Another Meybauer "7" Rounder

[Dietrich Maerz]

Okay, so it's 'stubby'. Now what?

And a remark regarding the centering of numerals in accordance with the highest Award of the Reich. I guess this dies not apply to nose-cut Junckers, displaced numerals on 3/4 rings and early Juncker cores, right?

Always the gent I am .

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

I understand...

However, consider the fellow who posted and appreciate a keen observation of one who suggested he was a new guy among us old bastards!!!

I like to see new 'folks' chip in as otherwise we have the same 'round-about' discussion.

I would like to however chase the observation of 'Rounders/Oaks' and ask 'Why?'

This might 'prompt' some 20 year collectors to reflect and say.....'Hey...what's going on here'...

[Dietrich Maerz]

I like to chase that Oaks rumor also and proposed a poll to George since I do not know how to 'build' one. And yes, I saw one set in Herman Historica also with oaks (1992 I guess) but I cannot say something about the oaks. The pictures are just not good enough. And there were some more, but to my knowledge not 'oftne'. Anyhow, it's a good idea to persue. Why not?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

1. ...rounders often appearing with oaks

2...As there are two with "7" stamps, why does not the paint match up with a Meybauer EK1?

3...Also, it looks like a slight deformity in the rim from the stamp, how can you say this was not added?

Three misleading statements all in within a few hours. That has to be a record Tom.

1. In your year of collecting RKs you've seen a lot of Rounders w/oaks oaks/swords? I haven't in the few years I've known the difference between RKs. I have now 300 original photographs of RK winners. FEW are easily discernable. Most that are easily identified only because the S&L and 3/4 ring are so unique. The vast majority are not discernable.

2. We have a rule that all paint from one company must exactly match all other paint on all other EKs/Rks from that manufacturer when even Juncker switched paints? Which of the two types of Juncker paint is fake.

3. When do YOU think a stamp is made? Certainly not in the die stamping of the frame but later. So this is not unusual but another bad conclusion or leading conclusion on your part.

3 strikes, you're

[tom hansen]

Why do not the L/12, the "2" stamps indent the frame like that?


If paint does not match, is that a good thing? How many crosses have you tested the paint on Brian? I am glad you are making an effort to help sort this out by checking into these matters, as investigation helps a little more than idle bitching. But, it is so much easier just to complain! So they painted the EK1s with one type, the RKs with another type, and probably the EK2s with a third type. One cannot taint the RK paint with an EK1 or EK2 paint, as I am sure that violates regulations. But quality control was out the window with the rounder, so I guess anything can happen.

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich...it's not a rumor! It's my unbiased observation as afterall at the time I wasn't interested nor concerned!

It wasn't untill (we) came together here that I recalled this Cross and thought......."Hey"!!!!!

This Rounder cross did in deed hit the Gun Shows ( So. Calif. ) coupled with Oaks but 20+ years later the Oaks have turned to mulch but the cross remains!


Rumor...no!

My first hand albeit innocent observations, yes!

I like to chase that Oaks rumor also and proposed a poll to George since I do not know how to 'build' one. And yes, I saw one set in Herman Historica also with oaks (1992 I guess) but I cannot say something about the oaks. The pictures are just not good enough. And there were some more, but to my knowledge not 'oftne'. Anyhow, it's a good idea to persue. Why not?

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Dave, one dog does not make a pack.

OK Tom, I'll get on down to SEMs 'R' US and then I'll be able to make incontrovertable conclusions.

Because, I know it's too much of a stretch to believe that over a 6 year period paint batches might have changed over time.

So what about these fake Junckers Tom? The paints don't match??? As you say, "that can't be a good thing."

[Dave Tourle]

Hello Gents,

I'm a fairly new member who was an avid collector back in the mid seventies and eighties but fell on hard times and sold off a lot of my items. However, amongst these items was indeed a 'rounder' (not much info was available at the time, only Angolia, Littlejohn & Dodkins and eventually V E Bowens excellent reference) It was purchased from a German Militaria Dealer in around 1982. What you might find of interest was that it had an L/21 stamp next to the 800 silver mark in the same position as the 'maybauer' 7 . At that time I assumed it to be a private purchase piece by the firm of Forster & Barth of Pforzheim. Now, years later, my hobby is back on beam and a year ago, seeing the rounder RK on this forum and the controversy that surrounds it I thought that the L/21 mark may have been added later ? But it certainly had the same heavy stamping technique in the makers mark as the pictured examples. I only have a few old photos of the piece that I will try to scan later.... no digicams in those days !!

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

do you really think that the following numbers are conclusive or even something that should be considered anything else as "scratching the surface"?


