UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories Medals & Badges of the Third Reich Forum Rounder RK- post war fraud

There has been much discussion regarding the rounder RK, a "variant" of the RK which has rounded innner corners. There has been many heated debates regarding this piece. However, many of the debates have suffered from the presentation of fraudulent or incomplete information in attempt to rehabilitate the rounder and convince the collector community of its wartime status. Problems with the rounder include:


1. Lack of provenace.

2. Lack of photo evidence of the rounder in wear. Several photos have been analyzed, none of which have been able to show an example of the rounder being wartime by a RK recipient.

3. Different paint under SEM. A total of 28 period wartime crosses, ranging from RKs to EK2s were analyzed under SEM with information regarding elemental composition of the paint. All world war two wartime pieces had similar characteristics of paint, showing either "bone black" pigment or vine black pigment in the paint. These are period black pigments made of calcium phosphate and carbon respectively. The rounder was the only purported world war two era piece to have high concentration of silicon and barium, which deviated from the paint characteristics of recognized world war two medals in the RK, EK1 and EK2.

4. Poor quality. Detailed scanning electron microscopy showed the quality of the beading on the rounder to be far inferior to other wartime pieces, with evidence of horizontal flaws not seen on wartime pieces. It has been suggested that these flaws may represent evidence of injection mold casting. These flaws, as well as lack of depth of beading, are not seen on wartime pieces.

**** Edited to remove personal attacks ***

Hi Tom, interesting topic, I've read a little about the rounder debate, but have no opinion on the subject due to my lack of general knowledge with KC's. Can you please post some photos.

thanks

5. IR spec paint data. I had submitted a rounder for independent paint analysis at a national testing firm. Three other examples were submitted to a testing lab in the UK. The firm, CHem IR, which tested the piece I had submitted identified the paint as containing a silicon bisphenolic A epoxy resin, through computer matching of other spectra of known compounds, which specifically DER 664 UE. This compound, which is a siliconated epoxy resin (remember the silicon on the SEM data?) has a patent date of 1959, clearly placing it post war. Further, this class of epoxy resins was only investigated beginning in 1947 by Dow Chemical and used commercially in paint in the late 1960s. Chem IR further performed mass spec testing to specifically confirm this compound- again- DER 664 UE- a 1959 compound.

The other pieces submitted to labs in the UK came back as epoxy resins, with no specific identification of compounds. There was not a computer mathcing done to identify a specfic subtype of epoxy resins.

Based upon the paint information, the promoters of the rounder stated that IG Farben had made epocy resins in 1939, therefore it was possible that the rounder used these epoxies in their paint, leaving open the possibility of wartime production of this paint. Problematic with this contention is the fact that IG Farben never used ANY epoxy resin in paint and had sold the patent to DOw CHemical in 1939, who did use epoxy in electrial wiring, but not paint, as early as 1943. The proponants of the rounder failed to mention this in their defense of this piece, leaving the uninitiated to beleive there was a possibility still of this being a wartime piece. The admission of an epoxy resin, let alone a specific siliconated epoxy resin, which their spectroscopy also shows, proves that ALL the rounders scientifically evaluated at this time are post war fakes. These facts have been derided by the owners of the rounders, one of which had promoted fake provenance, in an attempt to "keep looking", while all the while aware of the evidence proving post war status.

Sure Jamie- I will try to post the IR spec data and IR spec data as well as some of the chemical coating information showing the confabulated IG Farben information and the Dow chemical 1947 date.

Here is the rounder RK tested by Chem IR. Note the brush strokes in the paint, which of course is not consistent with a period piece.

Here is the epoxy resin article, noting when these compounds were introduced. Note the 1947 date. By my history books, this is two years post war

Here is where they clearly state that IG Farben did not use epoxy resins commercially. Therefore the rounder proponants have actually shown that thier pieces are fake, as Farben did not use epoxies in paint!

Here is the SEM information. Note the markedly different elemental composition of the rounder compared to period pieces. The high Si is a manifestation of the siliconated epoxy resin (DER 664 UE) which was later found via IR spec. Note the barium, also not found in high concentrations in other period pieces.

Here is a comparison of a wartime juncker cross beading under SEM compared to the rounder. Note the injection cast mold appearance to the beading of the rounder on the left

Here is the rounder compared to the beading of an S&L cross. Note the marked diffference in appearance of the beading.

