Rounder RK

[Blitz]

After looking through this thread, I'm glad that it has stayed civil. But. After page 3, what started as a discussion into two rounders, developed into a discussion about wear. If there is way to state a mathematical accurate state of wear, what good would it do us? If we analysed every single RK within the membership for wear... ..The results would tell us.. ..what? Nada, zip, zilch. So IMHO, this discussion about wear is leading us to dead end. I'm sure that there are other views into rounders that might actually lead us somewhere.

I'm not an expert on RKs, God forbid no, I've handled two in my hand. And If someone asked if they showed signs wear or had any die flaws, I couldn't answer to save my life.

[tom hansen]

Are we talking about the cross on frame #27? I cannot honestly see any wear on the ring, if this is the same cross, from the photos posted. Perhaps we could see a close-up of this. Again, I will post some images later of wear for comparison.



Everyone knows my feelings about the rounder. It is not just one issue. It is many. I will again post the close-up comparison of the beading on the rounder vs other RKs. I would just ask that everyone remain civil and not get excited, but on those photos as well, I would like some explanantions regarding the difference in appearance of the beading. That coupled with no wear (sorry, I cannot see it on Tony's cross- maybe it is just the photo and there is wear that I cannot see, but I am not trying to be a jerk here), differences in paint (that can be debated until the cows come home, but there IS a quantitative difference in the elements of the paint of the rounder compared to other RKs and so far there is no comparable EK1 that is similar).

Another question is this. If the rounder is a wartime RK, where are there EK1s or EK2s? Is this a situatuion like the 3/4 ring that we may find paint on an EK1 comparable to that on the rounder in the future?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Are we talking about the cross on frame #27?

We are talking about post #1

Dietrich

[Marc Garlasco]

Yes, definite wear there...

[Blitz]

I'm looking through Gordon Williamsons book and see a picture of an RKT wearing something that even I can identify as a rounder on page 338. Someone might have pointed this out before, but I'd be interested know what the problem is with this particular photo?

[Harry]

I have the/an original of this photo. On closer inspection the 'eye' is dipping into the frame and is characteristic of Junckers and not like the rounders posted here. An agressively finished junckers cross then, in my opinion

[Allan P.]

Never being one to miss an opportunity to show off my 'rounder' here it is again, my pride and joy, resides with my Juncker RK's because quality wise, in my humble opinion, it is equal!

No wear to the eye or ribbon loop, but there wouldn't be.
Allan

[Allan P.]

2

[Allan P.]

3

[Allan P.]

800 stamp

[Allan P.]

AND not wishing to move off topic, here's a couple of shots of the ring & loop of a Lazy 2.

This particular one has seen some wear by the look of the ribbon.

Allan

[Allan P.]

2

[Allan P.]

3

[Greg Domian]

I have posted my frosted rounder in the original post concerning these crosses. Here are detail shots of the swaz, ring, dates. More info to work with I hope.


Greg

[Greg Domian]

2