Announcement

**Larry L** · 03-27-2005, 03:08 PM

Dietrich, Isn't that the same? Si = Silicon(Silicium in French,German etc.)

There is only one chemical that is marked 'Si' in chemical table to my knowledge.

L

Originally posted by Dietrich

.... are Si (Silicium, not to be confused with Silicon) ...

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 03:10 PM

I can say in all honesty that I did not find anything with my and other Rounders that I have not seen in a similiar way with other crosses so far.

Of course, no two crosses are the same anyway and one -at least I think so - has to remove one self from the intrinsic detail and compare the different results of the same process, i.e. different die, differnt guy doing the finish, diffrent paint, ..

So far this is true:

- the frame is made of silver and stamped '800'
- the soldering is done very nicely and so is the rim finish
- my cross seems to have the chemical finish
- the core is made of iron
- the beading is similiar to other crosses
- there are differences in the actual foot of the beading, i.e. the lower parts left and right of the beading half circle. Its more "flat"
- the Rounder shows the same construction features and manufacturing marks then other crosses I have observed
- the Rounder is for sure done with the same knowledge and procedure then the other crosses I have observed.

So, that is at least the surface ot the technical aspect.

Dietrich

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Larry L

Dietrich, Isn't that the same? Si = Silicon(Silicium in French,German etc.)

There is only one chemical that is marked 'Si' in chemical table to my knowledge.

L

Larry,

I purposly say Silicium because in the english language there is silicon (Si) and silicone. Some people might mix that up and think that the component silicon might be the white paste which is used to fix bath rooms, i.e. silicone. So I say with the latin word...

Dietrich

**Larry L** · 03-27-2005, 03:14 PM

Yes, of course, I wasn't thinking that it could be mixed with silicone.
Thanks for that.

L

Originally posted by Dietrich

Larry,

I purposly say Silicium because in the english language there is silicon (Si) and silicone. Some people might mix that up and think that the component silicon might be the white paste which is used to fix bath rooms, i.e. silicone. So I say with the latin word...

Dietrich

**Larry L** · 03-27-2005, 03:20 PM

This is really interesting (picture on post #6)
Can you get similar pictures of those Godet WW1 cross and Junckers lazy 2, which SEM info is allready presented.
L

Originally posted by Dietrich

...... Here's a poicture of that area. The paint surface has the typical grany structure as can be observed with other RK's, maybe a little smoother. This is for sure a result of the use of different paint.

......

**Harry** · 03-27-2005, 03:26 PM

Great presentation Dietrich!

Referring back to the points I raised when I interupted you, I find the 'bubbling' around the swas. unusual (see highlighted pic on post #4). I am on the low rungs of the learning ladder, but I am trying to learn more. You mention that the bubbles are paint. I have a few crosses by different makers and I have not seen this on any of them. Is there anyone else out there with an RK by a known maker that has this phenomenon, or is it unique to the 'rounder'. If it is unique to the rounder, would this suggest a different technique used to paint the cores of rounders compared to other makers?. I would be of the opinion that bubbles like these would be more likely in a brush-on technique, rather than a spray-on method.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 03:34 PM

Harry,

yes, it is unique, but only unique to my Rounder. The other Rounders I have on file and physically before me dont have that. So, at this point in time, it would be wrong to say "All Rounder have it". I don't know what it is, what causes this and how and when it happened.

Maybe, just maybe, mine has a different paint then other Rounders? Who knows?

Here is the same area of another Rounder - no bubbles anywhere (the whole cross, of course).

Dietrich

Attached Files

Swastika.jpg (65.4 KB, 161 views)

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 03:41 PM

Maybe one final thing regaring the technical aspect. The Rounder can be found in all kind of 'aging' if you will. From nearly mint to nicely frosted to used up to heavily worn and even completely rusted.

It could mean that those are real or it could mean that the fakers really went thru a great deal of "justification" or that the Rounders are a very, very old fake.

I don't know yet, as I said before. All I know is that from the technical side they are not outside the parameters one would exspect.

Dietrich

P.S.: It is very interesting to note that the frist time around when I posted this picture only Pieter came back (after some time) and realized that the lower left cross was a Juncker (which is now marked). Nobody realized that before, because they all look pretty much the same..

Attached Files

All Crosses-web.jpg (153.3 KB, 156 views)

**Brian S** · 03-27-2005, 03:50 PM

If real why photographic evidence rare?