Here is the IR spec data, showing a match to DER 664 UE, a 1959 patent date epoxy

Topic Edited for content.


http:www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24911&page=2&highlight=rounder+RK

The information in the above post is correct. Tom's son did attempt to sell a rounder RK on Ebay, but only for the price of a quality copy. Tom has spent countless hours and thousands of dollars on the reserch of the "rounder" cross without ever having the intention of recovering a fraction of the outlay. The testing information he has does not lie. His goal is to help collectors from making a tragic and costly mistake.

I remember seeing it on e bay and it was stated as "quality copy", with some other information.

There was a big ta-do over this, and what happened was this Hanson gent bought on E-bay a controversial cross with the intent to have it tested. Once the test results were done, it was relisted on E-bay and properly described. But do to attacks and such the info was not released as I remember it. They just jumped him for the re-list.

I would not at that point turned over the results either.

Interesting.

The rounder data is completely air tight. This is a post war manufactured piece and the paint is post war. Key elements to the deception regarding the rounder is this:


2. The information regarding SEM and IR spec data has been falsely derided. This is the technique by which UNKNOWN compounds are identified in industry. The testing firm said with 95% confidence that this was the specfic compound, DER 664 UE, with patent date 1959. They said with 100% certainty, after additional mass spec testing, that this was a siliconated epoxy resin, which was not even tested until 1947.

3. Inaccurate presentation of the history of epoxy use was presented to create the impression that there was still some question that the rounder MIGHT be wartime. Look at the link above, which shows the history of coatings use in one site- siliconated epoxy resins were not used until 1947. Further, the second history of plastics thread clearly states that IG Farben DID NOT USE EPOXIES IN THE WARTIME PERIOD AND NOT IN PAINT. Therefore, even if we take the extreme position that the paint is only epoxy, and not the specific compound DER 664 UE, which is the rounder proponant claim, then the simple presence of epoxy in the paint PROVES IN OF ITSELF THE ROUNDER TO BE POST WAR. The IG Farben "information" was presented inaccurately to give a false impression. Again, the presence of epoxy resin, by the own admission and data of the rounder proponants, shows the piece to be post war!


Beyond the definitive chemical proof, which the testing company (Chem IR from St Louis Mo.) said would stand up in a court of law, there is the multitude of other problems, such as lack of provenance (beyond the fake ones), poor construction, lack of evidence of the piece in wear, different appearance of the beading and paint under SEM, and the presence of post construction manufacture stamps "7" on one of these pieces. One piece is also stamped "800" silver, but is only plated silver, which of course is a violation of the PK. But I am sure that the PK really did not care in the early 1970s, so there were no penalties for this practice.

This is solid evidence and definitive proof to support the contention of Detelev Neimann, who posted the rounder a few months ago as "the fake of the week". Through editing of posts, submission of false and misleading data, as well as false provenance, this fraud has been perpetuated at the expense of the collecting community.

Topic Edited for content.

Welcome to the forum Tom.. Maybe they are mad they didn't get an 'original' rounder KC for $600!
The guys defending them as being good are always the ones that own them.. Reading your findings I'd be interested in seeing what they have that they feel would authenticate their pieces. From reading around there doesn't seem much if any..Its too bad they feel they have to come on here and give us 'warnings' instead of coming on and giving their opinions and findings as to why the rounder KC is an original WW2 produced piece. , G.

Seems to be a another fight from another Forum here.

Locked until i Figure out who is who.

Dave

After checking with Moderators, I have re-opened this topic after removing some attempts to turn it into a brawl.

Dave

Thanks Dave!

I think the above data

1. Rounder Rk showing a marked difference in elemental composition of paint under SEM, with high levels of Si and Ba

2. Differences in the appearance of paint under SEM compared to wartime pieces

3. Differences in the quality of the beading compared to wartime pieces

4. Presence of a post war compound, DER 664 UE with patent date 1959,on the paint of a rounder

5. Presence of epoxy paint on three other examples tested at another facility

6. Historical evidence showing that IG Farben never used epoxy during the war in paint or any other componant and that the first use of such was by an american firm, excluding the possibility that epoxy paints were used in german wartime medals.


7. Historical evidence that siliconated epoxies were only investigated in 1947

8. Lack of provenace or photographic evidence of the rounder in wear


proves the post war issue fairly definitively and confirms the contention of Detlev Neimann that these pieces are in fact post war. It proves as well that scientific analysis through SEM and IR spec, which are used in other areas of collecting including art, are valid means of evaluating componants of medals. The criticism of these techniques was based on incomplete or inaccurate reporting of data or the interpretation of data, which obviously will influence the perception of the facts. The multitude of inconsistencies regarding this piece were ignored or explained with less and less probable scenarios for the piece being wartime. When the facts are presented in the absence of selective reporting of data or innacurate information, the results are self evident.

