Rounder RK

[Brian S]

Why is discussion shut down and diminished before it can be established?

[Brian S]

This is very good for anyone going forward and should NOT be buried by this 'junk'.

Thank you Dietrich and Stephen.

[Brian S]

Tom we KNOW your opinion why won't you let conversion develop? Why are you so threatened?

Dietrich I think you're wrong, when he posted his 'conclusions and proofs' elsewhere he got NO response. Answering them is just fueling his obsessions.

Here's the other one that got buried.

[Larry L]

Awgggg, Gentlemen, I respect both of your knowledge, but don't ruin good thread, lots of interesting info and photos presented here allready.

I'd hate to see this thread closed.

L

[Brian S]

The forum is about discovery and proof. It should not be belittled before it can develop.

[Brian S]

Stop any discussion that might lead to a discovery that challenges his 'conclusion'.

[Tiger 1]

Dr Tom,

Physician heal thyself.

The emotional temperature seems to be rising from your corner. I personally don't care what the beef between you and Brian is. You two will have to resolve that between yourselves.

What I do care about is your unfounded statement in post #188 that my KC is an emory paper wear job. Sorry but you are very wrong. One, you have never seen this KC in hand so what special powers of photo observation do you have that we are unaware of? Two, please prove your very strong assertion that my KC shows wear due to "emory paper" as you so forcefully stated. I'm not being unduly argumentative here just responding in kind to some blatantly unfounded statements.

I would hate to conclude that you may be sounding more than a respected fellow collector.

Let's see what proof you have.

As to the possibilty of varying quality of workmanship. The KC you posted on #202 proves that even Juncker craftsmen had 'off' days. We need just to look at the awkwardness of the inner line of the beading. One can plainly see the end of the jeweler's saw cut in the upper left corner of the top arm along with an irregular line of the beading. Also the upper corner on the left arm the beading is poorly cut out. This is not a negative about your KC in any way. It is just a pointed example that even the 'great" makers such as Juncker can put out a less than perfect product. The early KC and EK frames were handsawn out of the stamped planchet. Later when the Gablonzer system was introduced the frames became very regular in shape, especially the inside edge of the beading. A close look at a 20 or L/50 EKI will show the product of this later system.

Then again with the strong sentiment that KCs should be perfect and flawless, etc., I would have to say that, if I didn't know any better, those areas of obviously poor craftsmanship on the KC you show should be major red flags concerning originality. Provenace or not.

Tom, with all respect, bomb throwing can go in all directions. Try not to kill the goodwill of somewhat neutral parties with poorly aimed throws.

Tony

[Dietrich Maerz]

Photographic evidence is a tough one. We have at least 3 possible contenders for every original (hopefully) picture that shows rounded inner corners.

In addition, it is rarely or ever the case that the photo shows a cross straight on, it's nearly always somehow angled. That not only distorts the appearance of the inner round corners (I have pictures of S&L that look like 'round') but also the arm curvature.
All I think what can be said at this point in time is that there are contemporary pictures showing crosses with inner round corners and this could be a Juncker, a Rounder or one of the "unknown" from Detlev.

I don't think that one can say with certainty that ALL pictures with inner round corner crosses are Juncker - but it could well be.

I for one will not say that I have seen all possible pictures out there with round corner crosses and made the determination that they all must be Juncker.

And I say it again for the record: I don't know whether the Rounder is post or past 1945. I'm still constantly looking for POSITIVE and CONCLUSIVE proof one way or the other.

So far, all I have are opinions and circumstatial evidence for each side of the fence. The interpretation is up to each individual: some are more cautious with definitive answers (like me), others are more 'faster' in comming to a conclusion.
For me it's an execise in intellectual and scientific approach and for a method like this there is only one outcome: Yes or No.

Dietrich

[Greg Domian]

Well I finally got back with a weight on my cross..fuel to add to the fire. With ring the cross weighs in at 27.8 grams. A bit less than Dietrich's at 30.1 I think. The ring weighs in at 1.3 grams so cross minus ring is 26.5 grams.


Greg

[tom hansen]

Dr Tom,

Physician heal thyself.

The emotional temperature seems to be rising from your corner. I personally don't care what the beef between you and Brian is. You two will have to resolve that between yourselves.

What I do care about is your unfounded statement in post #188 that my KC is an emory paper wear job. Sorry but you are very wrong. One, you have never seen this KC in hand so what special powers of photo observation do you have that we are unaware of? Two, please prove your very strong assertion that my KC shows wear due to "emory paper" as you so forcefully stated. I'm not being unduly argumentative here just responding in kind to some blatantly unfounded statements.

I would hate to conclude that you may be sounding more like a braying Iowa mule that has gotten into a bean patch than a respected fellow collector.

Let's see what proof you have.

As to the possibilty of varying quality of workmanship. The KC you posted on #202 proves that even Juncker craftsmen had 'off' days. We need just to look at the awkwardness of the inner line of the beading. One can plainly see the end of the jeweler's saw cut in the upper left corner of the top arm along with an irregular line of the beading. Also the upper corner on the left arm the beading is poorly cut out. This is not a negative about your KC in any way. It is just a pointed example that even the 'great" makers such as Juncker can put out a less than perfect product. The early KC and EK frames were handsawn out of the stamped planchet. Later when the Gablonzer system was introduced the frames became very regular in shape, especially the inside edge of the beading. A close look at a 20 or L/50 EKI will show the product of this later system.

