Kc by Meybauer

[Brian S]

Oops that's cynical and I just came into this...

Honestly, this is the FIRST one of these I've seen with frosting, not sand blasting, frosting. I think the added proof of this should give some pause.

As to the mintiness, many RK winners before presentation and posthumous awards made to familes. This most likely one of them and stored away with few fingers to wear it away.

[Dave Kane]

Hey Brian...your decerning eye is surely needed for a comparrison of any L/13...Should a new thread be started?

[Ludwig]

-

Good points!

I agree with Dietrich. Why produce such a high award with the Godet company already producing them in such excellent quality (OLs and OLs/Swords)?

And that it is stone mint (the "rounder") is not a problem. I have a Klein & Quenzer KC that looks it was made yesterday. But on the other hand, some say K & Q never made KCs. Perhaps we have yet another thread there? Think I´ll startone right now.

[tom hansen]

On the other hand, I have a juncker RK that was awarded post humously and was sent to the widow. This one was never worn, yet by remaining in a case has some ver light rusting on the reverse from sitting in a case, and some of the frosting is gone. Granted, it was not wrapped in cellophane, but it is not "mint" despite not being worn at all.

[Brian S]

On the other hand, I have a juncker RK that was awarded post humously and was sent to the widow. This one was never worn, yet by remaining in a case has some ver light rusting on the reverse from sitting in a case, and some of the frosting is gone. Granted, it was not wrapped in cellophane, but it is not "mint" despite not being worn at all.

Well then Tom your single example must speak to all examples. Nicht?

You would not be aware that it may have been in an environment where the heat was off in the winter? Handled by the grieving widow over and over and not placed away? So many probabilities. But you are right if you say so. Your example points to all possibilities that do not possibly exist as you say so. Thanks for the facts.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Just as a remark regarding mint or not mint. Here's a Rounder in a little less mint condition. I guess the fakers went a very long way to establish authenticity just to sell 20 or 30 crosses...

It is NOT true, that all or most Rounders are mint, it is NOT true that they just appeared 60 years after the war (which is now).

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

..and here is another one. With a Juncker or S&L, this would be called "nice and honest patina" and definetely "a cross that has been there". With the Rounders it's artificially aged, rusted, sandblasted, ...
(Source: RK-CD from G. Williamson)

Dietrich

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Tom,

contrary to some other highly substantial remarks and statements in this thread (by others) your questions really deserve a comment (I'm not saying an answer because that would mean that I know the answer...).

First of all, let me say that I'm the one who came up with the connection Rounder-Meybauer, based on the clear "7" mark on my cross which I bought from Mr. Steve Wolfe around 1990. This might be completely wrong, but if that's so then at least one could conclude that a possible faker was already before 1990 thinking along Meybauer lines. Please remember, this was at a time where L/12 were still suspicious and K&Q was an american fake. People didn't know about makers and maker marks like they do nowadays.

So much to the Meybauer idea. If that turns out to be wrong, it's all my fault, clearly!

Now to the comments:

1. Maybe there are L/13 crosses, maybe not. Do we know all crosses that are around? No L/16 S&L either (to my knowledge). There are "7" DK's, true. Now let me ask you this: Is the sign of a genuine L/13 oaks rather an indication for or against the production of RK's by Meybauer? All but one I know of are only marked "800", like the S&L's

2. We do not know NOW about the "7". I know at least since 1990. So this is nothing new.

3. I can't really follow this logic, but I understand what's behind the argument: Too many Rounders (I know of about 25) in comparison to Zimmermann (which are real) so this makes the Rounder a fake, since there are more than Zimmermanns (but less then Juncker, S&L, ...) As Steve Wolfe said to me not long ago: Those are rare gems...

4. Now this is another tricky one. Are you suggesting that it is better to have an imperfect RK because this is a better sign for authenticity? The more flaws the better? The more filing the better? I don't think so! Every company had it's procedure how to produce the crosses. Some needed to file away the inner corners, some needed to rework the rings, some did other things. Some had to do nothing, as can be seen with literally hundred of thousands of EK1 (which basically are build the same way). I personally would not venture into the avenue of "imperfection is good". I would rather look at the manufacturing process itself and (as Dave said numerous times) the individual producing each individual cross. In that respect, the Rounder is as good and as bad as some early Juncker and S&L. However, the overall quality is just better.


