The Rounder - Technical Aspects

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dave,

you scared me for a moment ...I did already change out two pictures! But they show the same thing so thats good!

And it is not really about 'your' cross. All 935-4 or 800 (which was not yours...) or whatever look like this.

It's just normal comparison.

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Dave, I purposely started this thread so you could challenge my knowledge of the knowledge of RKs. You stated these started appearing when? You noticed these appearing in shows before the authors had even published material to differentiate? A challenge but not a fight...http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ad.php?t=94101

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,


regarding the beading I only can say the following: The beading of the Rounder is what it is! Under very high magnification it looks different than the other crosses, yes. Does it look worse? This is in the eye of the beholder and I grant you this: It does not look better. But what is the standard? I for sure do not know, BUT i know this: From a normal viewing distance, nothing you or I stated has any bearing whatsoever! They were ALL not made for SEM or microscope investigation.

I use the scope not to find something ugly, I use it to find something unique. And believe me, I found already a lot! I found flaws on accepted crosses, if you would see those on a Rounder (and you don't) you would freak out!

If you look at a flawed S&L for instance, what do you think your argument would need to be? Absolutely unacceptable! But there are flawed S&L with provenance and I believe this to be true.

I'm just giving a technical report about the finer details of a Rounder. Permission granted , I'll do the same with the S&L.


Dietrich

[Dave Kane]

Brian, I saw these enter the MARKET in the mid to late 80's.....

They were offered as late as 2002 at $1,500.00 when accepted crosses were at $5,000.00.

I repeat.....and only because you want me to.......

They were offered with FAKE Oaks...........we know this!!!!

No ribbon.....we know this!!!


No case....we know this!!!


And, from the get go....1/3rd the price of original crosses of the time!!!


20 years is a life time...................

[George Stimson]

"Something as 'transient' as add ons really contributes little to the piece being discussed."

So could the same could be said for the argument that because some Rounders have been paired with fake Oaks then the Rounders are probably bad?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[George Stimson]

On second thought, my line of questioning is getting away from the purely "technical" aspect which is supposed to be the purpose of this thread. So it doesn't have to go any further here.

[Dave Kane]

Absoutely George!! The maker of these fake Oaks gathered only the Rounders to pair the fake Oaks with...............those Rounders that weren't known among collectors prior!

[Brian S]

Thanks Dave. "Mid to late eighties." "Paired ONLY with Rounders."

You were ahead of your time, the authors of books and magazine articles. Shame you didn't publish then.
It's interesting to hear from your point of view that they weren't the Juncker fakes or early postwar fakes.

As for 2002 prices, how does fit in? By more than a couple of years ago the rounders were cast in a negative light. Gordon's book doesn't say who made them just that he believed them to be real based on the technical analysis of comparing several RKs over many years.

[George Stimson]

Dave

No, I meant that according to your position if a Rounder paired with a good case is not an indicator that the cross is good, then a Rounder paired with bad Oaks should not be an indicator that it is bad. (But it's not a technical argument about the piece itself and doesn't belong here.)

[Brian S]

No, I meant that according to your position if a Rounder paired with a good case is not an indicator that the cross is good, then a Rounder paired with bad Oaks should not be an indicator that it is bad. (But it's not a technical argument about the piece itself and doesn't belong here.)

...I've never had the priveledge of seeing a Rounder for sale with Oaks. I can't remember seeing a Rounder for sale anywhere. Not that that is a defining point but where are they?

[George Stimson]

Let's keep this good thread technical, gentlemen.

[Brian S]

I agree George. I think if you explore "technical" arguements you will find what has been "seen and observed by many" as a technical basis for truth.

That's many...

[Dave Kane]

Ok Brian.....I have, Pieter has and I look forward to the other folks who have....

[tom hansen]

No, not true and mathematically incorrect!

I'll try again...

Let's assume you have paint that has 95% Carbon and 5% other elements.

Then you just take the other elements and their total is now 100% as in your table. So it is clear that this 100% only represents 5% (100-95=5) of the totlal paint composition. Okay?

So, now you take the Barium with 25% of the table but the absolute percentage is 25% of 5% (because the 100% of the table only represent 5% of the total). So the ABSOLUTE content of Ba in this paint is 25% x 5% = 1.25%.

In other words: The absolute content of Ba of the paint is 1.25% of the total including the C and 25% of the elements excluding c.

Now lets do the same with a cross with 80% C and 2.5% Ba. as part of the other elements.

2.5% of 20% ( 100-80=20 equal the total of all remaining elements) equals 0.5%. And this 0.5% is the absolute percentage of Ba of the paint.

So, without knowing the actual C-percentage of the paint (and this is not given in your tables) one CANNOT make a direct comparison between the numbers.

To make the Ba. numbers equal the difference in carbon does not to be 10x (this is not possible anyway since if one would have 10% C the other would need 100% and then there's nothing left for the others)

Percentage works different. The difference to 100% needs to be 10x, i.e. one cross 97 % and the other 70% Carbon for instance.

And I'm not saying that the Rounder or any other cross has such a high or low percentage of C, all I was saying is that one cannot compare the table numbers directly and that by making them comaprable the ratio will most likely drop.

Dietrich

Okay- Thanks-

I can understand what you are saying about differences in carbon. I will send a note to Warren at ISU for further clarification as well. Thanks

[George Stimson]

"I agree George. I think if you explore "technical" arguements you will find what has been "seen and observed by many" as a technical basis for truth."

I think what Dietrich wants to do with this thread (and therefore what we should do with it) is to observe the Rounder based on seeing, weighing, and examining actual examples up close, not to base opinions or conclusions on recalling seeing them somewhere (or not) twenty years ago. Pure technical info -- not anecdotal.