Announcement

**Dave Kane** · 03-23-2005, 09:39 PM

Here's a pic for discussion....

Attached Files

rounder1.jpg (90.3 KB, 305 views)

**Dave Kane** · 03-23-2005, 09:49 PM

I have looked at the Swaz which I (accept) as at least even with the top of the beading....I don't see any 'wear' to the beading but the Swaz could be higher.

The 1939 however is very much lower than the Swaz and beading yet shows the same level of wear as the higher Swaz...and at the same time demonstrates no wear to the beading (above) the highest level of the numerals.

Natural wear and tear plays a major part in not only helmets and the like but medals as well!

Yes? No?

**tom hansen** · 03-23-2005, 11:17 PM

This was brought up on the rounder thread. I would think that wear would be transmitted to the highest exposed surfaces. The very worn crosses I have have more wear on the beading than the date.

**Biro** · 03-24-2005, 05:43 AM

Hi Dave....

Are you suggesting the swaz and dates are worn?.....I don't necessarily see a worn swaz, I do see worn paint....and I would accept wear in a micro thin layer of prominently exposed paint without expecting to see any wear to the harder compound silver beading adjacent to it....

Can you clarify the question for us....or perhaps Tony can clarify whether the naturally rounded swaz tips on his RK are in fact worn....or just exposed?

The picture is a little ambiguous....and possibly incriminating without some clarification...

cheers

Marshall

Attached Files

rounder1.jpeg (107.6 KB, 270 views)

**tom hansen** · 03-24-2005, 07:16 AM

Marshall- My photoshop program is dead. Can you place this swaz next to another rounder swaz? I do not recall the others having a filed edge on the swaz.

It is odd that this is the sole example of rounder wear, yet there is something not quite right about this aspect as well.

**Biro** · 03-24-2005, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by tom hansen

Can you place this swaz next to another rounder swaz? I do not recall the others having a filed edge on the swaz.

I have the power.........

Attached Files

Swazcomp.jpg (84.8 KB, 253 views)

**tom hansen** · 03-24-2005, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Biro

I have the power.........

Thanks Marshall

Looks like a little more rounding of the corners of the swaz on the "worn" rounder than the other. Think of the angle of force that had to applied for that "wear", yet there is none on the beading. That is a little odd.

**Biro** · 03-24-2005, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by tom hansen

It is odd that this is the sole example of rounder wear, yet there is something not quite right about this aspect as well.

If I were being pedantic Tom, I would say the paint on Gregs is worn....just not as worn.....

Here's a negative which gives another perspective of the rounded tips.....

Before we run away with this, I think it would be prudent to hear from Tony (Tiger1) as to the degree and nature of the wear....It still looks like just the paint missing to me....which, give or take the slightly odd pattern, would be perfectly acceptable, no?

Marshall

**George Stimson** · 03-24-2005, 09:06 AM

Maybe the lack of paint on the swaz is caused by something other than wear from, well, wearing. I mean, why would the front of an RK show wear from being worn? It's just dangling around in the air, right?

**Tiger 1** · 03-24-2005, 12:14 PM

Hi guys,

The KC that we're looking at is far less contrasty in real life than in this photo. The picture shows more apparent 'wear' than actually exists due to excess light reflection caught on film. In reality the patina and wear on this cross is way more subdued.

The swastika shows paint wear to the corners and there is very slight paint loss to the very top of the first 9 and the 3 in the date. The reverse of the cross shows wear on the corners of the beading on the lower arm with progressively less wear the closer it gets to the ribbon loop. There is also wear to the core finish at the center reverse. But the reverse date is finish intact.

As for the 'wear' of the paint on the swastika I have no concrete answer. The questions can be such. Was this KC cleaned at some point with an abrasive polish causing paint loss at the sharper edges? Was this cleaning done by the original recipient or the subsequent vet owner? Who's to say. Buit we have all seen original items sometimes impaired thru improper cleaning. But, I do not find anything that that suggests dinking with this KCs finish to represent anything other than an original condition. Comparing paint wear with the frame wear is somewhat a nonstarter. After all, the 800 silver frame surface is harder than the paint. 800 silver is coin silver and formulated to withstand wear on a daily basis. Paint requirements are not so stringent for wear durability. This should be easy to understand.

Was there a half hearted attempt to remove the paint from the swastika to enhance the rather plain look of this high decoration? I personally don't think so in this case. But, this phenomenom is very well documented in period photos of EKIs and KCs being worn with such modifications. Nothing new here.

Again, the suposedly unusual 'wear' to the swastika can be from actual real wear due to use. Any item worn or used on a daily basis will eventually acquire nicks, scratches, dings and other 'wear' evidence in a random pattern that realistically cannot be exactly classified. Can I prove this? No. Can anyone disprove this? No. One just needs to look at Oberst Rudel's KC with the Golden Oaks, Swords and Diamonds to see that there is much finish loss to the front of the KC. All this finish loss is from just dangling in the air, right?

By the way Dave, what grit emory paper would replicate that wear and not show any directional scratches under normally used (up to 10x) magnification? You suggested that very possibility in the title of this thread. What is your proof of this? Please elaborate for the sake of furthering our collective knowledge.

Just some further thoughts,

Tony

**Sonderkommando** · 03-24-2005, 12:36 PM

Well said Tony.
I am sure combat worn KC's do a little more than just "dangle in the air". George, any thoughts as to why we see wear on the front of EK1's? After all, they are just "pinned to tunics", right?

Regards,

Brett

**Dave Kane** · 03-24-2005, 12:39 PM

Tony, I wouldn't have a clue regarding the level of 'grit' or the effect of a rubbing compound and a buffing tool. We know any manner of 'ageing' has been used on repo medals and most is obvious and unnatural!

It was suggested in the Rounder discussion to start a thread on wear. I think it's a good idea and have a few items to demonstrate.

**Marc Garlasco** · 03-24-2005, 12:50 PM

I am thinking of pinning an EK1 to my 4 year old for just a day. I won't shoot at her to make her drop to the ground for cover, and I will refrain from having her fightin the snow or mud. But after just a day I am sure she will give it a workout on the playground...
Marc

**George Stimson** · 03-24-2005, 12:52 PM

"George, any thoughts as to why we see wear on the front of EK1's? After all, they are just "pinned to tunics", right?"

Sure, easy. They could be pinned to tunics under greatcoats which rubbed up against them for however long the cold season was where they were being worn. (And if the greatcoat collar was worn closed, I supposed it could wear against the front of an RK as well.)

Announcement

Natural or emery cloth?

Natural or emery cloth?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread