Sedlatzek RKs?

[sdesember]

The paint application on these Sedlatzek crosses are quite thick with the 1939 date almost consistently always "drowned" by the paint. The lighting on the photos by Ram1412 is perfect enough that one could see that the paint is smooth egg-shell-like similar to early Juncker crosses.

[Leroy]

Some really good photos being posted here. Regardless of what these may ever turn out to be, it's always nice to see a "library" of these crosses.

As to SEM and IR testing, I don't know if anyone has done that for Souval material. Based on what chemist friends tell me, the precise reliability of these tests for paints is questionable, anyway, as the historic composition of paints is muddled by the large degree of German chemical research and development ongoing both pre-war and wartime. Much of this (unpatented) work fell into Allied hands after the war and some was expropriated by large companies. An epoxy or polymer first patented or put into use by DuPont in 1955 may have really been developed and applied in 1939 by I.G. Farben. Tests on frame composition is just as problematic, as the material is likely merely to be silver of various qualities or common base materials with silver plate. Additionally, of course, in the paint field, paints such as boneblack are still readily available, using original manufacturing techniques, for art restoration and conservation.(The Grumbacher firm is one that comes to mind.) ( If you are comparing one Juncker cross to another, you may see something if you are going for a "baseline".) All that said, it wouldn't hurt anything for someone to do some testing.

[Kecon]

Ok Leroy. This is for you.

What happened to the so called Sedlatzek dimple on the Souval post war crosses? You say in your opinion the frames are the same. I have a very early Souval made cross that has none of the usual flaws to the frame. It also has no dipping ring as the early ones were more like a S&L. Also I have a very late Souval with the frame flaws seen on the worst examples. Neither of these crosses have the Sedlatzek dimple. Very confusing .

Ken

[Leroy]

Ok Leroy. This is for you.

What happened to the so called Sedlatzek dimple on the Souval post war crosses? You say in your opinion the frames are the same. I have a very early Souval made cross that has none of the usual flaws to the frame. It also has no dipping ring as the early ones were more like a S&L. Also I have a very late Souval with the frame flaws seen on the worst examples. Neither of these crosses have the Sedlatzek dimple. Very confusing .

Ken

Ken - The cross on the far left in Post 55 is an "early"postwar Souval (with "dipping 3"in 1939 and low swastika). It still has the "Sedlatzek crater" defect on the far end of the beading on the lower 3 o'clock arm. On the reverse, where the paint is gone, you can see the underlying silver "wash" (which has tarnished.

[Leroy]

Here is a later Souval. The "Sedlatzek crater" is, in essence, just gone, but the beading is not as defined in that area as might be expected. I'm guessing that what caused it in the first place either wore down over time or was manually cleaned from the die. I really don't know. I'm also guessing that Souval may have had frames around and didn't necessarily use them in order of manufacture. Sorry for the picture quality (still dark here).

[Leroy]

A little bit better. You can see where the "crater" had been from the outline of the "hole".

[Tony T-S]

I can see the crater on my Souval RK. This is a very interesting discussion, thank you all.

[ram1412]

All Sedlatzek-Crosses, that I have seen, have the same rising fault line on the 6 `clock arm (see image). Has the Souval Cross with the dipping 3 also this error ?
excuse my English
Andreas

[Leroy]

Interesting. I'll check mine when I get home tonight. Alex, I know you have more than anyone, so hopefully you can check earlier!

[tony james]

And also for those who have both a souval and a sedlatzek how different is the paint if any when compared to each other ?

[blind pew]

Some really good photos being posted here. Regardless of what these may ever turn out to be, it's always nice to see a "library" of these crosses.

As to SEM and IR testing, I don't know if anyone has done that for Souval material. Based on what chemist friends tell me, the precise reliability of these tests for paints is questionable, anyway, as the historic composition of paints is muddled by the large degree of German chemical research and development ongoing both pre-war and wartime. Much of this (unpatented) work fell into Allied hands after the war and some was expropriated by large companies. An epoxy or polymer first patented or put into use by DuPont in 1955 may have really been developed and applied in 1939 by I.G. Farben. Tests on frame composition is just as problematic, as the material is likely merely to be silver of various qualities or common base materials with silver plate. Additionally, of course, in the paint field, paints such as boneblack are still readily available, using original manufacturing techniques, for art restoration and conservation.(The Grumbacher firm is one that comes to mind.) ( If you are comparing one Juncker cross to another, you may see something if you are going for a "baseline".) All that said, it wouldn't hurt anything for someone to do some testing.

