Rounder RK

[Brian S]

So there you have it.

So I have shown you what wear looks like.

...but all this rounder stuff just does not add up. It is not one thing, it is many things.

Unbelievable, totally unbelievable...

Backing into conclusions...

[tom hansen]

<HR color=#cfb992 SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

"I see nothing other than what could have been caused by absolutely perfect finishing or the kind of wear silver on silver produces after swinging on a tunic proudly for a couple of years." - Brian S


"Unbelievable, totally unbelievable...

Backing into conclusions..."<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
Regards,

Brian


I agree- those are unbelievable conclusions based on limited information. It is acceptable for one to draw conclusions on any information, yet not another.


Dietrich-


I am not insecure about anything. I am sorry that you see it that way and hope this can be civil, as I am not into calling names or making personality diagnoses on the net. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand dies and metalurgy. Nor do I know about paint manufacturing or smelting. The only thing I am an expert in is medicine. Medicine is a game of "one of these things is not like the other". The rounder is not like the other.

In medicine, we make comparisons between pathology differences, whether it is imaging, labs, or physcial exam, and compare to norms or standards. When something deviates from the norm, it is considered pathological until proven otherwise. This occurs with "new variants" of disease as well as recognized disease processes. Medicine is guilty until proven innocent.


You say you can explain why the rounder dies look different- because they are different dies? Yet so is S&L, K&Q (not posted), juncker and 3/4 ring. Yet they all look the same! So why would all of them have beading that looks about the same, yet only the rounder is different? Do you really think (again, I do not know anything about dies or metulargy) that all those other makers, with different tools, different workers, and different dies would by chance come up with similar looking beading, yet there is one that is different? What are the odds?

Again, you guys dismissed the paint. Do you not find that all disturbing that the other RK makers (with the exception of the micro 2) all had pretty much the same type of paint, yet the rounder was different? Again, what are the odds.

What are the odds that none of these crosses show wear consistent with other worn examples. There have been several posted here. What are the odds?

Lastly, there is no cross with solid provenance that has been presented. What are the odds?


Again, I really feel that no one, regardless of ANY information or data will change their mind about these. For those who do believe that these are period pieces, what piece of evidence would persuade you to think otherwise?



Dietrich, If you can explain ALL these difference in an UNBIASED fashion, please do so. It would be helpful to me to understand how something so different from everything else can be the same.

[Dietrich Maerz]

One thing I will not do for sure is going into name calling....

For starters, engineering is not medicine. That much is clear. In engineering there is no 'guilty until proven innocent'. There are only laws of physics, nothing less and nothing more.

So you agree that there are different dies, but one is more different than the others. Thats guilty! All others look the same? I don't think so!

And here we go again: " that the other RK makers (with the exception of the micro 2) all had pretty much the same type of paint, yet the rounder was different? Again, what are the odds"

What are the odds that you do know ALL the other RK maker's paint??

Don't you see the mistake? You had 5 or 6 samples!!!!! How can you say ALL?
In addition that your silicone conclusion was completely wrong and even misleading (comparing to precentages to each other without the same base line = that is not engineering)

And then this:
"What are the odds that none of these crosses show wear consistent with other worn examples. There have been several posted here. What are the odds?

So first you ignore one example with clear wear! Then you deduct the balance of the posted crosses as being ALL crosses. Then you establish an unproven wear pattern (is it really wear???) and compare to that 'establihed' premature conclusion!
Thats not how I learned to come to solid conclusions!!!

The solid provenance is a good one, no doubt. Actually, that's the only missing piece, if -of course- you do not count the Puttfarken group.

And then this:

"It would be helpful to me to understand how something so different from everything else can be the same"

I surely can explain it and I've done it numerous times. And I will explain it again, but not here and now. Patience! But I can tell you one thing: Difference from one die to the next, from one paint to the next, is something that is absolutely nothing unusual!

Now here's something for you:

What is this?

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

That looks like some crap on the tarnish and dirt. Silver polish? Wax? The tarnish on that cross looks like it has been "cleaned" so I would imagine it is some residue of the cleaning agent.


Regarding the dies- They are all different. But the cut of the beading on the others do not have those horizontal lines like those seen on a rounder. What are they? I do not know. But they are not like FOUR other makers. Where is another maker that has beading like this? If we agree that the crosses of EACH maker are from ONE die, then all these examples are representative examples of that maker. Do you think we need to test hundreds then? Don't you think that if the other makers had these horizontal flaws, they would show up on these pieces? ALL THE OTHER FLAWS DO SHOW UP. So this particular feature, if we looked at hundreds of other juncker, S&L or K&Q would then show up? I would not think so. It is unique to the rounder.