Tom, seems that you have set a 'price level' for the Rounder!

A few came out of Manion's several years ago at about $1,500.00 but w/ Oaks! Jody who has taken over the business and is attempting to straighten it out is calling a spade a spade!!

He has one listed for $600.00 under the reproduction section.

Another interesting point is that someone probably bought this Cross originally thinking it was made by C.F. Zimmermann (?) as you can still make out the L/52 (or ?) on the loop...which was subsequently ground down.

As we saw the flood of these enter I suspect we'll see a flood exit.....

1

2

3

Yes, I think that the $600 that Drew got is a fair price for the rounder and will probably set the fair market value of the piece. I told Shane Bennet that he should pay what he would pay for a good fake and that is what he came up with. Drew used the cash to buy a sand wedge and add to his college fund.

It is interesting that we have yet another maker mark to the add to the "7" stamp on another rounder, as well as the "800" stamp with a plated piece.

This whole rounder story has many lessons that we should review, rather than bury, such that the lessons do not have be learned again on other pieces by other collectors. We owe it to ourselves to be honest with the data that we report such that accurate conclusions can be made and study of this field advanced, rather than confused -

1. Sometimes expert authors are wrong-
simply because something is stated to be authentic in a book does not make it so

2. If the materials of a piece deviate from dozens of analyzed wartime pieces, it is probably fake
a. the rounder had paint far different from wartime paint on an elemental basis with high levels of Ba and Si
b. the rounder paint appeared visually different- later we learned that the siliconated bis phenolic resins in this paint were reflective of the UV resistant properties of this epoxy. The wartime pieces appeared rough and non-uniform.
c. the compounds found in the paint were post war, precluding a wartime production. By any measurement, 1947 is post war.
d. there were brush strokes in the paint seen on some rounders

3. If the quality of a piece examined in detail is well below that of wartime pieces, it is probably fake.

a. the beading was shallow
b. the beading appeared to have a ridged injection cast molding appearance under high mag on SEM
c. there was a "77' in the frame of one rounder analyzed (production date??!!)
e. the rings appear to be soldered on, rather than integral to the frame
f. there was no authentic wear on the frames or rings

4. If there is no solid provenance or photos of the piece in wear, be suspicious.

5. There should be references noted for production material claims in order to eliminate confusion regarding dates of production.


Again, this was a great experience that has benefitted the collector community by not only proving that the rounder is fake, but showing how the rounder came to be known as "real". It will be difficult for those that have promoted this particular fake to do so with another piece without a great deal of suspicion being cast on the motives.

My first impression on the loop is that it was a ground down '65'?

It does look like a "65". Interesting as well is how the ring looks relative to the frame. It appears as though the ring is welded and not integral to the frame. This feature has been noted on other rounders as well.

Could be right Roy! The pics present better (here) than on Jodi's site. No matter though what the stamp was/is as it's probably a replacement for the Oaks that likely came w/ the Cross initially

Roy, Dave-

What do you think of the ring on the piece above? It looks to me that it is not intergral to the frame. One of the many structural problems that can seen with this piece.

Before the I received the IR spec information and the history of the use of epoxy (the accurate one), I found it shocking that anyone who had handled an authentic RK could possibly think that this piece was real. The many inconsistencies in appearance and SEM data would certainly cause a cautious collector to pause, but just the outright poor quality of construction and appearance compared to a real cross is marked. It really calls to question the comparitive observational skills of those who strongly felt that this was a wartime piece. Having handled the current latvian fake RK, I can say that the quality of construction is better than a rounder, yet that has been dismissed easily as a fake.

I agree it does not look integral, nor did the '7' I personally inspected. I'm afraid I also have to agree that I was not impressed with the quality.
R

Thanks Roy-

That is the one of the shocking things about this whole rounder issue. The "experts" who were promoting that piece had reportedly handled many wartime RKs, yet were "decieved" by the rounder, which is inferior in quality to the latvian fakes ciculating now. This should have been an easy call for anyone who has handled a few RKs, as the difference in quality is marked. I can see how someone who did not have another RK with which to compare might have been fooled, but otherwise it begs to question the observational skills of those promoting this piece and one wonders if they would be able to identify another fake when they appear.

Despite the poor quality and hard scientific evidence showing modern compounds on the piece,some of the proponants attempted to produce a fake provenance story and present altered data in an attempt to salvage this piece!

It is another example again of EVALUATE THE PIECE, NOT THE STORY.

OK this is a good topic with alot of good info, I have edited out what I feel is slander against two individuals. I'm not taking sides and I have not earased any other info, all I can say is keep personal opinions off and please post relivent information on the item of discussion. Keep it clean and friendly no personal attacks please.