Well, the Art Institute of Chicago uses both all of the time as additional information in verifying the authenticity of paintings. IR spec and SEM are very reliable means of testing for compounds and elements respectively. IR spec and mass spec are routinely used in the pharmaceutical industry's research in identifying novel compounds.

I would think that fakers had not caught on to faking period paint until recently, when these issues have been brought forward. Prior to efforts of collectors to go to such extremes, paint is paint is paint. If the Sedlatzek (sp) RKs have been in the possession of collectors for a number of decades (which it sounds as though they have been) I would suspect that a wartime cross would have paint and a frame with the same elemental composition of wartime crosses.

Such information would be very valuable in my estimation and would go a long way to help prove the contention of those who view these as wartime crosses, which it appears is supported by members via visual inspection.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Why would faker fake a Souvall ( clearly post-war) and/ or a Sedlatzek (a highly discussed "maybe").
And with FTIR you might be able to prove post-war paint on a Souval, which is a "known." If you can’t, you are just were you started since bone paint is bone paint.

If you have nothing to compare to, a compaison is not possible. Rather useless exercise.

[blind pew]

Why would faker fake a Souvall ( clearly post-war) and/ or a Sedlatzek (a highly discussed "maybe").
And with FTIR you might be able to prove post-war paint on a Souval, which is a "known." If you can’t, you are just were you started since bone paint is bone paint.

If you have nothing to compare to, a compaison is not possible. Rather useless exercise.

Why would someone fake a Rounder RK or the modern Juncker RK fake? For the same reason they would fake a Souval or Sedlatzek- money. And if the fake was produced in the late 1950s onward, a faker would probably use whatever paint was available, rather than seeking out "period paint", as the faker would not be "frightened" of future detection capabilities. Such concerns did not become an issue until the last decade or so for collectors.

Would a faker from the late 1950s on seek out "period" paint? Almost definately not. As the faker would not really know or be concerned about what exactly constituted "period" paint. It appears as though fakers in military medals were not quite as concerned about period componants as they were in the art world, in which a faker WOULD seek out very old canvas and paint in composing a fake, even in the 1800s and early 1900s.

I would think, quite to the contrary, that such studies would reinforce, rather than dispel, the contention that the Sedlatzek cross is wartime . Obviously, composition of componants would be simply one piece of the puzzle, but the presence of modern paint or componants would be quite damning. What is the comparison? Other wartime crosses, as there has been slight variations in componants, but overall a consistent chemical composition pattern.

I have no vested interest or stake either way in the discussion, but such information would most likely result in favorable information for those contending a wartime status of this cross. If you look at the Sedletzek crosses posted, most show what appears to be genuine aging of the paint and no percieveable brush strokes or touch ups. The only weird thing is I cannot see any wear on the lower reverse beading (which is seen in worn crosses) or in the rings. That would make sense if they were display crosses primarily.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The Souval Cross is post-war, nothing to prove.

The Sedlatzek could be wartime. So you check the paint and it is epoxy. You need to test at least three to be sure. Then you know it us post-war.

If the paint is not epoxy ( or any other 100% post-war composition) one still doesn't know since paint used during war is still available today. So no result.

The Rounder was different since there was no comparison. If they would have used bone paint we still would not know. There was no comparison and you could come up with photographic evidence also. (just like here, too).

To try to fake a Juncker (or any other known maker) is just stupid, because one can compare and the fakers will never ever be able to copy 100% identical. And if they would do, it is no problem since if there is no difference to an original, it is an original.

I understand the curiosity in finding out more and that is why I did SEM on nearly all EK and RK. Nice to know, doesn't prove anything.

[Dietrich Maerz]

... If you look at the Sedletzek crosses posted, most show what appears to be genuine aging of the paint and no percieveable brush strokes or touch ups. ....

How do you distinguish between 75 year old patina (genuine) and 65 year old patina (post-war)?