Rounder RK

[Brian S]

Tom's quote,

"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? "

Tony there is nothing wrong with the cross. This is pure opinion from someone who refuses to be objective. Dietrich and I have been in good faith looking for evidence. This has been described as "desperation". How can we have a meaningful discussion when opinions are made up in advance and judgements about our state of mind are presented as evidence. I do not see how this discussion can continue. Of course that's the end game for some but it doesn't matter. I know what I have, where I got it, when I got it. It's not for sale and I don't care if the market value of yours, his or anyone else's isn't that of a Juncker, today. Tomorrow will bring proof. Take confidence in the real experts of this field like Gordon who have been actively studying these and finding proof.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Now what? On a Juncker, among all makers!

"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? "

Guess we have another wear-fake cross. And there will be more....

And, by the way, there is heavy wear on the beading of Tony's cross as I have shown, but it's conveniently ignored.

And if research into something "unknown" or "unproven" to find out the truth (real or fake) is "desperation" then I'm very, very proud to be desperate!

Dietrich

[Tiger 1]

Aye mate, we're the notorious "Rounder Desperadoes"!

Tony

[Tiger 1]

Oops! Is it okay to make fun of ourselves?

Tony

[George Stimson]

"Oops! Is it okay to make fun of ourselves?"

It's not only okay, it's encouraged!

[Brian S]

Giddyup

[Brian S]

Now what? On a Juncker, among all makers!

"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? "

Guess we have another wear-fake cross. And there will be more....

And, by the way, there is heavy wear on the beading of Tony's cross as I have shown, but it's conveniently ignored.

And if research into something "unknown" or "unproven" to find out the truth (real or fake) is "desperation" then I'm very, very proud to be desperate!

Dietrich

Welcome to the Gang!

[George Stimson]

I'd like to know what training or expertise one has to have before they can positively tell that wear has been artificially "applied" to an RK simply by viewing a picture on a computer monitor.

[Brian S]

I'd like to know what training or expertise one has to have before they can positively tell that wear has been artificially "applied" to an RK simply by viewing a picture on a computer monitor.

George, buy a few RKs and you will be an expert. It's not just the photo, it's the having it in hand. Doesn't take long either... That's one school of thought.

For me, I see no ability to judge wear as wartime, postwar handling or enhanced look by craftsmen postwar unless done very very badly. And then, who's to say it's not abuse by a collector, cleaning by vet family...

Story, we all love stories here... Met a German family on the ferry back from Victoria last year. Got into a discussion and exchanged family info. The lady had a brother who died in the Luftwaffe. A pilot. All she had was some photos and his Luft Dagger. Not terribly exciting, BUT, she said, "yes, we display it proudly in the den. Hangs on the wall. I polish it and clean it often." Then speaks volumes to the WEAR the experts are discussing. Could have been a pilot badge, RK, anything. Postwar wear and tear. And then there's that little thing called washing and SEM analysis wear. And then there's cleaning by 'museum trained experts'. GAWD, you seen a Luft badge after it's been cleaned by an expert. Beautiful dark burnishing starts to be eroded to the shine of the metal underneath. Cotton gloves handling them over and over and over, more wear. Just leave it in the box boys. ...and on the wear analysis. I do NOT believe.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'd like to know what training or expertise one has to have before they can positively tell that wear has been artificially "applied" to an RK simply by viewing a picture on a computer monitor.

Not only that, George!

To make a statement about 'artificially applied' you also need to have the training and expertise to judge 'natural' wear - also on a computer monitor - otherwise how could you make the distinction?

I have Tony's cross in my posession right now (for investigation purpose). It is worn, IMHO, and it is worn heavily. It does not take a genius to figure out that one can see more by having the piece in hand and even a lot more when putting it under the scope. I did post pictures....

This cross is naturally worn, evenly and nicely. It compares perfectly to any of my worn EK1's and EK2's unless those are also 'artificially' worn, that is. That's all I can say right now and I can prove it.

Dietrich

[George Stimson]

Well, I can see where obtaining examples of an award would make one more knowledgeable about them. Not necessarily an "expert," but certainly more knowledgeable.

[Tiger 1]

Hi guys,

I'm trying to take my mind off some personal unpleasantness so here's some stream of conscienceness thoughts about wear. Hope it's of some benefit to some.

An excellent way to study authenitic wear is to study EKIs. Particularly the worn ones that haven't been dicked with are excellent examples that show the various forms that genuine wear takes. Look at them carefully and soon you will be able to safely build a knowledgable mental reference of what is good wear and what has been 'monkeyshined'. Is it fool proof? Nothing is absolutely foolproof. But we have to start our learning curve somewhere and EKIs are the most easily available. Most worn examples will show honest wear that is usable to build our knowledge base. The knowledge gleaned from studying them is relatively easy to carry over to looking at KCs.

Another way is to look at wartime pictures of KC winners and look at the condition of the KCs they are wearing. I'm not talking just about wartime studio portraits but actual pictures of KC wear in the field or in informal pictures. You will be surprised at the many KCs that show easily discernable degrees of wear. See for yourselves.

The only real way anyone advances their knowledge is to find out some things for themselves through some personal effort. Asking questions of those more knowledgable is great but don't base all your collecting knowledge on what someone else says. Find out for yourselves. The more you do it the more sure of YOURSELF you will become. It's a win win situation if you are serious about collecting.

Just some thoughts.

Tony

[Jos L C]

I still think it's rather difficult to make sure whether something has real wear or "real" wear..I've a Spanish Cross that came from a farmer,he kept it in his wooden nailbox all the time..
You can imagine what happens between all those nails and screws..
It turned black and looked like a greaseball when I got it..
Looking that bad I had to clean it and it became quite nice and has nice wear..
6 years of battle..? ...,no,a nailbox..

There're a million items used and abused postwar..,some still looking nice though..

It's not easy..

Jos.