The paint- again- we are looking at trace elements BEYOND CARBON. I talked with Warren at ISU about this. He said that the SEM for trace elements is used by forensic crime labs and is used as evidence in legal cases to identify paint samples. This testing can be used to send a person to jail, but is not good enough evidence to convict the rounder!?

Wear- Take a look again at that cross again. Why the heck is there equal wear on the swaz and date, yet none on the beading? The VERY worn crosses I showed do not have nearly that wear on the date. Why? Because the date is lower than the swaz or the beading! So the wear to this rounder occurred only on the core and spared the beading!? Think about that one and like most things with the rounder, it does not make any sense. From the photos, I cannot see much wear to the ring, perhaps different photos would show this better.

Provenance- What 7400 recipients? MANY known recipients of even the 3/4 ring, which appears much less common than the rounder. Yet there are no known rounder recipients. Does that not strike you at all as odd?

[Brian S]

Seems he's ducking your observations of his many many incorrect 'conclusions'. But never fear, no teflon on anyone in this forum, it all sticks

[George Stimson]

Let's stay on an even keel, gentlemen.

[Jim Baker]

.

[tom hansen]

I cannot read Brian's quote, but I am sure it is nasty.


So I have presented alot of information for people to take shots at. There have been many lines of text showing why the information I posted is wrong, innaccurate, or irrelevant.

Where is the evidence FOR the rounder? Why should anyone believe this is wartime, if there is no evidence FOR it. Is Detlev's variant just as good? Why are the Latvian crosses then not fakes, but just another variant? Why is the "dotted" DKiG no good?

[George Stimson]

Brian's post is not particularly nasty, but just to be on the safe side I'm reminding everyone to keep the discussion gentlemanly. (After all, there's no teflon on me either. So if the sh1t starts to fly, it will stick to me too. So let's not have it fly! )

[George Stimson]

Furthermore....

And keep the thread focused on presenting evidence and ideas. No insults, no challenges -- behave in an intelligent and adult manner.

[Jim Baker]

.

[Laurence Strong]

Are there photo's of people wearing "rounders"?

[Jim Baker]

.

[Mike Coleman]

To Dr. Hanson et al

Dr. Hanson,
I have been following this thread with interest and have caught up on the last 5 or 6 pages tonight. I tend to agree that people are going to have their opinions of these crosses and this thread probabbly will not sway anyone's opinion until someone gets an awarded piece from a vet who earned it or, God forbid, someone digs one up from a wartime grave site. Opinions seem to run that strong. You make some excellent points as do others on the other side of the issue. There is one statement you make that I will flatly disagree with however. In message 142 you stated that if rounders are proven to be the real deal then you would be "the first to admit that I am an idiot and was wrong." I don't feel that the purpose of the discussion is to prove anyone right or wrong but to enlighten the collecting community and you would certainly never be regarded as an idiot for showing healthy scepticism. The value of these forums for the less than senior collectors such as myself is to be able to share in such discourse as this and weather these are proven real or not your fund of knowledge and your contributions would always be respected no matter what side of the arguement one is on. And I think one can say that about all participants in this discussion. This topic has been broached many times and I think this has been the best, most civil discussion yet. I for one thank the participants for their generosity in sharing their opinions, photos and research in a gentlemanly manner and the moderator for keeping the lid on things. I'm going to bed on that note.
Mike Coleman

[Blitz]

Check page 338 in Gordon's book. They look round to me. Or possibly a dummied photo to give legitimacy to these fakes???

Who knows????

Tom. You haven't made any comment so far regarding this picture. Why is that? It's been even posted here and anyone can see that it's inner frames are round.

"Again, I really feel that no one, regardless of ANY information or data will change their mind about these."

Sadly that seem's to be the case with some people. I don't have an entrenced opinion about this since I have nothing at stake here.

"Where is the evidence FOR the rounder?"

I don't wan't repeat myself fuerther, unless you are leaning towards Jim's comment.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a rounder, simply because I'm more or less addicted to the Q&K RK. But so far I haven't seen anything that would make me state that all rounders are fakes.

I'm not going to get personal with anybody, since I don't have quarrel with any of you. However I would like to see someone, anyone, explain why the picture that was posted here doesn't count as evidence.