FTIR/SEM Results of (3) Rounder

[Dietrich Maerz]

I was asked to close this thread to let is stand as one piece...

A separetae thread was opened for discussion!

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

For the sake of complete information and for the benefit of any member who want's to make up his own mind, another FTIR result as a quote:

"Here is the preliminary IR spec information. My suspension having been lifted, i was interestes in the interpretation of the other results. These results differ in a significant componant, in that a specific compound DER 664 UE was identified. This is a Dow Chemical product patented in germany in 1959, significantly after the war.

While it is true that epoxy resins were used pre war (actually earlier than the IG Farbin information stated), the compound is a specific bisphenolic A siliconated resin with a very specific patent date. Siliicon bisphenolic resins were evluated by both Shell and Dow in the late 1940s as powedered coatings for wiring. It was later that these were used in paints. Dow produced this compound ininitally, but this was only used in marine and bathroom paints in the early 1960s. It was not until the late 1960s that this resin was used for retail use in commerical paints. This is based on communication from Dow Chemical, Dupont, Sherwinn Willliams, and Glidden paints. Electronic information is not available as they said this predated their electronic files.

This cross is a rounder in all respects with regard to the beading, core and paint and has been evaluated as being a genuine rounder in all respects by members of this forum on a previous thread. The possibilities, as we have seen with other RKs of an eaxact duplication of beading charactereistics and cores is essentially impossible, therefore I do not think we can conclude this is a fake rounder. It is a rounder and a representative example of that maker.

For those believers in the rounder, how can the presence of a 1959 patent date be compatible with wartime production?

I will try to get the photos of the information later. A compaison was made with linseed oil- no match. The match with DER 664 UE was within a 95% confidence limit."

No spectra or any supporting data available at this point in time.
<!-- / message -->

[Dietrich Maerz]

And, also for the sake of information, my opinion on this result. And this is only my opinion:

It is good to have another result.

What is not good is that - without counterchecking the results - immidiate conclusions are drawn, turned into fact and culminate into the question "how can the presence of a 1959 patent date be compatible with wartime production?"

As I said earlier, Allan got the results about 2-3 weeks ago, we were constantly trying to define the results, contacting different sources and opinions. We got no clear results, we got even the answer that is is not possible or not that easy - even with three samples (which differ slightly for reasons mentioned). I hopefully have shown in the report all the angles and was very, very carefull to conclude anything - if at all. I supplied the data for everybody to see, copy, take it to the local university and compare, define, conclude on his/her own.

I think we owe that to the community, to be open with the data but carefull with the conclusion. We already had enough premature conclusions that all turned out to be false!

This was the reason to include the tests from Marc's K&Q. To show what data come out and what the interpretation might or could be. There might even a patent date for closely resembled 'dyoctyl sebacate' and it might very well be in the 30 or 40 of last century - or, for a specific application in the late 60's. Not even the trained Williamstown Art Conservation Center - specialized in paints and related fraud - could identify ONE, only one, compound with certainty!

It is unfortunate that we (as pro-Rounders) did not find any conclusive evidence for pre-45, even by trying hard over a long period of time.

The reason is based on a scientific approach: How good are the data, can they be veryfied by a third party? Nobody, neither the initial tester nor the LTU came up with Bisphenol-A siliconated resin. As can be seen on the original print out supplied.

I for one stick with what I have presented for everybody to read and verify. Because that's all we could find with certainty.

If it is enough to solve this riddle to test one (clearly original) Rounder, have a dead solid result pinpointing one specific compound down to a very specific patent date in the USA (95% certainty!), so be it, tell the community in two sentences and immidiatley ask the question "how can the presence of a 1959 patent date be compatible with wartime production?" that is fine by me.

I personally stick to my approach of checking, counterchecking, looking at the big picture (3 models, Rhodium,...) and present it for everybody to digest.

And I say it again: I do NOT know whether the Rounder is pre- or pos-45, I only weigh what I know and have seen and conclude for me personnally. I have not changed my mind because of what another member concluded in 5 sentences with 95% certainty.

I need more answers. Why the three models, why the Rhodium, is it really epoxy resin or even the specific type so clearly identified by one test?

Would I put one Rounder up for sale as an original pre-45 model? Only, as I said numerous times already, if the buyer has the change to read everything there is to read about it! It is without any doubt a very controversial piece. But so were the flawed S&L and there's always a solution to the riddle. Some people think they can solve it over night, others think it takes longer but then the result is correct, well founded and conclusive.


Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Peter,

could you please attach the other results?

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich, with all due respect...to what end?

You have effectively editorialized the results you posted so why not 'even' the playing field?

Take out your 'take' and post both....and as we all look for in collecting...let them stand for themselves

I can send you the full report!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

what do you want me to do? I already said everything I personally know about this topic, including the full quote form Tom Hanson about what he thinks is the truth, already 14 days ago. Look at the post #17.

What more do you want me to do? I never did hide something nor do I want to hide it now. It's other people that give the general public the impression I or anybody else is doing so.

And I'm certainly not taking my 'take' out since that is what I personally think about this subject. If you have a different 'take' you are more than welcome to 'editorialize' the report you have in your hands.

Dietrich