I was sent information on this type of Knight Cross from Tom Hansen that i will post in this thread. I might break the rules doing so, but i take the chanse as i think it will benefit us all.
Try to keep the diskussions at a serius level. No flaming or name calling.
I have files on the rounder IR spec information. I think it was glossed
over in the IR spec information on the rounder. Chem IR, a professional testng
facility, found the specific compound DER 664 UE on the rounder submitted.
This is a type of epoxy resin, a silicon bisphenolic A epoxy resin, which was
patented in 1959. Further, while epoxies were invented prior to the war, this
class of epoxy resins was not created unitl the late 1940s through Dow and
Shell chemical. Further, contact with the paint companies DuPont, Sherwin
Williams and Glidden stated that these epoxy resins were not available in
paint until the early 1960s. At that time,they were used in bathroom and
marine coatings. It was not until the late 1960s that these compounds, the
siliconated bisphenolic A epoxy resins, were used in paint for metal coatings.
This information places the rounder production, simply by virtue of the
materials, in the late 1960s at the earliest. It is unlikely that the
production is reflective of the first dates of material use therefore the
production date is probably later than this. However, we can say that these
pieces were not made before the late 1960s.
The company who tested this piece has read the IR spec thread and was a
little suprised that people simply did not read or believe the information, as
they said that the results found would be sufficient indentificaion of this
compound for undustry or law enforcement. They further said that they could
perform mass spec on the sample and further confirm DER 664 UE, but asked if
the IR spec information was not believed, why would they believe mass spec?
They felt it is probably a reflection of misunderstanding of the science of
testing for compounds. From a personal standpoint, having worked at Merck in
antibiotic identification, I can say that IR spec and mass spec IS the
techniques that we used to identify even unknown compounds, which were
subsequently synthesized for production. Therefore, there is nothing wrong
with the techniques, only in the perception of the results.
Here are the files. If you could post them, that would be great, as this
proves the rounder to be fake. This confirms what Detlev believes and what we
have been looking for. I think we can go back and learn something from this.
In the rounder, there was a series of inconsistencies with wartime pieces that
were somewhat glossed over, given the emotional attachment that owners have
for the rounder-
1. paint physically of different appearance than wartime pieces
2. paint with an elemental composition unlike wartime pieces
3. paint with a post war patent date- 1959
4. paint with a commercial use post war- late 1960s
5. beading characterisitics of poor quality compared to originals
6. lack of beading depth
7. a piece slightly larger than other period RKs
8. No provenance
9. No photos of the piece in wear
10. 800 stamps on plated pieces
11. "7" stamps with no record of that maker producing this cross
All these things, should they come up again, should show us to be a little
bit more critical of the information and prevent the acceptance of post war
pieces in the future.
I think that part of the problem with the information that Dietrich presented
is that the firm they used did not have a computer library of spectra of known
compounds with which to compare. Chem IR is able to take the spectra and match
it through computer matching with a library of known compounds.
Further, I think a huge issue that was glossed over is the time line for
epoxies. Epoxies were not invented by Farben, as contented, but were used in
the 1920s. The problem is that the particular class, the siliconated
bisphenolic A epoxies were not even evaluated, let alone patented or used,
unitl the late 1940s. Remember all the silicon on the SEM information on the
rounder? The Chem IR people had access to the SEM information and said the
high silicon peaks are a reflection of the silicon content on that class of
epoxy. The paint companies said the siliconization was developed for greater
UV light protection compared to traditional epoxies.
Again, this proves the rounder to be fake, yet it has not and probably will
not be accepted. Why? Because people really do not want to know. Brian S has a
fake story to defend about the auntie, the rounder and stalingrad. The rest
are just too wrapped up in thier piece to accept that it is fake. I am a
little suprised, given the poor quality of these, that Gordon Williamson
believes them to be real, as when they are examined in hand, they are really
quite terrible, as your recent post shows. I have examined a latvian style
fake in hand and it is of better quality than the rounder, yet that piece is
readily dismissed.
