schickle RK

[Tiger 1]

Hi Boys!

I'm just checking in on the fun while on a pike and musky fishing trip up north.

Gee whiz! I seem to be missing all the fun here.

I see that Dr. Tom is really whipping the rounder issue here. I have to say that the good doctor is not shy about inferring things about other people he knows little about. Since I feel that some of those comments are directed at me however obliquely they were intended, I'll get my licks in here if you don't mind.

It's sad when someone talks a very big game with little actual playing time in the field. Money, while a great help in the ability to afford fine collectables, will not buy you knowledge and very little in the way of personal experience. That truely comes with time and effort. Just because you may know how to draw and read the map you've drawn, doesn't necessarily mean that you know where you are or where you're going. Stick to golf my friend.

As I said earlier, I will disclose the FACTS about my rounder KC as to metal content. I will have the results of the tests from my 'plated' rounder along with some control pieces for you all fairly soon after I get back next week. There may be enough crow pie for everyone who speaks without real facts. Should be fun! Maybe someone can suggest a fine whine for crow.

I hear the siren call of the monsters of the lake. They beckon..........I must go fish.

See ya all in a week or so. Bye now!

Tony



P.S Now boys, Be nice to to each other.

[jujuy]

Tom, I'm sorry about that but I have 3 international publications in scientific review, a PhD and 2 international patents in medecine
IMO You don't have to feel so scientist if you don't have a more opened mind

The great scientist- that is funny. What is funnier is that I am the only one of us that actually has a publication record in peer reviewed scientific journals to be able to tell the difference from data and bs. Still, the money thing again . I guess I do not spend much time counting other people's money. It can make one bitter.[/QUOTE]

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom, I'm sorry about that but I have 3 international publications in scientific review, a PhD and 2 international patents in medecine
IMO You don't have to feel so scientist if you don't have a more opened mind

... and you have a Rounder, too . How is that impacting your publications and patents?

Dietrich

P.S.: Have two intenational patents with my name, too

[tom hansen]

Thanks for the kind words. I find it interesting that the rounder topic always stirs such anger and personal attacks. There is no need for it. The best way is to prove what I am saying is wrong, if one can. Just test those pieces and prove that I am an idiot, rather than calling me one. The insults really do no one any good and is simply a diversion not to face the question at hand. Are rounders wartime? Are they all plated? Why is the paint so different from other pieces? Are schickles wartime? Are they all plated? Are there 800 stamped plated versions of this maker?


All I am asking is for those that have these pieces to take a little look. Each one of you could take your piece to a jeweler who could probably tell you in a few minutes whether they are plated or not. Dietrich- I am not saying that rounders ARE all plated. I am saying I THINK this to be true. This is the same as your opinion that rounders are wartime. I respect your opinon, but apparently dissenting opinions are not tolerated. Of a very interesting note, take a look at the SEM photos of your rounder. Remember those little ridges at the base of the beading? Those are also on the plated schickle. Warren, who evaluates metals and materials on a daily basis with SEM says that is a visual effect that is seen with plating. This is not all bs. I do not claim to be an expert; I am just reporting information I get. But the fact of the matter is that the rounder owners are simply unwilling to explore the possibility that their pieces may not be wartime. I guess if I owned a rounder, I would really want to know one way or another. Just take your piece to a jeweller or to your local analytical lab and ask them. The information would be priceless.

The paint issue is just data. You can say it is not so, or argue it away as much as you like. Yet the rounder paint remains unique with no other third reich piece showing similar paint. Does that not make you a little suspicious? What if this was a helmet instead of a rounder? What about the plated "800" stamped piece? No suspicions there? None at all? Would a company mistakenly use a different sheet of brass, then mistakenly go through a plating process? Come on. Also, why would they stamp it 800?

I am perfectly willing to explore and discuss the possibility that the schickle RKs are post war production. The more information we have, the closer to the truth we come. However, it requires a little forensic information than visual observation and may take some time. It also requires a little emotional detachment from the issue, which appears to cloud the rounder discussions. But we have to start somewhere. To just sit around and talk about it will get nowhere. Go out and do a little testing- find the truth.

