Announcement

**PMan** · 02-26-2009, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by maui View Post

Peter,

I am not an expert on anything , I simply took some measurements of artifacts and posted them to share with the forum . Nobody is threatening your expertise . If you don't like the data, no problem

, you won't be seeing any more

So you are saying you have absolutely no plan to market yourself and this technology. That you are just poking around for fun??? Do you think I am new?
Peter

**Panzer Rob** · 02-26-2009, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Peter Manzie View Post

So skull buttons need to include .14% manganese? The God of experts has just arrived. Our years of experience and opinions are a thing of the past. This forum and others are now on their way out. No need for any books on the subject matter. Why bother! X-Rays will lead the way.

Originally posted by Peter Manzie View Post

So you are saying you have absolutely no plan to market yourself and this technology. That you are just poking around for fun??? Do you think I am new?
Peter

What are you so worried about, Peter? What's all the fuss over? I'd trust a scientific comparison done on both original and reproduction items over an outdated book or some random forum member's opinion any day. If these tests can be preformed on both documented original and reproduction items and the results are consistent throughout the comparisons, I'd say we have a pretty fail-safe method of determining good from bad. At least with metal objects...

That, to me anyway, would be a GOOD thing.

The only ones who should be worried are the ones who are salting in fakes with the original items they sell. Too bad this doesn't work with cloth...

Rob

**PMan** · 02-26-2009, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

What are you so worried about, Peter? What's all the fuss over? I'd trust a scientific comparison done on both original and reproduction items over an outdated book or some random forum member's opinion any day. If these tests can be preformed on both documented original and reproduction items and the results are consistent throughout the comparisons, I'd say we have a pretty fail-safe method of determining good from bad. At least with metal objects...

That, to me anyway, would be a GOOD thing.

The only ones who should be worried are the ones who are salting in fakes with the original items they sell. Too bad this doesn't work with cloth...

Rob

Thanks Rob for verifying what I just said. From now on anything you sell will require an X-Ray document that you have to pay for in order for me to believe your relic is real. Any random forum members opinion (as you say) or book is now useless, so why do we need this forum or reference books? I am sure cloth can be measured as well. Good Luck Rob!!

**Panzer Rob** · 02-26-2009, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Peter Manzie View Post

Thanks Rob for verifying what I just said. From now on anything you sell will require an X-Ray document that you have to pay for in order for me to believe your relic is real. Any random forum members opinion (as you say) or book is now useless, so why do we need this forum or reference books? I am sure cloth can be measured as well. Good Luck Rob!!

Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Seriously... If this method can be proven to be reliable and the differences between original and reproduction items are significant and consistent enough to base a solid opinion on, wouldn't you support using this to help prevent people from getting burned?

Please don't take what I said out of context. I'm not stating that every book out there is useless and of course we value the opinions of experienced, honest members of this and other forums, but you can't tell me that every book written on the subject of collecting 3rd Reich militaria over the last 30+ years nor every opinion of every experienced collector has been 100% accurate and without any fault.

I don't understand the hostility and attitude you're presenting here. If there were a scientific method which - after being scrutinized and tested multiple times proves to be accurate beyond doubt - wouldn't you want to take advantage of that?

I would see this as an asset to the hobby; a way to help prevent people from getting burned on fakes... wouldn't that be a good thing?

Rob

**PMan** · 02-26-2009, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Rob Johnson View Post

Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Seriously... If this method can be proven to be reliable and the differences between original and reproduction items are significant and consistent enough to base a solid opinion on, wouldn't you support using this to help prevent people from getting burned?

Please don't take what I said out of context. I'm not stating that every book out there is useless and of course we value the opinions of experienced, honest members of this and other forums, but you can't tell me that every book written on the subject of collecting 3rd Reich militaria over the last 30+ years nor every opinion of every experienced collector has been 100% accurate and without any fault.

I don't understand the hostility and attitude you're presenting here. If there were a scientific method which - after being scrutinized and tested multiple times proves to be accurate beyond doubt - wouldn't you want to take advantage of that?

