.

I would like to come back to the main purpose of this thread. I think that even Dave and Tom can maybe agree that the second Rounder shown has the etched frosting. And I personally think this is strong evidence for a pre-45 production, based on the process which was not (to my current knowledge) used by anybody after the war.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich...here's another assertion of yours:


""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!""


After looking at the pics I posted do you still feel this is correct?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich...here's another assertion of yours:


""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!""


After looking at the pics I posted do you still feel this is correct?

Yes, I absolutely do . The etching sits deeper and cuts into the polishing lines. Granted, there are areas around the lower part of the ring that look etched, but that does not mean that the etching was done on all the cross and before the polishing. What about covering the frame with some protection? I don't know and you don't know. So we have to go with the visual evidence. Anyway, the etching line and the cut off polishing line is indication enough for what I said above and I stick to it, based on the pictures.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Exactly...and that's why I posted the pictures. The pictures demonstrate clearly that the frosting was all over the cross until rubbed/scraped off.


I can continue to show the same all over frosting on other crosses....

Frosting inside the ring, on the cross edge face, between file marks and within the stampings and areas missed by the flange burnishing

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

again and again.... There is frosting around the ring, maybe even inside the ring and wherever else. BUT that does not mean the whole cross was etched. It only means that those areas were etched and others were not. You always ask me to look at your pictures, which I duly do and comment but you do refuse to look at the clear and straight forward evidence I'm showing.

How can you do this curve when polishing the previously edged frame??? There is no way! This was etched out after the polishing. Look at the interuption in the polishing lines and at the step. How could a polished area (i.e. an area where the poslisher removes the rough surface of the etching) be HIGHER then the etching??

But okay, Dave. There is for sure an explanation for this and further investigation might find this out, too. Let's leave it like that. I can't convince you and let the pictures speake for everybody to see.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

No problem there Deitrich....but consider one last thing. The jeweler's stick or finishing tool used was probably 'stepped' allowing the technition to follow the flange outline. This is evidenced on the edge of each cross I have looked at............The very EDGE of the step is devoid of any frosting and some show deeper striations and sometimes just plain cuts in the silver.

[Dave Kane]

2

[Dave Kane]

3

[Dietrich Maerz]

No problem there Deitrich....but consider one last thing. The jeweler's stick or finishing tool used was probably 'stepped' allowing the technition to follow the flange outline. This is evidenced on the edge of each cross I have looked at............The very EDGE of the step is devoid of any frosting and some show deeper striations and sometimes just plain cuts in the silver.

Dave,

this could very well be and clearly the cross would have been polished as a last process. This does not necessarily indicate that this was a process to smooth down the etching. Which it cannot have been, based on the missing polishing lines and the edges.

Dietrich