Want me to shut up? Three of you with rounders take your pieces and find out if they are plated. Honestly report the results. If they are solid silver, I will agree to permanently shut up about the rounder. If they are all plated and marked "800", it would be highly likely that the rounder is a fake. Any takers? It would not take much time or money. If you really believe in the truth, why not take a look?

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'd like to start with another Tom Hansen postulate:

"Yet the rounder paint remains unique with no other third reich piece showing similar paint"

Meanwhile I'm convinced you are really not getting it - and that's sad! It is those unproven, unfounded 'absolutes' you are using. A casual reader could believe you comming to the conclusion that what you write might be correct! And that is what really drives me nuts! What is so difficult with saying:

"Yet the rounder paint remains unique with no other SO FAR TESTED third reich piece showing similar paint"

Are you capable of spotting the difference in the sentences? Do you agree that there is a scientific and fundamental difference between those two sentences? Or is it just me, talking not in my mother language here?


Then you also say:

I am not saying that rounders ARE all plated. I am saying I THINK this to be true. This is the same as your opinion that rounders are wartime.

Now you can think what you want, but -at least that is my opinion - one should explain why one thinks so. Because one is plated? Because of the "little ridges". Because the Schickle is plated? Or just because you think so and that's all you have???

And it is NOT the same as my opinion. Why? Because I give reasons to my opinions, I explain usually my findings or at least try to give an interpretation., based on facts or multiple observations. And, this is more important, I don't draw a irrevocable conclusion out of one piece or one test or one observation.

Why do I think you are completely wrong (again!)? Because I tested my Rounder also (as you know) and it's silver. I have the pictures of the etched Rounder (try to understand that Weiss-Sieden a little more - then you might get what I mean with that) and also pictures of a lot of other Rounders in all kinds of conditions. That's why I think you are flat out wrong. Of course, there are other factors, such as weight and the difference in specific weight between brass and silver, but I don't want to overload you.

To bring it to the point: I find the way you are tackling a problem irresponsible and irrational. You pull something out of your brain, lean back and challenge for an answer. If there is none at this point in time or you just don't like the answer, you declare yourself the expert and the subject a fake!

You do the same with your Schickle right now. You challenge for more pictures, none are comming in a day or so, so you must be right. That's not how it works! It takes more effort and more time and more thinking!

By the way, I still would like to know why Gordon is wrong by showing the Rounder in his book? Please answer this simple question!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Yes, Dietrich, the point that readers might actually read his logic and believe HIM is what drives me nuts too. A casual reader not taking in all the facts but taking in his conclusions would be grossly misinformed. Rounder paint is 'unique', now that's a mark of a fake. Good grief.

And NO, I am not taking my cross to a jeweler for YOUR benefit. I do what I do for my benefit and the benefit of other collectors who have a real need for something I might have. (Yes, Dave, I am selfish in that I don't mail my junk around the country. Me bad.) The cross is not plated, it's worn, and it CLEARLY is not plated. Because you are too ignorant to see that is not my problem to take it to a jeweler.

Tom, I know you're sensitive, I wish I could play the violin over the Net for you... It's always YOU who are attacked, never deserving harsh words...

[tom hansen]

Why not ask questions? I do not think it is irresponsible at all to say I think that rounders may be plated. Tony has a plated one. There are those little ridges at the base of the beading on Dietrich's piece, which according to an expert, is an indication of plating. Could that be wrong? Of course. However, we will never know unless someone who has a piece checks it out. I do not have one to check, otherwise I would do so. The only way we will know is if someone actually checks a few pieces out. It could be a huge piece of information, but again, as Brian has shown, few if any rounder owners will do this. The simple fact that the rounder owners will not take the minimal effort to see if thier places are plated makes me suspicious in of itself. Why not check it out? I guess if I really felt that this was wartime, I would want to prove it. But if I had doubts, I would avoid any forensic evaluation of the piece. Why prove a piece you have may be a fake? This clearly explains the reluctance to investigate.

