Rounder RK

[tom hansen]

Dietrich-


I am just looking at the photos here on the site. You have alot more experience with handling and looking at these pieces. None of these pieces posted show the wear one would expect for a worn cross. Perhaps there are some out there that you have seen that do have wear, but these do not seem to show any. I can pull some crosses out of the bank and post them later today. I took a half day off, so it will be later this afternoon. I will show some examples of wear on the ring and beading.

[jujuy]

I feel the only worn one is in the center. IMO you need really several years of wear to obtain a really noticeable trace
Philippe

here are 3 other ones

[tom hansen]

I feel the only worn one is in the center. IMO you need really several years of wear to obtain a really noticeable trace
Philippe

I have a cross coming that will be interesting that may dispute that contention and or the time line for lazy 2 RKs. As Dave has shown as well, his lazy 2 has wear around the ring. The pieces, by any assessment, are later than 800 or L/12 pieces, yet there are examples with wear. The piece I have coming is even more worn than Dave's cross.

So if the rounder is late war, why is it not mfg code marked, as required by the PK? If they are early war, prior to 1942, why don't they show any wear?

[Brian S]

Dave, perhaps you could start a thread on 'ring wear', prove the issue and we could take it up here rather than see the question repeated, repeated and yet repeated again without any establishment of basis. If Dietrich could reproduce all the Rounder rings in his photo collection from exact most worn to less worn what would be the proof? Finishing or wear? It's great to step into a discussion and make a statement but once made with no basis from which to proceed, then what? I appreciate the 'thought' of our other member but now what?

And throw a wrinkle into your conclusions once made, let me make it now, now that you've 'shown' wear, prove it's pre-May '45 wear and not handling, handling and more handling. 50 years of hands on an award and jangling a cross from room to room is serious degradation however nicely it might actually add to the smoothness of the ring and the wear on the beading. Polishing if you will.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I ask you again: Why are you saying that "they don't show any wear"? Based on what you have seen in this tread? Based on one you have had in hand?

And in all honesty, I could not and would not say that the Lazy 2 Dave posted has wear. If this would be posted in another context, nobody would even come close to suggest that this shown example is worn. I have seen worn rings, oh yes, but I would not consider Dave's example as 'worn' at all.

Worn beading? The beading is hollow. The silver sheet is about 0.75 - 0.8 mm thick. A 25% (!!) wear factor on the silver would reduce the thickness by 0.2 mm in the exposed areas (top of beading). That's visible?

Don't forget, most crosses have the feature that the corners are higher than the beading between them when you look sideways. This has someting to do with the production process and is not "center' wear.

I've seen 'flat' top beading, I've seen nicks and dents, but I could not say that I have seen a wear pattern on any cross so far.

And also again, 2/3 of the crosses on the market (my guess) have not been worn at all.

I'm looking forward to seeing the worn beading.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Well, I woke up this morning happy to see that this discussion is continuing in a reasonable and civil manner. I like to see that.

[tom hansen]

Okay- fair enough.


I will post the pics later this afternoon when I get the crosses and get home. The only basis upon which I am stating there is no wear on the beading or on the ring for these rounders are these photos. Again, you have seen alot more and probably have the most experience of anyone with these pieces. Have you seen any wear on any of them? If 2/3 were unworn, then 1/3 were worn. Where are these pieces? If anyone has seen them, it would be you, as you have studied many photos of the rounder and probably handled more than anyone.

[George Stimson]

Why doesn't someone start a separate thread showing wear patterns on the rings and reverses of all RKs, not just Rounders? The subject is worth its own space, I think.

[Russellh]

Look at the beading wear on the reverse of the T Hoff rounder in particular 9 & 3 0'clock arms, top and bottom towards the outer.

Personally I don't think it proves anything but it is there.

Russell

[Dietrich Maerz]

In all honesty, I have not looked at this aspect in depth and I should do that. I doubt that any substantial and conclusive statement like "this has been worn for more than a year" can be found based on pictures. Maybe not even based on actual examples.

To do so, one would really need to establish a 'wear scale' that is acceptable to everybody. You need to rule out damage, artificial wear (if there is such a thing...) and other factors that might have an impact on what we might define as honest wear. To come to that consensus alone is a huge task!

And then, I might find the mathmatical correct but not neccessarily "reality correct" number of 'worn' crosses. And I know it for sure, somebody will say: "This was done by the fakers" and all my effort goes down the drain because of one unprovable sentence. Has happened before...

The pictures I have on file show all kinds of Rounders in all kinds of appearance. From tarnished to nearly pristine, not to forget fully rusted. (Of course, also done by fakers to throw us off track...). The ring finish varies like it does with the S&L's. They come with the same stories as all the other crosses. I believe strongly that contemporary pictures do show the Rounder in wear. Not only based on the round corners but also based on the relatively straight arms compared to more curved like S&L and Juncker especially.

But I can't prove anything without reasonable doubt, so far! By I reject the notion that the Rounders are post-45 based on "ring wear' and/or lack of 'beading wear'. Not conclusive at all!

Dietrich

[Tiger 1]

[QUOTE=tom hansen]Dietrich-


None of these pieces posted show the wear one would expect for a worn cross. Perhaps there are some out there that you have seen that do have wear, but these do not seem to show any. QUOTE]


Tom,

???????????

You really need to look carefully at my KC that Marc posted for me. The ring has quite a bit of wear on it on both sides. The wear is comensurate with this cross having been worn for some time. The picture may not be clear enough but believe me the wear is there. I will try to get better pictures of the area if need be. This is one of the first areas that I look at on any KC. Also the reverse core center has been worn through and at sometime in the past been retouched and worn again. This wear pattern is consistant with the KC bouncing around on the top tunic button. This KC exhbits wear and patina that squares with actual use and honest age. Neither of these factors have been artificially forced.

To say that there is no wear on any of the KCs posted is not quite truthful.

Respectfully please look again.

Tony

[Hank C.]

Just a thought: With all the discussion on "wear", you'd have to take into account who wore the cross, and what their job was. Just like running shoes - if you just walk around in your house on the carpet, they'll stay in good shape for a long time. But if you jog 5 miles outside every day, they will wear out quick.

I would think a cross would be the same way - a major in a combat unit would have more wear than a generals (or perhaps even a fighter pilot).

That's all I can contribute - I haven't had the pleasure (YET!) of owning a KC.

[Marc Garlasco]

I suggest we begin a thread on wear...

[tom hansen]

Thanks Tony-


Could you blow that part of the ring up and post it? My mistake if I missed it. Thanks

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now Tony's cross is clearly worn! I did not look at this since I trusted what Tom was saying, i.e. all shown here do not show wear.

So what do we do now? A most likely heavily worn Rounder? What does it mean? The real thing now? Case closed?

Dietrich

P.S.: I still don't think that it should be a 'definitive' factor...