1.11.1941 (Nov. 11 '41) manufacture of RKs for private purchase ended.

From Feldgrau.com: RKs awarded to 1.11.1941 = 1,027 out of 7,116. 14% of all RKs were awarded up to this time.

If Rounder real, minimum 8 manufacturers (SL, KQ, Godet, Juncker, Deschler, Zimmerman, Schickle, Rouder) produced 14% of all RKs. Assume even distribution and 1.75% by 'Rounder'.

From even distribution 125 of all awarded RKs ended up with Rounders by 1.11.1941. Assume again private purchase of RKs would result in about two RKs per recipient, 250 RKs ended up in their hands.

Bottom line, 1.75% of all stock to 1.11.1941.

Photographic evidence: How difficult will it be to find a clear photo of an RK recipient, 1 out of 150?

Dietrich this make sense to you? I think a technical analysis of photographic proof is reasonable. (Above collage might represent 10% of all Rounders.)

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 03:56 PM

Brian,

maybe you should open a separate therad about possible photographic evidence. I will stay my course here and tend to the technical aspect. The photos already belong into the realm of 'maybe'., the technical aspect is real for sure.

Dietrich

**tom hansen** · 03-27-2005, 04:07 PM

Just two bits of information.

1. The rounder paint IS unique to any other cross tested at this time- EK1, EK2 or RK. The Godet imperial EK1, meybauer EK1, and and juncker lazy 2 all had unique paint as well. The juncker RK did have Ca and P in the paint, like the other RKs, but the concentration was different. Here is the raw data for the RKs. Interpret it as you like, but the rounder is different.

SEM RK information

Rounder RK core 25x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 42.38 67.53
Mg K ED 8.44 8.85
Si K ED 12.74 11.56
P K ED -0.50* -0.41
S K ED 6.62 5.27
Cl K ED 0.69 0.50
Ca K ED 0.15* 0.09
Fe K ED 4.00 1.83
Ba L ED 25.36 4.71
Total 100.00 100.00

Rounder RK core 100x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 41.16 66.08
Mg K ED 9.05 9.56
Si K ED 13.28 12.15
P K ED -0.17* -0.14
S K ED 7.02 5.63
Cl K ED 0.56 0.41
K K ED 0.28 0.19
Ca K ED 0.33 0.21
Fe K ED 2.21 1.02
Ba L ED 26.27 4.91
Total 100.00 100.00

Junker 800 RK core 300x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 48.29 69.61
Si K ED 0.82 0.67
P K ED 12.29 9.15
S K ED 2.51 1.81
Cl K ED 1.07 0.70
K K ED 0.90 0.53
Ca K ED 24.73 14.23
Ti K ED 1.00 0.48
Fe K ED 3.81 1.57
Zn K ED 1.49 0.53
Ba L ED 2.81 0.47
Total 100.00 100.00

Junker lazy-2 RK core 40x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 47.82 69.65
Mg K ED 1.10 1.06
Si K ED 4.20 3.49
P K ED 2.70 2.03
S K ED 11.01 8.00
Cl K ED 0.64 0.42
Ca K ED 14.19 8.25
Ti K ED 0.48* 0.23
Fe K ED 14.75 6.15
Zn K ED 1.04* 0.37
Ba L ED 2.06 0.35
Total 100.00 100.00

Junker lazy-2 RK core 100x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 47.24 69.36
Mg K ED 1.42 1.37
Si K ED 4.17 3.49
P K ED 2.36 1.79
S K ED 10.88 7.97
Cl K ED 0.85 0.56
K K ED 0.40* 0.24
Ca K ED 14.04 8.23
Ti K ED 0.35* 0.17
Fe K ED 13.12 5.52
Zn K ED 2.20 0.79
Ba L ED 2.97 0.51
Total 100.00 100.00

Junker lazy-2 RK core 300x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 46.72 68.87
Mg K ED 0.88 0.85
Si K ED 3.98 3.34
P K ED 2.90 2.21
S K ED 10.71 7.88
Cl K ED 0.91 0.60
K K ED 0.42* 0.25
Ca K ED 15.40 9.06
Ti K ED 0.45* 0.22
Fe K ED 12.92 5.46
Zn K ED 2.38 0.86
Ba L ED 2.35 0.40
Total 100.00 100.00