Dietrich- I have pointed out many times that there are many other pieces to be tested and have pointed out the ones I have tested. There is no match for the rounder so far. Given that there are no other rounder owners that will test their pieces with SEM compared to other period pieces, I am afraid that will be the limits and extent of knowledge of the characteristics of paint. I will add a deumer to check the last lead for a 3/4 ring match, but after that, I have nothing further I want to look at. SO ..... for the information that is currently available, and probably all that will ever be available, there is no match for the rounder paint. So I will continue to state that there is no current match for rounder paint, as it is quite true. Could there be a match out there? Yes, but no one else will look for it. If others were so inclined to check further pieces, perhaps the limits could be expanded. But again, for guys who will not even check to see if pieces are plated, I do not see that coming. If one will not spend $20 and a trip to the jeweller, spending hundreds or thousands and alot of time on SEM will never happen. Let us just review the "limited" data we have, which is relatively large for only a few people actually contributing-

S&L RK
S&L EK 1
Juncker 800 RK
Juncker 800 dot RK
Juncker lazy 2 RK
K&Q RK X 2
K&Q EK 2 X2
Rounder RK
3/4 ring RK
Schickle RK
Grossman & co EK 2
Meybauer EK 1
Godet imperial EK 1
CD 800 EK 2
wachtler and lange EK 2
K&Q EK1
BH Mayer EK 1
round 3 EK 2
1914 imperial EK 2


Now that is 20 pieces, which takes a little but of time. I did several, as did Marc (Flak 88). Thanks for the effort from Marc Garlasco. It is unfortunate that others, who have done nothing to contribute to this information, will take a swipe at the effort. But, I guess as it stands, that is the total SEM body of information that is available and there is NO rounder match. So unless those who are critical of the effort made so far, while they contribute nothing, are willing to make some effort, there will be no rounder match. It is odd, incidentally, that similar paint for the schickle was easily found. If one was looking to prove wartime manufacture, one would think that a little investigation would help. However, if one does not want to know the answer, then investigation should be avoided, which is what appears to be happening.

Now with 20 pieces evaluated, both the frames and the paint, it begs the question, "how many is enough?" How many pieces did you physically look at for the S&L article, Dietrich? I would bet far less than 20. That appears to be a satisfactory number in that instance. What if, say, 30 pieces were tested and there was no match? Is that enough? How about 40? However, the main difference here is a result which the rounder owners do not like, so it is immediately dismissed. Again, it is ironic that similar type paint compared to other period pieces was found for all the other RKs, including the schickle and 3/4 ring. Why not the rounder? Why just that one and not the others? If this was any other piece or item, would that not raise suspicions? Of course. However, the rounder has become wrapped in such emotion that people are unwilling to step back and take an objective look, as they KNOW that it is real, regardless of what any information shows or will show.

[jujuy]

I kept this fact hidden to the reviewers and to the patents institute

... and you have a Rounder, too . How is that impacting your publications and patents?

Dietrich

P.S.: Have two intenational patents with my name, too

[Dietrich Maerz]

Again you have proven your best and most excellent feature! You are not reading other peoples posts because you are so entagled in your own little world. I can't continue 'dicussing' with you unless you accept the basics of a discussion: listning to what other people say and maybe, just maybe, accepting it.

Didn't I say very clearly that I tested the Rounder and that it showed that it is made of silver (not plated)? Didn't I say that the weight differences are there also? Didn't I say that one Rounder has etched frosting which can only be done with a silver piece? In case you don't know (and I'm sure you don't), plating is very, very thin (16-32 Micron). I would like to know more about 'little ridges" occuring during plating since I don't find those on any silver plated items I've looked at (such as dinner ware for example).

It is very nice of you that you tested several pieces. But that is not to say that you can deduct any firm conclusion out of this.

"SO ..... for the information that is currently available, and probably all that will ever be available, there is no match for the rounder paint"

Okay, Mr. Tom Hansen has concluded that the information has been collected, he's not doing any more, others will not do anymore (he postulates) and that's it! Tom, I was at an SEM session last Friday and I have many more to come! I'm not shouting out what I found before I'm sure what I found and before I have veryfied it with more testing. Who are you to think and even post in an open forum that nobody else is doing some work?