I would see this as an asset to the hobby; a way to help prevent people from getting burned on fakes... wouldn't that be a good thing?

Rob

Rob, The new scientific method will have the final word one way or the other. Your opinion and/ or say so will be meaningless. Please feel free to subscribe and watch what happens.

**Panzer Rob** · 02-26-2009, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Peter Manzie View Post

Rob, The new scientific method will have the final word one way or the other. Your opinion and/ or say so will be meaningless. Please feel free to subscribe and watch what happens.

Peter-

Point well taken. I'm not saying that what has been posted is the new "Fail Safe" method... Just exploring the possibilities here.

If the information is determined to be say 99% accurate 100% of the time, well... I'd be comfortable with that. But then that's just me.

Rob

**PMan** · 02-26-2009, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by maui View Post

Peter,

I am not an expert on anything ,

I want an expert telling me what is fake or real, someone with years of experience, not someone making educated guesses posting pie charts with the help of a machine. All of those experts already reside on this forum.

**hs132** · 02-27-2009, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by maui View Post

Peter,

I am not an expert on anything , I simply took some measurements of artifacts and posted them to share with the forum . Nobody is threatening your expertise . If you don't like the data, no problem

, you won't be seeing any more

Hello Maui, some great stuff, keep it coming. Endlessly interesting. Ignore the dork like comments. Best, Bill Bourque

**John Pic** · 02-27-2009, 03:01 AM

"I don't understand the hostility and attitude you're presenting here. If there were a scientific method which - after being scrutinized and tested multiple times proves to be accurate beyond doubt - wouldn't you want to take advantage of that?"

Rob havent you noticed yet Manzie argues about anything that challenges his ideas about how this hobby should be..

Interesting stuff , even if it can never be an exact science at least we learn something about manufacture.

**NTZ** · 02-27-2009, 06:18 AM

I have been to Dave’s house and seen first hand what he is doing. It is pure genius! The only ones who would oppose such technology are those with something to fear. With the increased quality of fakes especially in the helmet area (which got Dave into this technology) I will take “facts” over opinion any day. Even today in this hobby fakes are getting outed that were once thought to be period. As the hobby evolves so does technology so why not embrace it. Look what it did for the “rounder”. Peter is just one of these guys with the attitude of “time in the hobby = knowledge”. Unfortunately that is far from the truth. I have seen one looker fakes in collections of the 30-40 yr. experience collectors collection. Facts will prevail over opinion any day.

**Robert H** · 02-27-2009, 07:03 AM

I heard about this device already a year ago, it will be for sure helpful when way more datas are availible. But I think the normal collector might don't have access to such a device. Maybe buy one and rent it

Would be for sure interested, especially on helmets and for sure with medals etc. For my part I would be interested in the Champaign Helmet decal check. But I assume it is all right otherwise we would heard already a wave going up.

**maui** · 02-27-2009, 07:18 AM

indeed the complex composition of a SS Champagne Runic SS decal is now known in testing collaboration with Kelly Hicks.

Thanks Nick, and I appreciate your suggestion of testing Peak stiffeners in Visors as they do have a unique composition as you thought.

Attached Files

XRF-Eagle.jpg (112.4 KB, 250 views)

**maui** · 02-27-2009, 07:20 AM

Private Purchase SS NCO

Attached Files

P0003864w.JPG (211.9 KB, 251 views)

**PaulMann** · 02-27-2009, 08:28 AM

Next....Overhoff M1/24?

Great thread Dave! Some Fakers will be sweating. I'd like to see the M1/24 TK in "pie" form???
KEEP'N EM STRAIGHT!
KUDOS,
wuff

**NTZ** · 02-27-2009, 08:32 AM

Just a side note. A few years back I looked into the same technology regarding cloth testing. It is available. What they do is test the chemical composition of the cloth and based on its composition and mix of materials they can compare it to known materials and give you a pretty definitive answer as to its country of origin and years that material was commercially available. Unfortunately the test was a few thousand dollars. If this technology becomes cheaper what a god send to cloth collectors.

Announcement

Totenkopf X-ray analysis

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread