schickle RK

[tom hansen]

If this was a baseball game, it would have not even started yet, as the opposing team has not thrown a single pitch, whether it a strike or a ball !Yet no one will address the facts, because they are hard to face


1. A plated rounder with 800 stamping, which is a PK violation

2. Another rounder with evidence of plating by visual inspection on SEM

3. No one willing to spend $20 and an hour to see if their piece is plated

4. No period third reich piece with similar paint on the core

5. A markedly different visual appearance of the paint under high mag

6. No photos of rounders in wear

7. No pieces with provenance

8. Lower quality construction of beading as compared to other period makers.


Now there is the "con" view. Where is the evidence for the "pro" view, beyond people really hoping and wishing that they are real? Where is there any evidence? This is like a trial, where it is a weight of evidence issue. No one was there in world war two to know one way or another, but we have to make inferences based on available forensic evidence. Check the pieces out. If you fear the truth, just sit idly back and complain. If you really feel these are wartime, prove it. The truth is easily reachable for those so inclined. But if the truth is not favorable, will they reveal the information or, or conceal it? So far, I have seen no facts to confirm or support the rounder being wartime. Plenty of conjecture, but no facts. What facts are there to support this contention? Please list them.


The simple fact that no one is even willing to check to see if thier piece is plated, which I suspect all of them are, speaks volumes. The owners do not really want to know. Why debate about whether Gordon Williamson is the voice of God and is infallable, when one can easily and simply find out for sure? George, do you honestly think that the Iron Cross of 1939 is the truth of God as told by Gordon? Come on. Let's think for ourselves and critically evaluate the information. To simply state that it is the truth because it appears in that book is quite silly.

[George Stimson]

Don't put word into my mouth, Tom. I just asked whether there was a demonstrable factual mistake in Gordon's book.

[George Stimson]

Everybody

And.... (Sigh ).... isn't this thread supposed to be about Schickle RKs?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Flat beading??

[Brian S]

Dietrich, as I said long long ago, best to let Tom talk to himself, argue with himself, pat himself on the back, declare himself the 'new expert' and leave it alone. It's not worth the time. It's always back to the same stupid mantra which no matter what you say, show or prove doesn't matter. What's the point. In his mind he is always right. Leave it at that.

[tom hansen]

Agreed Brian. It is easier to say that than to address the damning evidence against the rounder. Better to not explore the piece, as the truth may hurt. But then again, a simple trip to the jeweller could make me shut up.......... But let's face it. It is not going to happen. I do not claim to be an expert, as you imply, but I guess I know enough not to shove my head in the sand and not take a look at issues that do not seem to fit. A few photos to ponder, as I guess this thread is about schickle RKs. A few schickle photos----

[tom hansen]

Another

[Dietrich Maerz]

What do you want to tell us with these photos?

[tom hansen]

Here is another. Just take a look at the beading and the frosting here and above. Does it look familiar?

[tom hansen]

Here is a shot of the schickle paint under high mag. Note the non-homogeneuous composition of the paint, as seen with other period pieces, both with bone black and non-bone black period paint.

[tom hansen]

By the way, what are these little Cu traces doing here ?

[tom hansen]

It looks like it is here also, but in greater amounts than seen on the juncker, S&L, or K&Q RKs. What gives ?


Rounder RK frame
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
Ni K ED 0.07* 0.11
Cu K ED 10.38 15.93
Zn K ED -0.15* -0.22
Rh L ED 0.58* 0.55
Ag L ED 87.66 79.20
Total 100.00 100.00

Junker 800 RK beading
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
S K ED 0.43 1.39
Ni K ED 0.24* 0.42
Cu K ED 4.12 6.70
Zn K ED 0.58* 0.91
Rh L ED 0.33* 0.34
Ag L ED 94.30 90.25
Total 100.00 100.00


Could the Cu "peaking through" as well as the ridges at the base of the beading be evidence for silver plating over a Cu frame?

[Dietrich Maerz]

By the way, what are these little Cu traces doing here ?

Just another Dr. Tom post!!

He's wondering what the 'little Cu traces are doing here ".

Tom, this is what happenes when the fingers are faster than the brain and - a constant trait of your personality - when you don't read what other people write or say - and I don't mean me, I'm talking about the rest of the world.

If you would do so, you might have found out that with 800 silver, which means 80% of the total material is silver, the balance of 20% is copper (which is Cu).

So that's what the little traces of Cu are doing there !

[Brian S]

You'd think a guy who was "published" would know that...instead of trying to throw gasoline on the fire and get his thread woken up.

..and if he'd bothered to read your other post..."plating is very, very thin (16-32 Micron)"...and actually looked a few photos of Rounders, he would have seen several well worn crosses with no traces of anything "peeking" through. But, I forget, me bad, how could they be 'worn'...

Tom, back to

[Dietrich Maerz]

It looks like it is here also, but in greater amounts than seen on the juncker, S&L, or K&Q RKs. What gives ?

Then it took Dr. Tom approx. 26 minutes to find out that his S&L, Juncker and K&Q also have copper in the frame! So that assertion "what is the little Cu traces doing here" went out of the window! Again!

A marking of 800 is an indication of at least 80% silver. So the Rounders shows at that spot 87% and the Juncker 94%. So what gives ????.

Other then that .... just another Dr. Tom post!