Thank You
Fritziii

Thanks-

The whole topic is an interesting page in miliaria collecting, not only how the investigation of the rounder unfolded, but how it became to be precieved as a period piece and the efforts that were made to convince others of this mistake. Again, I think it is a lesson that we should not forget, as I am sure it will happen again with another piece.

The paint issue was really interesting, not only from a chemical composition standpoint, but from the gross appearance of the paint. SImply looking at the paint would suggest that something was awry, as the paint appeared more fine than the non-uniform appearance of period pieces. THis is shown below. But again, with the mulitude of other inconsistencies, this was ignored by those who had an emotional stake in believing that the piece was real.

sorry- double post

Salient further to the discussion is this-

"In 1939, the company IG Farben filed for a patent for epoxy, however this was not available to the commercial market until a firm in the US released this four years later"


The simple fact that IG Farben had applied for a patent, but had never used it for chemical coatings in paint, shows that this compound was never used for german awards in world war two. Yet the presentation that IG Farben had patented a form of epoxy (not the siliconted bisphenolic type seen on the rounder, which was investigated in 1947) led some to conclude that perhaps epoxy COULD have appeared on a wartime piece. It is the presentation of incomplete information, such as this, that would lead one to believe that the presence of epoxy (any epoxy) would be acceptable on a wartime piece. It is only with the complete facts that we come to understand that the presence of epoxy definitively determines this piece to be post war. The specific presence of a SILICONATED epoxy dates this piece much later, in that these general compounds were investigated in 1947, but were not used extensively in commercial coatings (beside marine finishes) unitl the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is odd that one rounder actually has a "77" inscribed in the frame, which may lead us closer to a production time frame for the rounder. By the paint, it must be later than the late 1960s, but the specific production date cannot be determined. It is ironic that the late 1970s and early 1980s was when several collectors recall this piece appearing in shows, paired with fake oaks.

Well, the $600 value may have been premature!!

The Cross afterall didn't sell even though it was well 'advertised'.

I hope the trend continues and those who were stung for $5K to $9.2K can get their $$$ back or file the appropiate actions

One interesting observation: When a dealer sells something, that later turns out belong to a previously unidentified line of fakes (due to sleuth work executed years after the sale), I guess he's obligated to make refunds if he has a lifetime guarantee of authenticity. This certainly happened to me, with a non-magnetic RK with the flaws. When I sold the piece over 5 years ago, there was no problem with such a piece. I bought it based upon the professional vetting of many friends, and resold it. Well, I had the privilage of buying it back just last year! Moral of the story: when you buy from a good dealer, and pay a bit more for your items than you normally might, you do get the piece of mind that if the science of collecting progresses to a level where previously unidentified fakes are identified, you are safe!

Craig, a stand up way to do business

I have the greatest respect for those who stand behind the S&L Crosses and realize today what is period and not.The 'stories' were ever changing...early war, no late war, no material shortage among many other excuses. So, one could easly get confused...bottom line (you) stood behind the item.

The "Rounder" however, is a different beast and was introduced to deceive....selling at 60% of the going rate for Knight's Crosses! This time however, the explanations were, look at pictures...see the rounded inner corners (as seen in books and grainy war time pictures), feel the weight, look at the height of the Swaz, all rather a 'grouping' of discriptors we associated with war time Crosses.

Those who 'fronted' these should be the ones getting stung now for refunds!

Tom,
Excellent research-thorough and well reasoned report.
Thanks for posting.

I note that in other areas of this site there's concern about participation, discussion and just plain loss of interest.....

Here is a 'poster child' to demonstrate just those observations!!!

The greatest en-mass FRAUD in the last few years just slowly goes away, why?

Are folks afraid to say something? Afraid to get the 'boot' as they say?

Collectors should be up in arms about this,but it's very quiet.

Who bought these Crosses based on the pictures in books, stories of family ownership, natural wear and even 'ground dug'!!!?

I'd be absolutely red faced and demanding $$$ back...afterall, these sold for $1,500.00 to $9,200.00 based on the assertions of a few.

One author in particular is very silent...why?

I think this has not had an effect on most collectors because an RK is out of reach for most of us. It is hard to justify that expense when we can buy so much more with our money. An RK would be a lifetime find for me but I would never buy one for what these are retailing for. By percentage of TR collectors, I would say that RK owners are a very small minority. Anyone who has been in this hobby for awhile realizes that high end items are the most likely to be faked. The average collector avoids these unless he finds one cheap from a veteran or is given one by a relative. Remember, dealers are in business to make money. Regards, Duane