Now we still have two complete different questions here:

- are the Rounders real. Yes or No
- if Yes, are they made by Meybauer.

Reading thru this thread and stumbling over highly informative statements, this crossed my mind:

IF, as Pieter told us several times, it is possible to reproduce a perfect copy of a die (as he has witnessed in person) and SINCE this is the ONLY possible answer to the S&L die flaw, WHY do these kind of people (not the same as Pieter witnessed) NOT reproduce Juncker crosses with the same procedure but rather revert to creating a complete new "creation". And this absolutely perfect! One should not forget, these crosses are around a long time already and the procedure described by Pieter must have been common knowledge to the pre45 manufacturers, otherwise the S&L theory doesn't work.

It makes no sense and it just takes more than just a "It's a fake" to dismiss all the other pro's that this cross has going for it. But I know it is a lot easier to dimiss something than to proove something ...

I apologize for this long answer to those who made it this far (might be only a few....) I don't post that much, but IF I post something, I always feel I should contribute at least a little substance not just a "whatever".

Dietrich

P.S.: and I have achieved my dream, combining the S&L die flaw issue with the Rounder issue!!!

I cannot remember advanced collectors of KC's beiing suspect on L/12 crosses,the articles written on this subject where the most laughable things ever written.
A lot of K&Q were seen from the familys here in Europe , this was a know and legit maker even at these day's.

Should take some German Auction catalogues of those day's and you will be able to put a least a zero behind that number.


The procedure as I described seems to be unclear ...still. You cannot make a perfect duplicate die from a medal or here a KC, but you can duplicate a DIE. The Juncker dies don't exist any more...or have they recently turned up somewhere...


To me this has nothing to do with perfection of the cross or not. They have NO pre-45 pedigre at all and to my knowledge NONE has ever turned up with proven link to a wearer. I have NEVER seen a picture of such cross in wear, number of pictures are posted but they ARE NO rounders.


Pieter.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Pieter,

thanks for answering!

1. The rumors about the L/12 and K&Q were surely unfounded but they were still around and not all collectors are or have been as advanced as some few europeans, including you. It is not about the truth of a rumor, it is about the content and the overall spread of the rumor. A rumor has no base behind the alleged content.

2. I have german catalogs of Herman Historica of 1990 in which two Rounders, among other crosses, have been posted for auction and were auctioned off with the going rate. I do not know of at least 225 more to bring the number of Rounders to maybe 250. Which, by the way, would still be an extremely low production run for whoever did it before 45 or after 45.
Now the apprearence in a german catalogue makes it a fake? or what is the point behind this? This is what I call a rumor.

3. Ok Pieter, here I must have mis-understood you and I will go back into my files to see what we discussed. So once and for all : You say, one can make a perfect copy of a die from another die and you witnessed this procedure.


4. If the perfection, make, appearence and other necessary requisites (such as period frosting) do not enter into the evaluation then I see your point. You say, you can only trace other genuine pieces from the one (or several) absolutely dead solid prooven provenance examples by means of comparison down to minute details. I go for that. That was always my stance on the oaks, strike-restrike discussion, but there it was not valid. But ok...
There is one cross with provenance and it belongs to a friend of mine. It has been discussed here. It was dismissed as a "switch" . It's that easy, my friend!

The same with the pictures. They are NO Rounders, as you say so well founded. If those are no Rounders, then please give me your well founded reason why you can say so without any doubt. Otherwise it's just a rumor.
And yes, Pieter, there were pictures that looked like Rounders but one could see clear Juncker identification items, which we should not post openly. But that is not the case with all of the picture in question and this way of "not discussing secrets" will not work in general..

Pieter, you CANNOT proove that the Rounders are fakes. You can only say, based on what you stated above, that at this point in time no solid link to a pre-45 awardee and wearer has been established. Or in your opinion, no period picture has been found which clearly shows a Rounder. Thats all.

