I will be taking a look at Winchell's 1910 examination of the stone later in this thread, but I would like to begin at the beginning, that is, with the first people who examined the stone:

"The inscription presented a very ancient and weathered appearance" -Nils Flaten (affidavit, Blegen appendix 7)

"Upon washing off the surface dirt, the inscription presented a weathered appearance, which to me appeared just as old as the untouchedparts of the stone" - Olof Ohman (affidavit, Blegen appendix 7)

"The inscription as seen by us presented an ancient and weathered appearance, similar to the uninscribed parts of the stone" - Roald Bentson and Samuel Olson (affidavit, Blegen, appendix 7)

These were among the first men to actually see the stone, previous to its being presented in Kensington, and (at least in the first two instances) previous to the runes having been scraped out by any instrument, such as a nail, to make them clearer. It should be noted that none of them were actually looking for any specific sign of weathering, but that this was merely their general impression.

>From here we go to Prof. Curme at Northwestern University, where the stone was sent in February of 1999. This is the first 'professional' man to examine the stone. His thoughts as to the aging of the stone are reflected in the interview given to a Chicago paper:

"Wherever the characters of the inscription have not been disturbed, they have precisely the same color as the general surface of the stone. But as Professor Curme pointed out, it can be plainly seen, that most of the letters have been scratched over with a sharp instrument after the stone was unearthed. The letters of the inscription were evidently carved with a sharp instrument, for they are clearcut and distinct in outline. But the fact that the upper edge of the incised lines is rough and rounded as a result of the disintegration of the stone. while the bottom of the scratched incisions is sharp and clear shows plainly that many years must have elapsed since the inscription was cut. In other words, the external appearance of the Kensington rune stone, so far from speaking against it, is such that the inscription may well be six hundred years old." -Skaninaven, Chicago, May 3, 1899.

It may be pointed out here that this is not a direct quote from Curme, and may even have been subject to some exaggeration by the newsman. I have not heard of any rebutting statement by Curme, however, and if we allow this article to stand as is, it shows that there was a) a full patina on the stone, including the inscription (having precisely the same color as the rest of the stone), and
b) The inscription was noted as being weathered, having a roundness on the upper edges due to the 'disintegration of the stone'. It is unclear at this point how much weathering must have occurred to create this roundness.

Finally, we have one more witness from within the first six months of the finding of the stone, one John F. Steward, a photographer and amateur geologist who took and sent off photographs of the KRS to Prof Wimmer in Denmark. In an accompanying letter, Steward writes:

"The stone is a Trap boulder, split by natural causes, such as are plentiful in those regions. The glacial marks can be seen on the surface of the boulder. The inscriptions are on the two cleavage surfaces of the stone, which have received no dressing. They are cut as with a 'diamond pointed' tool. The grooves show no more newness than the natural surfaces of the rock; on the contrary all show age. The stone may have been cut by some smart Scandinavian traveler, as one connected with the Fur Companies, early in this century, in an effort to establish the claims of the Norsemen to have been first to explore this country. It is possible, of course that, as early as the date found on the stone, the Norsemen di make efforts in the direction of voyages of discovery." -John F. Steward, October 15, 1899 (Blegen, appendix 6)

Again, the witness noted that the inscription showed the same age as the rest of the stone. Further his opinion was that it may have been carved 'early in this century' but does not suggest any closer time frame than that (no settler's hoax). This seems to provide a fairly clear indication that at the time of its discovery, the stone was already quite weathered. As Winchell points out , such weathering would not have been possible once the stone was buried in the soil (more in a later post). The stone then must have been upright for a considerable time prior to its being entangled in the tree roots, and again points to a time long before the area was settled.

Curiously, Steward suggests that it may have been carved by a Swedish fur trader, though the inscription must have been done long before the Swedish cultural upsurge that so many detractors talk about - and long before any interest in settling the area was shown by the Swedes. This seems to be quite a dominant 'red herring' (red lutefisk..?) for that time and place.