ROUNDER modern FAKE!

[Dietrich Maerz]

John,

do a search with "Rounder" and look and the pinned thread on top of this forum. After reading maybe the 5-6 most recent threads (and forgetting about the multiple diversions, attacks, baiting and so on), you will know all there is to know.

I personnaly feel that this thread was started to instigate another circus or car wreck and I will wait a little longer to maybe get some intellectual interesting comments to the questions I raised. If not - the thread will be closed since it has fullfilled it's purpose .....

Dietrich

[Harry]

Here is something intellectual...no one in their right mind would buy a rounder after Detlev's update, unless it is for nuts.

[J G]

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.

Harry,
Let's hope not! OK, open invitation, newish member here, know's very liitle about RK's, currently thinks rounders are fake. Anbody wants to convince me that they are pre '45 post you evidence here, photo's, scientific, anything, lets get a proper debate going (are you listening Brian?). As a starter, the 1959 expoxy resin theory? Seems convincing to me, is it conclusive? But.... Dietrich's 3 type's of rounder is interesting, anyone dispute that?. Real/Fake? Let's have evidence to discuss?

[Brian S]

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.

Well Harry, when Dave and his Oz Flying Monkey Tom call you a liar, we'll see how YOU handle it.

[StefanK.]

the first "big" discussions about rounders came up more than two years ago. initially i was quite interested in those discussions because i also have the privilege to own one of these crosses. very interesting things were written and discoverd. congratuations to dietrich etc..
now, two years later i am getting sick about this discussions.
we always hear the same. the same people say "original", the same people say "copy". also after niemanns latest "fake of the week".
does it really make sense if niemann declares this cross as a fake? does it really make sense if niemann sells it as an original?

we heard a lot arguments for and against these crosses, but what were these arguments for? lots of members are fighting private wars via PM, but what for?
this cross is not a nice piece of metal to put behind glass. this cross is religion. convincing an opponent is like to make a buddishm eat beef....

lots of people here know much more about these crosses than they have postet yet. why didn't they say something? why did niemann post this cross NOW as a fake and not two years ago? why does brian don't tell where his relatives got their rounder from?
where are the KC produced by deuemer? a lot of interesting questions, not answered yet. instead, people discuss about some little flaws of the beading, they discuss and wonder why the rounder is 2 grams lighter than juncker and why the core was made aut of two pieces.

i really think we NEVER will get further if we proceed like this......



stef

[Harry]

Well Harry, when Dave and his Oz Flying Monkey Tom call you a liar, we'll see how YOU handle it.

I have been called a hell of alot worse (not on the forum admittedly)...but rise above. Note the quote below......'don't let the bastards grind you down'

[Harry]

.

[J G]

Dietrich,
I quite agree. If you think this thread will turn into a circus, I suggest you close it.
Regarding Detlev, I wonder if he would provide his opinion on why he considers rounders fakes. A more knowledge man than me could suggest that Detlev could procure many rounder RK's then give them his seal of apptoval then sell them on at huge proft? Why then call them fake?

What about this? Dierich, maybe you could get Detlev's opinion or ask him to post, start a NEW thread with that opinion and links to yours and Tom Hanson's results (no Brian, I'm not Tom!!!!). That thread could only be for discussion of evidence and serious discussion of opinion, any and I mean any personal attacks should not be allowed and deleted along with any serious opinions held in the post. Therefore if you attack people your opinion won't be heard. Only in that way will we get to a consensus. And for me, real proof of pre '45 manufacture would be needed, just like as exists for all other pre'45 RK's.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here is something intellectual...no one in their right mind would buy a rounder after Detlev's update, unless it is for nuts.

Harry,

from a pure investment point of view you are absolutely correct. But that was already the case before Detlev put 'his word' in.

Now, if we only want to discuss what is a save investment and what not - case closed for now! I agree 100%. So let's all agree not to buy one and then those people who are only interested in the money side of things are happy.

But again, for me there is just a little bit more. Look at Stefan's question? Look at mine? But again, if we only want to discuss save investments and not other aspects, it's a mute point. I for one will continue and whatever I learn it will be for the benefit of all, that's for sure.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

John,

Detlev will most likely read this thread and if he wants to post, he will do so.
Everything else has been stated clearly in the old threads'. That's all there is.

Dietrich

[J G]

Dietrich,
Well, Ive looked at some old threads, given what they say balanced with the new threads, only one conclusion can be drawn, rounders are post war and as genuine war time awards as a "Latvian cross". Those shown in Gordon's book are most likely Junckers with rounded corners.

Anyone got a genuine rounder? I'll give you $200 for it!

[Dietrich Maerz]

John,

wih all due respect:

- you are a damn' fast reader and a damn' fast consumer of complex arguments! I give you that!
- the crosses pictured in Gordon's book on pages 336 and 337 are Rounder's and not Juncker.


Dietrich

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Warfight,

since you have such a strong opinion that you need to shout it out , could you please help me to solve the few puzzles I have:

- why did the 'fakers' etched the beading and why did they use Rhodium?
- why did they make three models (plated, etched, plain)?
- why do we know the source of the other common fakes (Souval, Hungary, Latvia, Floch, ..) but not this one?

Those are exactly the points I'm after. Maybe you can help me. Hey, maybe those come from the stock of a company that thought they were allowed to do it but didn't get the license? Maybe they were really made shortly after the war for whatever reasons? I honestly don't know. Maybe you do?

Dietrich

...Well a very nice new reference work recently published by Frank Heukemes ( a must have on the shelf for every collector!!!!) can perhaps enlighten some of your questions.

-quality copys of known designs.
-the book shows copys of a basic badge in various finishings and set ups of pins,hooks, different matalbases of the same design or maker.
-do we know the producers of all these copys ?

no...we don't...but still they are fakes

To me, and this is again my personal opinion, I can simple not see any quality in those rounders, the core even looks ugly and handeling one gives me nothing of the feeling of a good KC.

Pieter.

[Brian S]

Dietrich,
Well, Ive looked at some old threads, given what they say balanced with the new threads, only one conclusion can be drawn, rounders are post war and as genuine war time awards as a "Latvian cross". Those shown in Gordon's book are most likely Junckers with rounded corners.

Anyone got a genuine rounder? I'll give you $200 for it!

Good to have you back Tom Hanson.

[J G]

John,

wih all due respect:

- you are a damn' fast reader and a damn' fast consumer of complex arguments! I give you that!
- the crosses pictured in Gordon's book on pages 336 and 337 are Rounder's and not Juncker.


Dietrich

Dietrich,
Thanks but can't take too much credit!
- I read the posts prior to commenting. I like to know what I'm talking about before I post. As for a fast consumer of complex arguments? I do my best.
- I think that previous threads and this one leave the crosses in Gordon's book open to interpretation, especially the pre '45 assertion. Although the specific photo in Gordon's book I refered to is on p338, wartime, most likely a Juncker IMO