I only have knowledge of one cross with provenance (which you would request as a base for genuity) which was shut down by a few with some very light arguments. Arguments that would not even come to light when discussing very, very shady provenance of some S&L crosses. People have pre-set minds, and they act accordingly, as you well know.

Maybe you are right and we will never find the missing link. If you are right we are here dealing with the best faker ring ever possible. They did not even shrink back from the marketing strategy to put thoses fakes into genuine cases and genuine ribbons. Amazing guys! And they even got the frosting right and put at least one cross thru a very convincing (if you know where to look - but I won't say that here in the open to not educate fakers) rusting process to be able to sell maybe 250 or so...They even fooled Steve Wolfe and other advanced collectors.

Again, thanks for your input, which is very much appreciated. I wish we had this open statement from you during the oaks thread. Would have killed it right then and there. No resemblance to known, tracable pieces = Fake.

regards,

Dietrich

[Pieter Verbruggen]

Hi Pieter,

thanks for answering!

1. The rumors about the L/12 and K&Q were surely unfounded but they were still around and not all collectors are or have been as advanced as some few europeans, including you. It is not about the truth of a rumor, it is about the content and the overall spread of the rumor. A rumor has no base behind the alleged content.

2. I have german catalogs of Herman Historica of 1990 in which two Rounders, among other crosses, have been posted for auction and were auctioned off with the going rate. I do not know of at least 225 more to bring the number of Rounders to maybe 250. Which, by the way, would still be an extremely low production run for whoever did it before 45 or after 45.
Now the apprearence in a german catalogue makes it a fake? or what is the point behind this? This is what I call a rumor.

3. Ok Pieter, here I must have mis-understood you and I will go back into my files to see what we discussed. So once and for all : You say, one can make a perfect copy of a die from another die and you witnessed this procedure.


4. If the perfection, make, appearence and other necessary requisites (such as period frosting) do not enter into the evaluation then I see your point. You say, you can only trace other genuine pieces from the one (or several) absolutely dead solid prooven provenance examples by means of comparison down to minute details. I go for that. That was always my stance on the oaks, strike-restrike discussion, but there it was not valid. But ok...
There is one cross with provenance and it belongs to a friend of mine. It has been discussed here. It was dismissed as a "switch" . It's that easy, my friend!

The same with the pictures. They are NO Rounders, as you say so well founded. If those are no Rounders, then please give me your well founded reason why you can say so without any doubt. Otherwise it's just a rumor.
And yes, Pieter, there were pictures that looked like Rounders but one could see clear Juncker identification items, which we should not post openly. But that is not the case with all of the picture in question and this way of "not discussing secrets" will not work in general..

Pieter, you CANNOT proove that the Rounders are fakes. You can only say, based on what you stated above, that at this point in time no solid link to a pre-45 awardee and wearer has been established. Or in your opinion, no period picture has been found which clearly shows a Rounder. Thats all.

I only have knowledge of one cross with provenance (which you would request as a base for genuity) which was shut down by a few with some very light arguments. Arguments that would not even come to light when discussing very, very shady provenance of some S&L crosses. People have pre-set minds, and they act accordingly, as you well know.

Maybe you are right and we will never find the missing link. If you are right we are here dealing with the best faker ring ever possible. They did not even shrink back from the marketing strategy to put thoses fakes into genuine cases and genuine ribbons. Amazing guys! And they even got the frosting right and put at least one cross thru a very convincing (if you know where to look - but I won't say that here in the open to not educate fakers) rusting process to be able to sell maybe 250 or so...They even fooled Steve Wolfe and other advanced collectors.

Again, thanks for your input, which is very much appreciated. I wish we had this open statement from you during the oaks thread. Would have killed it right then and there. No resemblance to known, tracable pieces = Fake.

regards,

Dietrich

Hi Dietrich, Thank you, but neither can you PROOVE they are original.
That's the big problem. If we see copys of existing pieces we compare and will see the differences.
If they make a new "variation" from a different maker you have nothing to compare, and never will be able to proove it's a fake or not. Here you have to fall back on your personal experience and make a personal decission. No more no less. And for me they are as fake as they can be...but I have no problem others take them for real.
Bests Pieter.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Dietrich, Thank you, but neither can you PROOVE they are original.
That's the big problem. If we see copys of existing pieces we compare and will see the differences.
If they make a new "variation" from a different maker you have nothing to compare, and never will be able to proove it's a fake or not. Here you have to fall back on your personal experience and make a personal decission. No more no less. And for me they are as fake as they can be...but I have no problem others take them for real.
Bests Pieter.