You have tested 20 pieces! Out of how many possible variations? You can't be serious! Unfortunately, you are!

Your quest for the truth regarding the Rounder is a complete failure. Not because you did not find interesting things to discuss. No, because you don't take the time to sit down and think. You have this unbearable urge to shout out findings and postulate extremes, which have been proven wrong every time. I'm sick of this.

"No Si in contemporary paint" WRONG
"High Levels of Ba are bad" WRONG
"All Rounders are silver plated" WRONG
"No match to any other paint" WRONG
"Nobody then you is doing any research" WRONG
"You are the only one with the capability to separate data from BS" WRONG
"All Rounders show no wear" WRONG
"No Rounder with provenance" WRONG
....
...

Why don't you just sit back, relax and wait what's coming? You would do yourself a great service!

But before you do that, please answer why Gordon is so wrong with showing the Rounder in his book. I really would like to know what knowledge and expertise is behind your judgement.

In case you even read this post - which I doubt!

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Dietrich-

Why doe the schickle have etched frosting?


When you are using a tool to make other assumptions, you must first standardize that instrument. You have no idea that etching equates to solid silver as you have not "standardized" that assumption, as you have not actually tested the pieces you assume to be solid silver to see if they are actually silver. If the tool is flawed, so are the conclusions.


I really do not see why you are so nasty about this. If one is to see that a piece is plated, one needs to have a small defect in the plate to see the metal underneath. If there is no defect, it will appear solid silver under SEM. You know that. I know that. Take another look.

Again, everything that does not support the rounder is bs? Wow.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

please show a high resolution image of the etching of the Schickle.

"as you have not actually tested the pieces you assume to be solid silver to see if they are actually silver."

I say it the last time, I have tested my piece on several spots and it is solid silver. What don't you understand in that sentence? Do you need a notary statement? Or are you just ignoring what I say?

And I'm not nasty about 'this'. I'm nasty about your constant refusal to listen what other people say and your constant posting of wrong, unproven und unsubstantiated ideas and assumptions.

And I never said BS - you introduced that word in conjunction with your sole ability to distinguish data from BS. Which was and is wrong also, by the way!

I only showed you that you were so far flat out wrong or unproven on all counts.

I ask again:

Why do you think Gordon is wrong and you are right?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Dietrich-

Why doe the schickle have etched frosting?


When you are using a tool to make other assumptions, you must first standardize that instrument. You have no idea that etching equates to solid silver as you have not "standardized" that assumption, as you have not actually tested the pieces you assume to be solid silver to see if they are actually silver. If the tool is flawed, so are the conclusions.

Well Tom, going beyond your usual hurt feelings...

Where is the Schickle etched? The beading? Not the frame... The beading can be silver and the frame plated.

[tom hansen]

Some photos are already posted here. I will get better views of the frosting. The entire cross is silver plated on the beading and frame. There are areas on the beading where the plating has worn down to allow the base metal to be visible under SEM.

Dietrich- I have read your posts. SEM can only tell surface metals. Any plated piece, unless there is a defect or wear in the plating, will appear solid silver through SEM. The only spots that demonstrated the neusilber core was worn areas on the beading. The rest appeared to be "solid" silver. Why do I think Gordon is wrong on this issue? For all the reasons I have listed before. I think Gordon is quite knowledgeable and his opinions carry alot of weight. That does not mean that everything he says or has written is correct. Take a look at the editing job on the DKiG section of his Iron Cross book. Now I have written zero books on the subject, so I am in no postition to bitch. No one is infallable, and not everything the guy says would or can be expected to be 100% correct. It is his opinion.

[George Stimson]

The problems with the DK section of Gordon's book are, as Tom points out, editing errors -- something which I, as an editor and publisher, know something about. (Although I've never published any scientific journals. )
But are there any factual errors in the book (or in Gordon's entire body of work, for that matter) which would be on a par with claiming that Rounder RKs are wartime if in fact they are not?

[Brian S]

Good one George. I'll pour the gasoline and you pour the honey in the gas tank. Either way, it's the same effect!

I love it!!! If this were baseball Tom you'd be three strikes, out...