Cross photo interpretation

[Dave Kane]

And HEEEEERE we go....how about the reliance on certain photos when it pertains to the "Rounder" crosses, not that they were 'touched up' but just the inaccurate presentation photography sometimes presents!

[Biro]

I'm fortunate to have the length of ribbon 'leftover' after he snipped a portion for the neck hanger....his RK case got away from me

All the best cases can run EXTREMELY quickly Dave.

You're outa shape.

Marshall

[tom hansen]

Based on this example, I would suggest ANY such photograpic evidence upon which we are making more significant conclusions to be evaluated by a professional. That goes for rounders, die flaw S&Ls or whatever. It is pretty clear that a convincing fake can be made that can decieve experienced eyes even on close inspection. I would want any "evidence" photo to be clear enough that a professional could accurately evaluate its authenticity.

[Dave Kane]

You better stop Marshall!


It's those 30 days in the ground that go very quickly especially when it's near a urinal!

[tom hansen]

I found my knights cross in the photo. It was on a thread from a few years ago in a photo posted by Tim Clavert of a "doctored" RK photo. Look at the similarities and angle of the cross. It looks like this was SOP when adding an RK to an older studio photo!

[tom hansen]

another from the thread..........................look familiar? Instant provenance! They must be real. Or at least this cross pictured might be real.

[tom hansen]

See how the cross is angled exactly like the Rdwan studio photo to feature the cross? Also look at the characteristics of the cross pictured.

[Brian S]

Here is a photo of the blown up photo. There is another photo that the guy said is quite clearly real, that shows how the effect of the light should look in the image.

So now a photograph produced perhaps by the propaganda ministry is proof rounders are fake? This is nonsense.