Rounder for Sale!

[hagwalther]

This is superb work Peter.

Regards...

[ekhunter]

Stef,

now we are mixing two things: the Rounder being a proven fake based on FTIR results and saying that Floch made them. Nobody said so!

The point is that Mr. Cross uses a Floch fake (obviously) which he says is made by Schickle (obviously not) to come up with (another possible) maker for the Rounder.

It has a certain irony to it that one fake is used to legitimize another one, sure. But nobody said that Floch is the maker of the Rounder!

Dietrich

Who made the Rounder would be an answer a lot of people would love to know, but the 'rounder' L15 1st has many similarities with the Floch 1st. I asked if that was what Peter was implying, which he answered just like a professor I use to have would have answered. The latest photo comparison that Peter did does show some striking similarities between the Rounder RK and the rounder ek. It is an interesting photo analysis.

[Peter Wiking]

Who made the Rounder would be an answer a lot of people would love to know, but the 'rounder' L15 1st has many similarities with the Floch 1st. I asked if that was what Peter was implying, which he answered just like a professor I use to have would have answered. The latest photo comparison that Peter did does show some striking similarities between the Rounder RK and the rounder ek. It is an interesting photo analysis.

It is a close match indeed. But what about the outer corners? They do not match. Why not make the RK "rounder" legit with another EK1 with round inner corners:

[Franco]

Hi experts,
Just a quick comment about the loop.It appears to be a crude replacement made with a zinc type wire that has been bent to shape in a clumsy manner by someone
Cheers

[Darrell]

....

As per request ...

[hagwalther]

.

[George Stimson]

I'd really like it if everybody who has posted on this thread would go back and edit any posts which are not directly connected to the topic at hand -- before I have to.
Thank you.

[StefanK.]

It is a close match indeed. But what about the outer corners? They do not match. Why not make the "rounder" legit with another fake EK1 with round inner corners:

dear peter,

please do not mix up the L15 "round corners" with the cross posted in #33. while the L15 is a pure fake, the cross shown in #33 is a good original piece! (note especially the reverse setup!)

[Peter Wiking]

dear peter,

please do not mix up the L15 "round corners" with the cross posted in #33. while the L15 is a pure fake, the cross shown in #33 is a good original piece! (note especially the reverse setup!)

Hi Stefan.
I shanged it to read: Why not make the RK "rounder" legit with another EK1 with round inner corners.

Instead of: Why not make the "rounder" legit with another fake EK1 with round inner corners:

I do not like the EK1 in post 33. If the EK1 in post 33 is original or fake is not the point. The point is that some are trying new ways of making the fake RK rounder original.

Cheers.
Peter

[StefanK.]

dear peter,

have you ever handled the ek1 in post 33 or do you even have a picture of the reverse?


regards,

stefan

[Peter Wiking]

dear peter,

have you ever handled the ek1 in post 33 or do you even have a picture of the reverse?


regards,

stefan

No. I have not hanled the the EK1 in post 33. Do you own this piece? The point is again that there are individuals who try to make the fake knight cross "Rounder" original by showing an EK1 with round inner corners. I tried to show that we can go on and show pieces with round inner corners, and the fake knight cross "Rounder" will still be a fake.

Cheers.
Peter

[StefanK.]

dear peter,


i think i understand your thoughts and am of the same opinion.
i only wanted to point out that the cross in post 33 ist not the same "variant" of EK1 shown on mr. cross' site.

well, i am of the opinion that these one-piece EK1 makermarked "L15" are postwar copies by floch. as you have already shown especially the reverse is very similar to the typical floch ek/kvk. therefore cross' argument these rounders were a prewar production by L15 is very laughable for someone who knows that the onepiece EK1 "L15" is a fake. maybe mr cross has found out the real manufacturer of the rounder KC by comparing it with a floch-fake like dietrich already said.

well, that could mean two things. either the rounder is related to the ek1 mr cross showed or to the cross peter showed in post 33 that -especially for people who do not focus on the EK1 1939- is very very similar.
still there are two very huge differencies. the L15 EK1 (onepiece) is a fake and the cross shown below and in post 33 is original. i personally believe that this cross is made by a non licenced manufacturer probably from abroad (spain, japan, maybe italy).
we all know that it is not totally uncommon that germany's allies also produced medals, we know so of very popular awards such as EK, KVK, e.g. .

if you compare the cross in post 33 with the rounder simlarities quickly shine through. so is it totally impossible that the rounder is a pre war cross made by a firm abroad? (because everyone is always argumenting that the paint was not used by germany before 1960. why should not japan or spain have used it before 45?)


Stefan

[Dietrich Maerz]

..because everyone is always argumenting that the paint was not used by germany before 1960. why should not japan or spain have used it before 45?

Because it was not invented by then!

[jujuy]

Dietrich,
are you 1000% sure about that http://cpm.ndsu.nodak.edu/croll/HistoryofPaintSGC.htm

1933

Schlak patents the first epoxy resins: diglycidyl ethers made from epichlorhydrin and bisphenol A: German Patent 676,117. Styrene-Butadiene rubber made in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1lace>Germany</st1lace></st1:country-region>
<st1:country-region><st1lace></st1lace></st1:country-region>
<st1:country-region><st1lace></st1lace></st1:country-region>

Because it was not invented by then!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here is the original text from Dr. Hansen:

"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 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."

So it's not just Bisphenol-A (what the english investigation showed conducted by Allan Pilch with 3 rounders a little earlier than the one done with one Rounder by Dr. Hansen), regarding to this US-based investigation, it is DER 664 UE.