I don�t disagree that hand (or machine) engraving could produce a greater level of detail. But I�m afraid that I�m not quite following some of the fine points of the discussion correctly. Rather than asking questions without a reference point. I�m posting an image borrowed from a GDC discussion of SS chain links. (I know that steel is not the same as silver being a much softer metal. But the underlying principles of commercial metal stamping operations are the same.)
The SS 'Kulturzeichen' on the �Type II� link to the left is obviously hand stamped - with one end of the marking making a deeper penetration into the metal than the other end. And we know from experience that the markings are not at the same place, and are often at angles, varying from specimen to specimen.
The �Type I� to the right shows the 'Kulturzeichen' (insofar as depth is concerned) evenly stamped at all four corners. I think that it is a reasonable assumption that the Kulturzeichen itself was relief cut (positive image) onto the polished face of the die bottom. So that the marking was automatically embossed into the bottom of the link as a part of a mechanical stamping process. And is more or less in the same place from one link to another.
Is it being argued that the outward appearance of the Gahr marking(s) as seen is the result of: A broken down (damaged) metal stamp or stamps? Either an intact or defective casting mold? The result of natural wear and tear from use, or corrosion? Or is it something else that I�ve missed entirely? I�m not trying to be adversarial. I�m just not getting the main thrust of some of the statements that were made. FP