Junker dot RK core 300x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 59.64 78.53
Mg K ED 0.59 0.51
Si K ED 0.48 0.36
P K ED 9.96 6.77
S K ED 1.43 0.94
Cl K ED 0.26 0.15
Ca K ED 19.58 10.29
Ti K ED 0.37* 0.16
Cr K ED 1.07 0.43
Fe K ED 2.26 0.85
Zn K ED 1.84 0.59
Ba L ED 2.49 0.38
Total 100.00 100.00

3-qtr ring RK paint 300x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 75.38 87.59
Mg K ED 0.28* 0.22
Si K ED 2.12 1.40
P K ED 5.19 3.11
S K ED 1.54 0.89
Cl K ED 1.62 0.85
K K ED 1.24 0.59
Ca K ED 9.63 4.47
Cr K ED 0.48* 0.17
Fe K ED 0.54* 0.18
Zn K ED 1.57 0.45
Ba L ED 0.32* 0.04
Total 100.00 100.00

S&L RK core 100x
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
O K ED 70.82 86.29
Si K ED 0.62 0.43
P K ED 5.57 3.51
S K ED 1.31 0.80
Cl K ED 1.20 0.66
K K ED 0.42 0.21
Ca K ED 10.44 5.08
Cr K ED 0.02* 0.01
Fe K ED 5.51 1.92
Zn K ED 3.19 0.95
Ba L ED 1.04* 0.15
Total 100.00 100.00

K&Q RK 500x

Elmt Spect. Element Atomic

O K ED 52.01 71.90

Si K ED 0.43 0.34

P K ED 13.16 9.40

S K ED 1.00 0.69

Cl K ED 0.55 0.34

K K ED 0.15* 0.09

Ca K ED 27.53 15.19

Fe K ED 5.17 2.05

Total 100.00 100.00

2. The rounder beading does look different in side views of the beading. A straight on shot was shown in the comparison above. I had several pics of this view of the rounder, but my hard drive crashed. If Dietrich or another owner of a rounder could take some side view shots of the base of the beading, those areas can be compared with other RKs. Thanks

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 04:08 PM

The above assembly of Rounders show the variance in appearance, but it does not show the possible wear of a particular cross.

I currently have one that clearly and undoubtly shows wear in the ring, the beading and everywhere else. It's a very old piece! There's more to this piece, but before I come out with that, I need to do more studying and investigation.

Hoverer, here's the ring.

Attached Files

Ring.jpg (68.1 KB, 143 views)

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 04:09 PM

And here is the lower 12 o'clock arm including the numerals so it's clear that it is a Rounder.

Attached Files

beading.jpg (70.0 KB, 143 views)

**George Stimson** · 03-27-2005, 04:20 PM

This is a very interesting discussion so far, gentlemen.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 03-27-2005, 04:27 PM

Tom,

thank you for posting the results of all your testing.

Yes, as I said, the Rounder paint is different, no denying and I would not know why I should deny it?

In an earlier post, I remarked that one cannot compare (directly) the composition as given earlier and listed by you again right now. Lt me explain again so everybody will understand:

One can see, that no C is listed in the composition tables. But all the other elements listed add up to 100%. So it is clear, that this 100% represents only the balance between the actual C (lets say 90%) and the overall total of ALL elemnts to 100%. So in this example, the 100% of the listed elements represent 10% of the total composition, including C.

Now this is a good representation in itself, BUT becomes unscientific if one start to compare two rows to each other.

Look at the Ba (since we know already that Si is not unusual). The Rounder shows around 25% and the others around max. 2.5 %. So the direct conclusion is: The Rounder has 10x more Barium.

Now, apart from the question: "Okay, and now what does that mean?" this is of course a complete false statement and can only be correct in the one instance when the C content of the Rounder and the C content of the others is exactly the same.

If the C content of the Rounder is 95% and that of the Juncker is 80%, then the numbers for Ba are 1,25% for the Rounder and 0,5% for the Juncker and the comparison factor now would be 2,5 times and would also be in the range of 'traces'.

Mathematics is an accurate science and must be applied correctly then the numbers will give the correct presentation.

So as long as the base percentage of C is missing, a direct comparison is not possible, i.e. if done it is wrong in a pure mathematical sense.

The above tables only show the individual composition of the paint and you can only compare the presence of elements and yes, you can make some staement relative to each other since the C content will be above 80% total.

And, again, I clearly pointed out in the beginning of my thread that the paint is different. I'm sorry if I left out something that would lead people to wrong conclusions...

Dietrich

Announcement

The Rounder - Technical Aspects

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread