SEM Rounder Results

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,


I will not discuss with you the issue of 'flawed' beading based on these pictures and based on your comparison with other crosses - and your conclusion that therefore the Rounder must be a fake.

However, I would like again to mention two things, since you brought this up again:

- there is no casted part on this cross, contrary to your statement "casting marks"??
- the lack of filing marks at the round corners - contrary to the ones one finds with Juncker - are surely no indication of a fake. There is no filing necessary when the corners are already round.

Now, the latest statement is that there are machining marks on the frame. Since you have no close connections to machines (I guess), this is something you have been told. Now, whoever told you this has a serious lack in understanding how machines are working.

What can bee seen on my cross are brush strokes, no machining 'grooves'. Unless somebody made theres stripes with a 'machining tool' that ends and starts like a brush and is not rotating. The only "machine" that might produce this (other then a brush) is a very fine sandpaper. Maybe tht's what was done. But to suggest that the frame is machined is not only wrong, it is completely misleading. The milling tool would need to have teeht smaller than a grain of sandpaper - not possible!

Do not fall into the trap of magnification. What looks under the microscope as huge grooves made by faker machines is in reality hardly visible with 10x magnification.

Dietrich

That's why one has to be very carefull with premature conclusions.

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich's last pictures indeed do not show 'machining' marks BUT do show a finial finishing technique that was accomplished with a 'jeweler's stick' made of wood and (gosh I hate getting older) I think from an Almond tree?????


After the cross was virtually finished the tech. would "RUB" the outer flanges with the stick taking/scraping away the frosting!!

Now, as far as filing and sanding goes I sort of lean toward the thought that the rounded corners would really need to be hand finished as I doubt that the planchet would be that 'clean' upon stamping....

Thoughts?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

there was no need to file anything with this particular style of inner corners. Look at the picture again. You can still see the "base" of the frame clearly following the curve of the beading. Why filing? Maybe deburring, yes. But not filing 'round'.

And George, why are you even answering this "seriously flawed" statement? Seriously flawed in the sub 0.5 mm microscopic level? Or compared to a seriously flawed S&L (where the quality department of the Reich was completely satisfied!)

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich..are there deburring marks or evidence of finishing on the 'face' of the inner frame? Something sort of what we look for in a stamped medal or badge?

[George Stimson]

"And George, why are you even answering this "seriously flawed" statement?"

Because it's so easy to do? No, seriously -- if quality differed between makers to such an extent that it can be noticed from a foot away by the naked eye, then it's not relevant that a difference could be noted at 100X magnification. (Any contention that it is relevant is "seriously flawed," IMO.)

[Brian S]

GROAN...

I have to agree with Marc. This has become nonsensical to respond to this.

[Dave Kane]

Brian, I suspect by the tone of your post you really haven't seen one of these Hymmen up close

They are quite popular and habit forming....

[Brian S]

Brian, I suspect by the tone of your post you really haven't seen one of these Hymmen up close

They are quite popular and habit forming....

No your comment was fine. But this nonsense about the rounder quality is just amazingly

[tom hansen]

"And George, why are you even answering this "seriously flawed" statement?"

Because it's so easy to do? No, seriously -- if quality differed between makers to such an extent that it can be noticed from a foot away by the naked eye, then it's not relevant that a difference could be noted at 100X magnification. (Any contention that it is relevant is "seriously flawed," IMO.)

Is not high magnification the standard by which jewellers evalate the workmanship of jewellery? Is a foot away a good standard? Why are the other makers of high quality on high magnification? Where are the filing marks?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I really don't know why you are comming back to this filing mark issue again and again. Please explain to me (and a lot of others) why the missing of filing marks is a lack of quality. Do you suggest that the Rounder was injection molded or cast (???) or what?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Tom,

I really don't know why you are comming back to this filing mark issue again and again. Please explain to me (and a lot of others) why the missing of filing marks is a lack of quality. Do you suggest that the Rounder was injection molded or cast (???) or what?

Dietrich

The other makers have evidence of hand finishing, including filing marks on the inner beading. The rounder does not. The ridges and bubbles suggest some use of casting, probably for the dies. The other makers do not. These factors suggest some difference in the production process compared to the other makers. I would think it odd that one maker during the period would have a different manufacturing technique than the other period makers. I am really not trying to be an ass about this whole thing, but just these differences should be addressed and explained.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Still I dont know what ridges and bubbles you are talking about. The ones that are less than 0.1 mm in lenght?

But apart from that, I can asure you that a tool die is never casted. At least not for something like silver stamping. The tool would not last more than two strokes and the surface would be horrible. And casting in itself sure looks a lot different, especially under 100 x maginfication! Do a search on Google!

It is useless to discuss this topic based on the material so far any further. Let me asure you that the manufacturing technique of the Rounder was exactly the same than the other ones. Maybe the finishing process was different, but not the actual die stamping of the rim and the core.

Tom, I'm sure that you dont want to be an ass about this, but before anybody makes statements like "machined", "not filed", "casted", "too much Barium" one should try to dive a little deeper into the subject. Especially if conclusions are drawn out of un-substantiated or flat out wrong statements. Regarding to you, missing filing marks on a RK is a sign for a fake? Now what if just your RK's have filing marks and some of the pristine examples don't? Do you know that for sure?

You ask for explanation, thats good. You are drawing premature conclusions, thats uncientific and very biased!

I repeat myself: I still don't know whether the Rounder is real or not, BUT I do know that none of your 'conclusions' makes me chance my mind a little bit.

Dietrich