Try to keep the diskussions at a serius level. No flaming or name calling.
I have files on the rounder IR spec information. I think it was glossed
over in the IR spec information on the rounder. Chem IR, a professional testng
facility, found the specific compound DER 664 UE on the rounder submitted.
This is a type of epoxy resin, a silicon bisphenolic A epoxy resin, which was
patented in 1959. Further, while epoxies were invented prior to the war, this
class of epoxy resins was not created unitl the late 1940s through Dow and
Shell chemical. Further, contact with the paint companies DuPont, Sherwin
Williams and Glidden stated that these epoxy resins were not available in
paint until the early 1960s. At that time,they were used in bathroom and
marine coatings. It was not until the late 1960s that these compounds, the
siliconated bisphenolic A epoxy resins, were used in paint for metal coatings.
This information places the rounder production, simply by virtue of the
materials, in the late 1960s at the earliest. It is unlikely that the
production is reflective of the first dates of material use therefore the
production date is probably later than this. However, we can say that these
pieces were not made before the late 1960s.
The company who tested this piece has read the IR spec thread and was a
little suprised that people simply did not read or believe the information, as
they said that the results found would be sufficient indentificaion of this
compound for undustry or law enforcement. They further said that they could
perform mass spec on the sample and further confirm DER 664 UE, but asked if
the IR spec information was not believed, why would they believe mass spec?
They felt it is probably a reflection of misunderstanding of the science of
testing for compounds. From a personal standpoint, having worked at Merck in
antibiotic identification, I can say that IR spec and mass spec IS the
techniques that we used to identify even unknown compounds, which were
subsequently synthesized for production. Therefore, there is nothing wrong
with the techniques, only in the perception of the results.
Here are the files. If you could post them, that would be great, as this
proves the rounder to be fake. This confirms what Detlev believes and what we
have been looking for. I think we can go back and learn something from this.
In the rounder, there was a series of inconsistencies with wartime pieces that
were somewhat glossed over, given the emotional attachment that owners have
for the rounder-
1. paint physically of different appearance than wartime pieces
2. paint with an elemental composition unlike wartime pieces
3. paint with a post war patent date- 1959
4. paint with a commercial use post war- late 1960s
5. beading characterisitics of poor quality compared to originals
6. lack of beading depth
7. a piece slightly larger than other period RKs
8. No provenance
9. No photos of the piece in wear
10. 800 stamps on plated pieces
11. "7" stamps with no record of that maker producing this cross
All these things, should they come up again, should show us to be a little
bit more critical of the information and prevent the acceptance of post war
pieces in the future.
I think that part of the problem with the information that Dietrich presented
is that the firm they used did not have a computer library of spectra of known
compounds with which to compare. Chem IR is able to take the spectra and match
it through computer matching with a library of known compounds.
Further, I think a huge issue that was glossed over is the time line for
epoxies. Epoxies were not invented by Farben, as contented, but were used in
the 1920s. The problem is that the particular class, the siliconated
bisphenolic A epoxies were not even evaluated, let alone patented or used,
unitl the late 1940s. Remember all the silicon on the SEM information on the
rounder? The Chem IR people had access to the SEM information and said the
high silicon peaks are a reflection of the silicon content on that class of
epoxy. The paint companies said the siliconization was developed for greater
UV light protection compared to traditional epoxies.
Again, this proves the rounder to be fake, yet it has not and probably will
not be accepted. Why? Because people really do not want to know. Brian S has a
fake story to defend about the auntie, the rounder and stalingrad. The rest
are just too wrapped up in thier piece to accept that it is fake. I am a
little suprised, given the poor quality of these, that Gordon Williamson
believes them to be real, as when they are examined in hand, they are really
quite terrible, as your recent post shows. I have examined a latvian style
fake in hand and it is of better quality than the rounder, yet that piece is
readily dismissed.
Comment