Klein & Quenzer A.G.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

I would hope that the basic tests could be done on the IC2nd....boil down the data and then (with luck) compare to the RK after a 'common' factor is found!


This may diminish the paint needed from the RK?

Frankly, I'd support a 'chip in' to pay for the entire experiment...

A chip in would be fine, I don't think anyone would wimp out at shelling out whatever monies are needed, IF it makes sense to do it.

Honestly, I wouldn't be happy about the destruction of any medal for the inconclusive results it would seem to yield.

[tom hansen]

I agree. I think that the "control" cannot be another K&Q RK,as that is the piece in question.


I really think it should be some form of K&Q. Why-

1. I cannot see them using one brand of paint for a RK and a different one for an EK1 or an EK2. Look at the photos of the size of the shop- it was small. They probably contracted with one maker of paint to use on the cores of EK1s, EK2s, and RKs

2. A different company MAY have contracted with a different firm for paint. Using a control from the same firm would reduce any differences in trace metals that may be seen among different manufacturers.


3. Regardless of maker, there will be differences in the composition of the paint from the 1940s to the 1980s. There will be differences in the content of cadmium and lead.

4. Differences in THICKNESS of paint can be detected. I would assume that the thickness of paint applied to cores in the same plant would be the same.

5. The possiblity, while there, that an EK1 or EK2 is faked is less. Why- less money in it. It is the same concept as to why there are not counterfeit $1 bills.


The guy said he thought no damage would come to the piece. I am willing to risk my K&Q RK. I will buy the other K&Q EK1 or EK2, so there will be no cost to the provider. I just cannot guarantee that no damage will occur, as I have only the presumption of the engineer. This way if it is damaged, I will be the only one out on this.



KEEP IN MIND THIS TECHNIQUES PRESUMABLY CAN EVALUATE THE PAINT IN SITU, WITHOUT HAVING TO SCRAPE OFF ANY PAINT FROM THE CORE. THE GUY SAID THE WORSE POSSIBLE SCENARIO WOULD BE A DEFECT IN THE PAINT .25X .25 MM. SO THERE SHOULD BE THEORETICALLY NO DAMAGE TO THE PIECES. THAT IS THE THEORY. I WOULD NOT WANT ANYONE TO RISK THEIR PIECES. IF I BOUGHT IT AND IT IS DAMAGED, IT IS MY LOSS.


The best piece would be an EK2 that no one would miss if it is damaged. This would be cheaper and the loss would not be as painful as an EK1. I feel confident that no damage will occur, as I have worked with SEM as a medical student (it is very cool!).

[Sebastian Bianchi]

I don’t want to discourage you from trying if you feel that this is a good course of action, but honestly I don’t think anything conclusive will come of it. In fact I have two 65 marked EKs with different looking cores. We should start to study these and see what we come up with. A controversy would ensue, and the whole control group would be shot.

I’ll still help you, like I said it’s another tool, but I don’t think you will have anything scientifically conclusive. All of your points above include the word “may”, “possible”, “I think..” I could just as well argue the opposite. My point is, these aren’t facts.

[Dave Kane]

I understand...but I know of one very high end Cross that was re-shot and sold for over $11,000.00!

Another low end Cross shot so poorly that 'overspray' not patina covered the beading....I'd love to have the ability to compare finishes!

The challenge is evident and the answers available...do we start somewhere?
Afterall those who are reproducing these items (we collect) have already done their homework to a degree...

[tom hansen]

Well then, shall we "chew" on this over the next few days as to what an appropriate control is? I think that this will help actually dispel the restrike theory. So we should be careful choosing a control.

Any thoughts? I have stated what I think a good control should be.

[Dave Kane]

Wait just a moment....I just realized a negative in this!!!


We would have to discuss, debate and provide the results and thereby provide the 'forger' the formula to make (his) product better.....Just like the Juncker reproductions of late with crosshatching etc.!!

We have all witnessed the 'evolution' of anything we collect BASED to a great degree what is discussed here!!

[tom hansen]

Not a worry-


This is the elemental composition of the paint with emphasis on trace metals. That would be much harder to fake exactly than juncker dies, so we are safe there. The composition will be trace "blips" that do not give a "recipe" for that particular paint or pigment.

[Dave Kane]

Heck, let's do it....but share the $ and the benefit!

All we need is a Paypal address

[tom hansen]

I do not have paypal (heck, I can barely operate a computer). But I think the cost will be reasonable provided I do not wreck the RK, so I will pay for it. EK2s will be cheap as well so it should not be a big deal. I look on this as good entertainment and worth every penny. Drew had advised me on the controls, but got into discussion of an appropriate number of samples that would constitute a valid result based on preliminary data, so I had to whip his ass and send him to bed. That being said, I think one or two controls and one "test" should tell us alot.



GOOD NEWS!- Drew found a 65 marked K&Q EK2 in his room, so I am nearly there!

[Marc Garlasco]

Tom,

Would there be any utility in testing a known fake? It might give a nice barometer for the level of diference between the two...

Marc

[tom hansen]

Tom,

Would there be any utility in testing a known fake? It might give a nice barometer for the level of diference between the two...

Marc

I guess if it was a modern fake that would be helpful, in that it would have modern paint. That is a good idea. Anyone have a modern fake? Iam tentatively setting up Jan4 as a date to get the scans done. ISU is closed down mostly over Christmas break, so that is about the first we can get to it.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

I guess if it was a modern fake that would be helpful, in that it would have modern paint. That is a good idea. Anyone have a modern fake? Iam tentatively setting up Jan4 as a date to get the scans done. ISU is closed down mostly over Christmas break, so that is about the first we can get to it.

I have a "333" I can send.

[George Stimson]

Tom

I have a Floch "L15" EK 1 that you can use as a "not new" fake for further comparison purposes. PM me your mailing address and I'll get it out to you right away.

[Marc Garlasco]

From a friend who is a geologist:

You wouldn't be able to use the type of radiogenic dating that I do on
rocks because the chemical makeup of the paint probably wouldn't allow
it and also the material isn't old enough. I have no problem dating
rocks that are 1 billion years old, but stuff that is in the tens of
millions of years gets problematic... it is just too young. Getting the chemical makeup is
probably your best bet. If you know what the chemical composition is
for the paint on the real crosses you could compare it to the other
ones
to see if they match.

[tom hansen]

Thanks guys-

Mathias Zimmer is going to send me another K&Q EK2. Drew has allowed me to use his as well, so I have two controls and the RK. I have reserved time Jan 4 th and have taken time off work for the test.

Seba- Is the "333" a known modern fake, or is it an older fake? If it is a newer fake, that would be a good "known modern fake" reference point. If the date of production is unknown, it may have older paint as well. Thanks!


If it is a known NEW fake, here is my address-

I will send a PM!


Thanks to the several people who offered to supply their nice EK1s! However, the EK2s should suit the purpose and not endanger your nice pieces.

SO here is my plan- two K&Q EK2s, the RK, and possibly the 333 if it is a known modern fake. I have the whole morning booked at the scanner, so it will just cost $340 for the whole bit- pretty cheap even if it is a bust. If it shows some decent information, let's write it up and submit to militaria collector for publication, as Marc (Flak 88) has suggested.