Hi Pieter,

now we are a back on the ground of usefull discussion! Yes, I cannot proove that they are real BUT I try and since I started, with the help of a lot of other people, we came a long way. Here is where we are right now"

- nearly everybody agrees that the "make' is exeptional and this does not only come from em and some other "poor' guys that own such a cross, but also from very experienced guys like Gordon, Steve, Chris, to name just a few.
- there are pictures that can or could identify Rounders (contrary to NO pictures at all)
- there is one known group with credible (in my opinioin) provenance. That is one more then none.

So, on the path to the truth, several steps have been taken and an unbiased outside observer would surely tend towards the Rounders being real pre-45 pieces. I court your opinion might be going against Steve's and the jury would decide on other facts, such as the pictures and the group.

But this is not a court case and it is not about believe. This is about facts. And I clearly see as a rational thinking individual that there are just more pro-fact then against-facts.

You say you fall back on your experience and declared them "fake as fake can be". This is not a very strong argument, since for me "fake as fake can be" is a one piece bendable alloy RK or even a fairly well made Souval or post 45 S&L with original rims and flaws. The quality of the Rounder is light years away from thoses pieces - and you know that. You fall back to the strength of your name and stance in the community, which for sure has a lot of value. But if you do not KNOW, then you should NOT judge.

Anyway, I have no problem when you declare them "fake as fake can be". There is still a long way to go and maybe I will die over it. But I will go my way logically, scientific and un-emotional and will not just say "good as good can be", based on the good preception or big name I might have or not have for others. It's either good or bad, thats it. There is no partially pregnant in our hobby.

And it is always a pleasure discussing with you!

Dietrich



P.S.: Two little stories..

About 1 1/2 - 2 years ago I posted a pin with the motive of the Feldherren halle suggesting that this could be the pin for the Blutorden. Man, I tell you, the amount of ironic, knowledable, laughable and what have you remarks that came from that. OK, I did not throw it away.
Detlevs new catalog (a masterpiece and thanks for your help too) shows on page 298 exactly the same motive for a ribbon (Bill Dienna). Ok, I'm happy now.

"An insignificant number of 'duplicate' copies for private purchase were made with frames in 935 silver by the firms of C.F.Zimmermann and Otto Schickle, both of Pforzheim, and Klein & Quenzer of Idar-Oberstein, but production of theses items for open sale was forbidden in 1941. Few recipints ever bothered to aquire extra crosses for front-line or dress wera in any case. During the 44-45 period issue Knights Crosses began to appear with zinc cores and nickel silver frames..."

Detecting the Fakes, 1989, Robin Lumsden, London, Europe

[Brian S]

The rounder is 'real as real can be'. After a low run rate production stopped. Meybauer? So few produced that 'someone' in senior management today doesn't know they were made in an extremely small number 60 years ago. Why so few we'll never know. This cross is still the finest in manufacturing and finishing work of all the RK's.

Like the Otto Schickle Condor Legion Tank Badge, we are learning all the time the WHO of this hobby. And the Schickle CLTB is 'real as real can be'.

Patience is a virtue in this hobby that is rewarded often. It is not surprising that as rare as this cross is that collectors who contribute or have contributed on this forum who get pieces directly from vets have not seen one. But don't be surprised when one does. We have not seen all there is to be seen. We have not heard all the proof there is to be heard.

Also remember the grandson of the IMME Pilot Badge recipient. A heretofor unseen pilot badge but 'real as real can be'.

At this point, until proof surfaces we are arguing opinion which is very difficult. But no matter how highly, or not, we hold each other's opinion, before you state emphatically the negative, hold one, examine one and consider the possibilities.