Then again with the strong sentiment that KCs should be perfect and flawless, etc., I would have to say that, if I didn't know any better, those areas of obviously poor craftsmanship on the KC you show should be major red flags concerning originality. Provenace or not.

So Tom, in all respect, bomb throwing can go in all directions. Try not to kill the goodwill of somewhat neutral parties with poorly aimed throws.

Tony

" This is a new approach, you're not taking shots at my family or calling me a Nazi. Thank you Tom."<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
Regards,

Brian


--- A completely false and very ugly fabrication again intended as yet another personal attack. I did nothing of the sort. A very ugly accusation.



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

"belittling Dietrich's and Stephen's great work..."
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Regards,

Brian


---Again another personal attack. I am not belittling anyone. I am suggesting it is difficult to evaluate photos. Yet Brian puts word in my mouth to distort any comment I make.
militaria@comcast.net

"And there you go, the proof is diminished before it could even be established, you are not "RESOBNABLE". (That a word?)"<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
Regards,

Brian


Attacking someone for a typo!? That is a level of desperation I have not seen to this point.


Regarding emotional temperature- I am not mad at all. I simply think Brian's repeated personal attacks are more pathetic than anything. He seems to spend alot of time following my posts around to make silly statements, which I could counter with equally nasty comments about him or his "tales", but I choose not to do so. It is a waste of time. Take a look at all these strange sequential posts which seem much more interested in attacking me than discussing issues. I am not the one using the terms "toad", "fool", "idiot", or "shadow boy", or now "braying Iowa mule". I am very sorry that you not only find it acceptable for Brian to levy personal attacks, but are trying your hand at it as well. I will not respond to these insults from you guys, as I find it childish. I find it odd that depsite being repeatedly attacked, you find me at fault for this. This is like being shot and blamed for bleeding.ing


As far as your cross, yes, it looks like it has had artificial wear applied to it. Sorry- that is the way it looks. I am not suggesting it, I am flat out saying it. Look at the images Marshall posted. Also there is not unifomr wear to areas which are high points one would expect. This looks like augmented wear and does not look like real wear. Look at the worn crosses I posted and remove yourself from the whole rounder debate. I am not saying you "aged" the cross, I am just saying it does not look like genuine wear. Are you really saying that the worn iron on the swaz occurred through normal wear, while there was sparing of the beading? Why is there wear on the date, but none on the beading?

As far as quality, I AM REFERRING TO THE QUALITY OF THE BEADING UNDER HIGH MAGNIFICATION. No RK is perfect, but is full of flaws. However, the rounder beading is REALLY flawed. If one of you guys with a rounder could post some super magnified images, it would illustrate the point. I had images on my other computer, but it crashed. I will see if I can resurrect the images.

This is not a debate about juncker crosses. To state that juncker crosses are fake is simply ridiculuous. There is no question that juncker made RKs and the die characteristics are well defined. The finishing can be off, but the quality of beading, as shown on the SEM close-ups shows comparitively how flawed the rounder is compared to juncker and other makers.

All this debate and information is circumstantial for all postions- both pro and con for the rounder. No one here was there or is an RK recipient. As time goes on, we may find further information that is more definitive. Perhaps IR spec will provide the answer.

Regarding the photos, I am just saying, given the crosses posted, that it would be nearly impossible to tell a rounder from a juncker with finished corners. I think if people are honest with themselves, they would see that as well. The clear photos of the juncker RK look like they have round corners. Throw in a little image blur and an angle and I really do not think that anyone could tell whether a cross was a rounder, a juncker, or a detlev "variant". It would be impossible to tell. I can't, but it does little good to simply insult me regarding that contention and suggest it is simply because I am dull witted or obtuse. To suggest that some have special powers to differentiate these pieces in blurry photos is silly. I have taken a few of these photos to an expert in photo analysis who has pointed out some of these problems and the widespread "editing" that occurred on these photos and still occurrs today.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I guess that's how worn beading should look. Flattened tops and slightly lower.

Dietrich

[Mike Coleman]

An observation

Gentlemen,
I would like to offer an observation on the rounded corner crosses that I and probably others have noted. I hope that this is not so sophomoric as to seem foolish but I will share it. As I look at all these pictures of crosses in this thread and others I notice that there seems to be a consistent difference in the position of the swastika relative to the inner corners of the frame betwen the Juncker crosses with trimmed frames and the "rounders'. I note that the Juncker frame's corners are close to and equidistant from the corners of the swastika that form the central "X" shape. Obviously great care was taken in the process of trimming and fitting to get it just right. On the "rounders" the upper corners of the swastika are always much close to the frame corners with one corner usually touching the base of the swastika (usually the left corner) while the lower corners are a noticably greater distance away from the frame. On the known, or at least admitted, reproduction "rounders" the corners are close and equidistant as on the Juncker crosses. I wonder if others would concur with this observation and if that would help at all with wartime photo interpretation. By the way, the Signal photo of the EK's has this feature on its "rounders".
Happy Easter to all
Mike Coleman

[Dave Kane]

Dietrich shows wear in the extreme...here's an example of just plain old (one looker) wear. I realize it's a Juncker and can't be compared to a Rounder as it may be harder wearing, different silver and paint but.....it is natural!

[Dave Kane]

1

[Dave Kane]

2