Infared spec

[tom hansen]

Another member has anonymously come forward to test a rounder. I have bought one and up for testing this piece. Anyone else want to chip in to test the second piece? I am contacting the company on Monday. I believe they said $600 per item, but I will see if they can do both. If not, anyone else want to chip in for the "test the second rounder" fund?

[Brian S]

I think that one SHOULD ask about anyone purporting fake provenance, however. This information, if found out to be so, is not only dishonest, but is damaging to collectors, as some will consider this to be positive information that may lead to a decision to purchase. I think that such practices should be exposed, otherwise they will occur again.

Could you please elaborate on this? Who exactly and what is to be exposed and who exactly is the purported alleged liar here?

Tom and Dave have spent a lot of time, lots of money, effort, etc. This evidence turns out they are both entitled to some blood.

Go back to old threads, get the stories requoted here and let's get the dirty evidence out in the public.

At least, Tom, could we please put names on these people, put on the blindfolds and get ready to pull the trigger when your results come in?

This will be very exciting, all dressed up and ready to execute, I for one, am very very excited and enthusiastically await your studious and righteous report. Then let the night of the long knives begin. Let's get em boys.

[bratwurstdimsum]

Tom,

Just an idea, I think we need a benchmark/baseline for this and agreeance on (pardon me for saying) the legitness of your Rounder as a TYPICAL rounder.

What I am suggesting is a poll.

You can post pics of your rounder at all angles and let all who are interested, vote on whether that (at least looks like) is a rounder that they'd endorse a test on.

I'm only saying that because 600 dollars is 600 dollars and we want everyone's agreeance and balls on the block before you spend loads of your money on this great endeavour.

If you get 1 vote in 20 saying that its good to go, then maybe a search for one that everyone agrees on may be in order

Just a suggestion

[George Stimson]

Night of the Long Knives -- NOT!

Whatever the results are, they will be self evident. And whatever the results are, this Forum will not become a venue for "calling out" any person for any kind of "accountability."

[Dietrich Maerz]

Since we all know what Tom is alluding to, let's make this clear: IF the test show the Rounder to be post war, that does not mean that they were NOT done between 45 and let's say 65, i.e. there would be no proof of an early 80's date and no disprove of a late 60's date!

Correct? Or are the FITR dates so accurate that somebody can pinpoint the year?

Dietrich

[Marc Garlasco]

Dietrich,
To my understanding, and I am an admitedly simple man, the polymer bindings that it looks for are of 1950s and later manufacture. So at best it would show the paint is post 1950whatever.
Marc

[tom hansen]

Dates of commercial paint use can be identified by the identification of coupounds used in the binders during that time. There have been several "stages" of different polymers in paint from 1945, so we should have a pretty good idea when the rounder was introduced. Also, before there is commercial use, there is a patent date; any patent date will precede commercial use. The service said that they would provide that information regarding commercial use and patent dates. So if there are siliconated polymers in the paint, the dates at which these were first used can be determined. So yes, a general time period can be determined, but not a specific year.

If the polymers in the paint are post war, the results are obvious. If the paint binders are wartime, then I would say it is wartime. I think the whole contention of use of either period paint on a fake, or a repaint of a period piece are poor excuses.

Regarding provenance- yes this has been claimed many times by Brian about his piece. The aunt gave it to him in 1968 or 1967 , right? And it is the cross of the uncle who cannot be named, due to family privacy, right? So we are clear on this, these are not my claims, they are Brian's. Let us see when the compounds on the rounder were first used. I think if the use of these compounds is after 1945, we will have some great information. If they are post 1968, I think we will have some better information. The implications of both pieces of information are obvious. Let's see what the tests show. I don't think anyone can tell for sure until the information is in.

[George Stimson]

Since this subject continues to be personalized , I hope that if the compounds are determined to be pre-1968 the individuals who have publicly and repeatedly scoffed at Brian's story will just as publicly apologize for their unfounded doubts.

[rev]

What If

What if:

If I was to make a kc for resale I would do the following I would shop around and find old paint from pre 45 believe me when I say it is still out there in old barns and sheds this I can personally vouch for. I guess if I was devious enough I could use it on a very well made copy and then we would have a mystery on our hands right? I am somewhat of an educated man and if my memory serves me right when steel or iron is fired it retains its age at the atomic level. This would be more of an interest to me than checking paint ( not to say that the test for paint is not important ). When you fire something it locks in the molecules that are in the air at that time and the scientific world has a chart to show what was in the air at what time in our history. As an example in 1930 to 1945 we use coal in large quantities and that would show up ( just an example ). When it comes to paint I have to say that it is a step in the right direction but not totally conclusive. The cross in question is the rounder so I have to ask were they made by the same producer or were there more than one producer. If the cross was made by one producer what makes everyone so sure he was not using pre 1945 paint and on the other hand is it not possible to have had the cross repainted with post 1945 paint even though the cross it's self is pre 1945?? If the latter was the case then I suggest that it if the cross was not totally stripped of all the previous paint it would show a mixture of pre and post paint correct? So I except the testing being done as one means of determination but i would also like to see a metallurgical test done as well. You did mention Tom you have no problem distroying the cross so is that test possible with the company you are having the paint test done with? This test combine with the paint test in my opinion would be 100% conclusive as to where the rounder stands in the word of Knights Crosses for once and all and there would be no disputing it from anyone.

Just my thoughts and opinions for what they are worth

Joe

[Brian S]

Thank you for the quote Herr Scientist.

[tom hansen]

Thank you for the quote Herr Scientist.

I will wait for the results. The facts will speak for themselves. The technique is indesputable and the company that is performing the test is one of the leading independent chemical analysis firms in the US. There will be no wiggle room here.

1. If the compounds identified are post 1945, the rounder is fake. There are no ifs ands or buts.


2. If the compounds identifed are post 1968, they could not have appeared on a cross in 1968.


3. There would be no recipients of fake crosses in the 1970s


Let's see what the results show. I will report them accurately.

[Brian S]

I will wait for the results, herr fibber.

Would you please explain this?

[Brian S]

Ah, you edited your post but not before I got it down. You're taking this too personally Tom. No objectivity. You're out for blood and you're out to place yourself as the world's foremost expert on RKs by paying for conclusions.

This is all a selfish and nasty little expedition you're on, not some great hunt for truth.

A mean spirited little man who will go to any expense to be 'right'.

[tom hansen]

Nope- not at all. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything but medicine.


This is simply a test to show if the rounder is fake and you lied about provenance. I think both will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's just be patient and wait for the results, and then you can explain them to us. I will be interested particularly in your "provenance" and time frame . No one else has made these claims regarding the rounder as you have. Here we have a test that can tell us one way or another.

[Brian S]

Nope- not at all. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything but medicine.


This is simply a test to show if the rounder is fake and you lied about provenance. I think both will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's just be patient and wait for the results, and then you can explain them to us. I will be interested particularly in your "provenance" and time frame . No one else has made these claims regarding the rounder as you have. Here we have a test that can tell us one way or another.

Firstly, I hope to God provenance never provides me a way into a situation where I would have to rely on you for your medical 'expertise'.

Secondly, again with the personal insults before the results are in, before you have the cross in hand, before any data has been drawn for critique. But there is no room for critique, we would be "delusional".

Tom, you're quite a guy, you find a shovel, dig your own hole, jump in, and cover yourself up.

As I said, you're a mean spirited little man. As this is such a blood vendetta for you, a person would be "delusional" to trust your objectivity.