The Rounder - Technical Aspects

[Brian S]

Yes, Tom, I agree with Warren, the Rounder is a forgery of the Juncker. It is different. It is not the same. The differences are significant. No question. A forgery, yes. Not a Juncker, I have no disagreement with Warren on this.

[Brian S]

Yes, yes. We are seeing some marked differences between samples that need
to be explained somehow. The best way is probably to label the different
one as a forgery. I would put the burden of proof on them to show that
similar composition exists in a piece known to be authentic.

The "burden of proof" is on us? You do not have a statistically believable base to make this kind of statement. The standard deviation here is off the charts. The number of EK makers is huge. And not only cross makers. We have to examine BLACK PAINTS utilized in the 40's in Germany on any metal based products. Why does the black paint on this cross have to be anywhere close to a black paint on other crosses? It does NOT. It only needs to be within tolerance of black paints appearing in this period. Period.

Juncker is not S&L. S&L is not K&Q. K&Q is not Schickle. Schickle is not Rounder...and on and on. Conclusion, they do not equal each other.

This can only be called a "forgery" if you can prove this is not period paint and you have not done this except to prove it is not Juncker, KQ or SL, or Godet paint. That is not surprising.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I don't have the records handy. How many different paint compositions were 'detected' so far between you and Marc? I don't recall it.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Tom,

I don't have the records handy. How many different paint compositions were 'detected' so far between you and Marc? I don't recall it.

Dietrich

For the record- The comments above were from an email from Warren from the ISU lab. They are not mine, therefore the quotes should not be attributable to me, as it is the statement of Warren. I just posted it for everyone to read. The questions asked of him are mine.


Dietrich-

1. The 800, 800 dot, S&L, K&Q, and 3/4 ring RKs as well as the K&Q EK2 and S&L EK1 had nearly identical paint- all bone black

2. The juncker lazy 2 had bone black, but was different in trace elements from the other RKs

3. The meybauer EK 1, Grossman & co EK1, Godet imperial EK1 and the rounder RK all had unique paint, which did not match the others.

[Don D.]

Then all the crosses listed in #3 must be "forgeries" or simply unique to that manufacturer.
Correct?
I'm glad to see this thread has kept a civil tone. I think I'm learning something here.
Don

[Dietrich Maerz]

Then all the crosses listed in #3 must be "forgeries" or simply unique to that manufacturer.
Correct?
I'm glad to see this thread has kept a civil tone. I think I'm learning something here.
Don

Don, actually all crosses listed under 2 and 3. Just for the record: 12 different crosses, 6 different paints, a spread of 50%.

I don't think it would be scientific and sound to call one of the six a forgery. Maybe Warren didn't know about the other test results.

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Then all the crosses listed in #3 must be "forgeries" or simply unique to that manufacturer.
Correct?
I'm glad to see this thread has kept a civil tone. I think I'm learning something here.
Don

The presumption was that the EK2 and EK1 samples were authentic crosses, as they matched the beading and characteristics of their maker. They do not match the other crosses and are therefore unique (with the exception of the two EK2 K&Qs, which matched the RK perfectly).

Keep in mind this whole paint analysis issue was never intended to be a quest to evaluate the rounder. I was looking for paint "fingerprints" for different makers. I am pleased to see some differences that may be fingerprints for some makers that may help to identify unknowns. I am looking for a paint match for the 3/4 ring RK- I think I have excluded meybauer and grossman &co, which were two possibilities which have been suggested as potential makers. Neither Godet nor juncker matched either. Perhaps the godet comparison could be criticized in that it is imperial and not world war two. Next up for me is wachtler and lange, then duemer. Interestingly, did anyone through all this see the MERCURY in the 3/4 ring frame!? Toxic RKs- but it may be a clue if another maker has this in their frames as well.


Dietrich- Warren knows about all the tests because he did them all. Again, these are his comments from an email. I asked questions on an email and he answered them. I think he was directly referring to RKs in his response, as clearly the meybauer, grossman & co, and godet Ek1s had different paint as well. His response is a direct copy of the email and is unedited, however, from the statement I would guess he is probably referring to RKs.