[jujuy]

Hi Pieter,

now we are a back on the ground of usefull discussion! Yes, I cannot proove that they are real BUT I try and since I started, with the help of a lot of other people, we came a long way. Here is where we are right now"

- nearly everybody agrees that the "make' is exeptional and this does not only come from em and some other "poor' guys that own such a cross, but also from very experienced guys like Gordon, Steve, Chris, to name just a few.
- there are pictures that can or could identify Rounders (contrary to NO pictures at all)
- there is one known group with credible (in my opinioin) provenance. That is one more then none.

So, on the path to the truth, several steps have been taken and an unbiased outside observer would surely tend towards the Rounders being real pre-45 pieces. I court your opinion might be going against Steve's and the jury would decide on other facts, such as the pictures and the group.

But this is not a court case and it is not about believe. This is about facts. And I clearly see as a rational thinking individual that there are just more pro-fact then against-facts.

You say you fall back on your experience and declared them "fake as fake can be". This is not a very strong argument, since for me "fake as fake can be" is a one piece bendable alloy RK or even a fairly well made Souval or post 45 S&L with original rims and flaws. The quality of the Rounder is light years away from thoses pieces - and you know that. You fall back to the strength of your name and stance in the community, which for sure has a lot of value. But if you do not KNOW, then you should NOT judge.

Anyway, I have no problem when you declare them "fake as fake can be". There is still a long way to go and maybe I will die over it. But I will go my way logically, scientific and un-emotional and will not just say "good as good can be", based on the good preception or big name I might have or not have for others. It's either good or bad, thats it. There is no partially pregnant in our hobby.

And it is always a pleasure discussing with you!

Dietrich



P.S.: Two little stories..

About 1 1/2 - 2 years ago I posted a pin with the motive of the Feldherren halle suggesting that this could be the pin for the Blutorden. Man, I tell you, the amount of ironic, knowledable, laughable and what have you remarks that came from that. OK, I did not throw it away.
Detlevs new catalog (a masterpiece and thanks for your help too) shows on page 298 exactly the same motive for a ribbon (Bill Dienna). Ok, I'm happy now.

"An insignificant number of 'duplicate' copies for private purchase were made with frames in 935 silver by the firms of C.F.Zimmermann and Otto Schickle, both of Pforzheim, and Klein & Quenzer of Idar-Oberstein, but production of theses items for open sale was forbidden in 1941. Few recipints ever bothered to aquire extra crosses for front-line or dress wera in any case. During the 44-45 period issue Knights Crosses began to appear with zinc cores and nickel silver frames..."

Detecting the Fakes, 1989, Robin Lumsden, London, Europe

[Pieter Verbruggen]

...any thoughts why the latest reference work by Detlev Niemann doesn't mention the rounder cross. And throwing it under the "other makers" is to simple as enough pictures of rounders are available.

Strange not....for such a legit, well known "variant".
No sarcasm in this remark, just an observation. Perhaps Detlev would be so kind to give his reason for not taking up this type of cross in his book. Whatever his explanation is I will respect it ,as I hold him very high when it comes to his opinion.
Pieter.

[Brian S]

...any thoughts why the latest reference work by Detlev Niemann doesn't mention the rounder cross. And throwing it under the "other makers" is to simple as enough pictures of rounders are available.

Strange not....for such a legit, well known "variant".
No sarcasm in this remark, just an observation. Perhaps Detlev would be so kind to give his reason for not taking up this type of cross in his book. Whatever his explanation is I will respect it ,as I hold him very high when it comes to his opinion.
Pieter.

I will say this Pieter. Many collectors look for the easy answer, an expert, a dealer, a friend to tell them what is right and what is wrong. I think we all started out that way looking for a mentor to tell us what is the right and the wrong. Then for some of us it comes down to years of experience and what we've seen and we know what to look for in a collectible. At that point some of us maintain our wisdom in spite of another collector's opinion. I don't mean this disrespectfully Pieter but you have not seen it all. Detlev has not seen it all. Because a vet or family hasn't yet produced one of these to you or Detlev makes it no less real in my mind. You can bring Detlev in here for an opinion and it certainly will sway the many collectors who lean on someone else's thoughts for lack of ability to form their own. But unless Detlev or you have found one in vet's hands, it's only opinion.