ROUNDER modern FAKE!

[Brian S]

It's just all too ironic. The man who had the nastiest of things to say about Detlev now uses his comments to make himself the hero.

[J G]

Brian,
Get a grip. I'm in England, I'm my own man. Listen, if you want to launch a personal attack do it by PM not in a thread, I will not sink to that level. All that will acheive is huge editing by the mods then a thread shutdown. Ive asked a serious question, do you have answers or not? I'm simply trying to to progress the discussion.

As you raised some questions in the thread, I'll answer them.
1. No I'm not Tom. You'll notice I'm an association member which means Seba has my details on file, from England, nowhere else.
2. I'm not pushing you, just asking for your proofs, it's what we all seek her isn't it, proof?
3. I don't have a rounder, nor any other real RK so what I have to add is limited, you are, it seems unshakeable in your opinion, that why i'd like to hear your proofs.
4. I don't need coaching from anyone.
5. I'm in the ring, I'm dancing like a butterfly, stinging like a bee. Rounders are real are they? Let's see you're knockout blow?

By knockout blow, I mean evidence not another attack on me just because I disagree with you. I'm open to discussion and if you can convince me, I'll change my mind.

Are you Tom Hanson back as a new name here?

You're pushing me when I've clearly told you my impression of Detlev's process.

So unless YOU have something to add don't push me.

Your comments here are so absurd you MUST be Tom.

If I HAD proof wouldn't this all be mute?

Do I have a wartime Rounder? Don't we ALL have wartime Rounders.

Good grief man, better get a little better coaching from your puppetmaster before you step into the ring.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich,
I could reverse the question to you. My post at #24 refers. Who were the manufacturers, manufacturing RK's without a licence during the war that were actually awarded? I seriously doubt that. Epoxy resins patented in '59, we have proof of that.
If "rounders" are pre '45 there should be absolute proof, just like all other RK's, Juncker, K&Q etc.
It's all about evidence, so let's see it, then we can discuss it. I'm currently in the fake camp, convince me otherwise?

John,

I'm not in the business of convincing anybody. You should know that from all my posts. I'm only trying to find out what 'it is'. And I would never ever tell you or anybody to buy a Rounder and I never ever did that anywhere. For me this is not about money and investment, it's strictly intellectual interest.

So, try Maybauer as a possible manufacturer for a starting point (You will know of course taking part in this debate, that two crosses are marked '7') and for two scientific outfits no specific epoxy resin could be identified, so the 1959 date might be premature - but might be correct.

And I agree with you 100%. If or when the Rounder is pre-45 it must be prooven 100% (which also - by sheer locig - includes that is is then prooven 100% that it is NOT). Both is not the case and therefore the benefit of the doubt should go 'against'. Very true!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

We wouldn't be here if we had it. Duh.

[Brian S]

But since you have trouble with the language your people brought over here to us, let me try to rephrase...

Detlev, probably, never found with absolute provenance. Hence, it is not real for him. Simple enough?

[J G]

Dietrich,
Great repsonse, concise and to the point. You, through your research are one of the forum members whose opinion I respect, a man after my own heart, i.e let's see the proof, until then we are in the "against" section until PROVED otherwise.

John,

I'm not in the business of convincing anybody. You should know that from all my posts. I'm only trying to find out what 'it is'. And I would never ever tell you or anybody to buy a Rounder and I never ever did that anywhere. For me this is not about money and investment, it's strictly intellectual interest.

So, try Maybauer as a possible manufacturer for a starting point (You will know of course taking part in this debate, that two crosses are marked '7') and for two scientific outfits no specific epoxy resin could be identified, so the 1959 date might be premature - but might be correct.

And I agree with you 100%. If or when the Rounder is pre-45 it must be prooven 100% (which also - by sheer locig - includes that is is then prooven 100% that it is NOT). Both is not the case and therefore the benefit of the doubt should go 'against'. Very true!

Dietrich

[J G]

Brian,

Oh dear, is that it? That's it, PM for remarks like this. Any serious comments I'll respond to in the thread, other than that I'll not bother, take a look what Dietrich said in respionse and learn!

Well whoever you are, obviously you WILL sink to this level and to depths beyond even mine... Good for you.

Re-read. No proof Einstein. We wouldn't be here if we had it. Duh.

[Brian S]

Oh dear,

whew...

[Brian S]

Brian,

Oh dear, is that it? That's it, PM for remarks like this. Any serious comments I'll respond to in the thread, other than that I'll not bother, take a look what Dietrich said in respionse and learn!

Ah, you're one of those sophisticated collectors who can't buy a piece without a COA.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe we can, since Dave started this thread, come back to some of my nagging questions, which makes me think that the whole issue might not be so easy as just "pro' and 'against" (again, from a strictly research point of view):

- why three models?
- why Rhodium?

Here is what I mean. IF the Rounder was made in lets say late 50's early 60's, who had the knowledge, desire, need,... to produce 3 different models and use Rhodium on at least 3 pieces. At a point in time where the broad mass of collectors where not looking at those things for sure?

It just makes me think about two possibilities:

- somebody who was in that business before, or
- old stock of somebody who intended to be in that business

Just look at the early fakes like Souval or even the post war S&L. No effort whatsoever to 'fool' somebody. No 'hidden' signs.

Isn't that an interesting question? Apart form 'pro' or 'con'?

And that's what I'm after and that is what will further this hobby. Not the mud slinging and not the baiting or the "I was right and you are wrong". That's just plain childish!

Dietrich

[Brian S]

story telling

...and thanks to the moderators for letting Dave once again set the tone for a thread. Really fun to get in the mud and roll around with his friends.

[J G]

Brian,
I'll keep saying it, Oh dear, is that it?

Ah, you're one of those sophisticated collectors who can't buy a piece without a COA. That's intellect.

[bratwurstdimsum]

Nice thread Dave,

Unfortunately, there are still a minority of members that have again come out mentioning names that should not be mentioned and starting to turn this forum into a circus.

I am sure I represent the thoughts of many when I say that I will not be turning to this forum for any serious discussion of this topic

[J G]

Dietrich,
I'm relatively new so please indulge me? Is there any links to a thread showing three models and Rhodium? I'd like to read them, I'm interested to now more, as you say all other fakes are well documented and undisputerd. You are absolutely right, by the way, mud slinging and childish behaviour gets us no where. I hope this thread will leave that behind now! And get back to serious debate.

Maybe we can, since Dave started this thread, come back to some of my nagging questions, which makes me think that the whole issue might not be so easy as just "pro' and 'against" (again, from a strictly research point of view):

- why three models?
- why Rhodium?

Here is what I mean. IF the Rounder was made in lets say late 50's early 60's, who had the knowledge, desire, need,... to produce 3 different models and use Rhodium on at least 3 pieces. At a point in time where the broad mass of collectors where not looking at those things for sure?

It just makes me think about two possibilities:

- somebody who was in that business before, or
- old stock of somebody who intended to be in that business

Just look at the early fakes like Souval or even the post war S&L. No effort whatsoever to 'fool' somebody. No 'hidden' signs.

Isn't that an interesting question? Apart form 'pro' or 'con'?

And that's what I'm after and that is what will further this hobby. Not the mud slinging and not the baiting or the "I was right and you are wrong". That's just plain childish!

Dietrich

[Harry]

Now lads, put the handbags down and back to your corners.
Brian, get a chip on your other shoulder and then you might be a bit more balanced.
I thought I was in for an informative thread when I started reading, but it has all gone pants now, for the usual reasons.