[Brian S]

Don, the crosses are unique as you say. I think Warren may be an excellent SEM expert but not qualified to detect 'fakes' from these samples. This is 'out of school'. Expert analysis of these kinds of comparisons are done by scientists schooled and experienced entirely for these detections. I do understand these are Warren's comments. His 'testimony' is simply not for me from an adequate expert in 'forgeries'.

This discussion is going right where all the others have gone... The paint is different therefore the cross is a fake. And no matter how the same comment is answered time and again, it comes back to the same conclusion.

The only way to settle this circuitous posting is to prove the paint contains modern compounds. Period. Concentrations of one or another element do not create a fake unless you can state beyond a doubt that is the make of a modern compound.

[Don D.]

These crosses are unique yet Tom has provided one way to authenticate a rounder. Find an original EK with the same paint composition (fingerprint) and you would probably identify the manufacturer. That is what he is trying to do with the 3/4 ring, correct Tom?
If you except that the 3/4 ring is period made and then find a match for the paint on an EK from a known manufacturer then why couldn't you take "good" EKs and look for a match for the rounder?
Don

[Brian S]

Don, and that is why I was very excited when he first got started in this. I became less excited when he did not find a match and it became a "fake" because from a relative small group of manufacturers and examples he could not find a match. Discovery takes time and patience. I still believe in the move to go forward and find a match.

But this will take time as there are more than a handful of manufacturers and they used more than one paint on their crosses.

[tom hansen]

These crosses are unique yet Tom has provided one way to authenticate a rounder. Find an original EK with the same paint composition (fingerprint) and you would probably identify the manufacturer. That is what he is trying to do with the 3/4 ring, correct Tom?
If you except that the 3/4 ring is period made and then find a match for the paint on an EK from a known manufacturer then why couldn't you take "good" EKs and look for a match for the rounder?
Don

I agree completely with that, don. If the rounder was a period cross, there should be EK1s and EK2s out there that have paint that match that seen on the rounder. There is certainly a K&Q EK 2 match to the K&Q RK.

Again, I have no interest personally in spending my time and money authenticating the rounder, as I have much more interest in the 3/4 ring RK and some of the juncker crosses. However, for those who are so inclined and are interested in verifying the rounder as a period piece, and have plenty of EK1s and or EK2s, there are quite a few crosses to go through. It would be easier if there were some clues to look for, to effectively narrow the possiblities. Conversely, the lack of matching paint to the meybauer EK1, which has not been mentioned here at all, despite a "7" stamp on Dietrich's cross is interesting. If it is a meybauer, why does not the paint match? If it is not a meybauer, why is there a "7" stamp on it?

If a period EK1 or EK2 had paint matching the rounder, I would be a very happy guy. Using this as a tool to "fingerprint" crosses is potentially very exciting and could be used to identify a maker, let alone strongly suggesting it is a period piece. The same thing with the 3/4 ring. There appears to be little debate that this is a period piece, but the maker is unknown. A match would be very interesting, particularly with the mercury in the frame. No other cross had that. Likewise, the rounder paint is unique to crosses tested so far, which would potentially make it more of a profound, definitive match if and when an EK2 or EK1 match could be found. Again, it may be a needle in the haystack.

[George Stimson]

Guys, let's stick to the provable technical aspects of the Rounder (the purpose of this thread) and leave the questioning, speculation, and conclusions for some other venue.

[tom hansen]

Guys, let's stick to the provable technical aspects of the Rounder (the purpose of this thread) and leave the questioning, speculation, and conclusions for some other venue.

George- I would offer that the lack of match between the meybauer EK1 paint and that found on the rounder RK with the "7" stamp is technical information that is hard fast data.

[George Stimson]

It's only hard and fast data that the paint didn't match between those two examples. Any conclusions drawn from that is speculation.

[Harry]

Just a thought getting back to photographic evidence. We have several period photographs of RKs in wear that a clear enough to be unquestionably of 3/4 ring examples, even though this cross is very rare. Should we at least expect to see clear peiod pics of rounders in wear, clear enough so there is no doubt as to whether it is a rounder or a Juncker?