RK's (ONLY awarded) : approx 7300 pieces
RK's tested : approx. 8 pieces
Percentage tested : 0,1%

EK1 (awarded) : approx. 300.000 (lower number, no private)
EK1's tested : approx. 5
Percentage tested : 0,0017 %

EK2 (awarded) : approx. 1,500,000 (low number)
EK2 tested : approx. 2
Percentage tested : 0.0001 %

Granted, one could fall back to say that one needs to look at different manufacturers only. This would be under the assumption that one single manufacturer only used one paint over the whole production run. This was clearly not the case with Juncker so we would need to test morel crosses to find out more about this. Of course we would not need to test all crosses, but one thing is absolutely sure : a test sample under 1% (or even 25% for that matter) is not a base for sound conclusion. I think this is even evident to non-statisticians!

Tom, I comment you about introducing the SEM method to the collecting field. However, for the sake of this method, do not abuse it so brutally by constantly drawing premature and unscientific conclusions.

The Rounder issue is a hot potato, no doubt about it. A lot of things have been found out over the years and there's more to come, I'm sure. No matter what the outcome will be, it must be a sound, definite and provable conclusion. Either way.

It does not serve the honest investigation and discussion here when 'gut feeling' enters into it. You can look thru all the old threads and you will not find statements from me declaring the Rounder "good' because of a personal observation. I freely give out all information about everything in the hope to find the truth.

But I will not accept proof in the form of "color does not match" based on 0,1% samples or "sub standard quality" based on 100x magnification or "stamp makes rim deformation" (ever looked a "4" stamped S&L????).

The remark "quality control was out the window with the rounder" is something that does not square with the recent observation from Roy "I can say that the finishing quality is excellent". Maybe Roy should have taken an Elektron Microscope with him...The only common denominator so far is actually, that the quality is excellent!

I hate to make these long statements. But I know that if one does not put certain statements in the correct light right away, they tend to get a live of their own, such as one of your earlier remarks that all Rounders are in unissued condition (which is clearly wrong) and that Rounders are "often" found with oaks (the implication here of course "fake oaks" and therefore "Rounder also fake", another of these "oblique logic" conclusions). But I guess this also depends how often often is....maybe one is enough already to make a definite and solid conclusion...I certainly have not seen one with oaks attached. Did you???

Let's stay focused, let's find out together in a logic and scientific way. No matter what the final proof will be, I want to be proud that at least the process itself was sound and unemotional. There will be ton's of people anyway who knew it all along...

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

The few statements made in this recent 'go-around' should pique everyone's suspicion.....

I saw the Rounders with Oaks attached...

Ben has one with Oaks attached....

Roy saw one with Oaks attached....

Roy photographed (same) stamped '7'...

Dietrich has one stamped '7'....

Dave Tourle owned a Rounder stamped '21'...

[George Stimson]

We haven't seen Dave Tourle's example yet. It might not be a Rounder.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

you forgot the Rounders with "65" "800" loops attached .

Of all the Rounders I have in my files, I know now of 4 with oaks, out of maybe 30 or so. Do you think that a fake RK is sold easier with fake oaks attached? And were or are the attached oaks fake indeed? Maybe "they" tried to sell real oaks with a fake cross attached? Or fake oaks with a real cross? Or maybe both are real? Or were 'mated' after the war..

I know what you mean, Dave, and I take it serious, believe me!

However, we always say that we should look at the cross itself and not at any circumstantial evidence. Fake oaks with a real Juncker does not make the Juncker a fake. A L/13 mark on a Juncker does not make the Juncker a fake. A "65" loop does not make a Rounder a K&Q. A bad ribbon does not make a good cross bad. A bad case does not make the cross bad and vice versa.

And all these things have happened numerous times with 'good' crosses and could of course easily dismissed because of solid knowledge about the piece itself. The same should or must apply here also. Please do not discount the numerous Rounders that came without oaks, but with good ribbons in good cases. But that is no prove either, as we all know.

Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

I did forget that one!!!


Dietrich just for the heck of it....please count the amount of Rounder pictures that show the Cross without a loop!

[George Stimson]

Dave, since you apparently weren't paying close attention -- as RKs were not then your field of interest (" It's my unbiased observation as afterall at the time I wasn't interested nor concerned!") -- are you absolutely sure that the Rounders you saw matched with Oaks at gun shows 20 years ago are the same Rounders we are talking about today?

[Dietrich Maerz]

From what I can check right now 20 out of 22 have the loop attached (not counting the one with the 65 loop). I do not have access to all my files but I don't think the percentage will change at all.

...and, in a court of law you would be dismissed as a reliable witness based on this statement "It's my unbiased observation as afterall at the time I wasn't interested nor concerned!".You know that! But this is not a court of law neither a miltary tribunal.

Dietrich