Hi guys, let me please summarize some points (I don't go on personal attacks, because they worth nothing):
we have here guys that studied these rings for years and never noticed - the distance between leaves and band edges are different, - that mixed up die stricking with die pressing, - that mixed up bijouterie production with jewelry production, - that never shared a single evidence, - that invented some totally absurd production methods (of course not present in period documents like the ?multiple dies of Gahr?!!!!), - and that never read any period magazine.
I think If we want to talk about a period production the first thing we should do is to study period documents and understand the production methods.
So, for those believing jewelry was die struck, can you show us period documents talking about this process? If this process is not present, that is for sure a bad news for you...
Otherwise we have tens of articles talking about casting methods (several and different). I can report some words from one talking about casting of rings that litterary says: "with impeccabe results". That is for sure disturbing for die stricking supporters to know the germans called ?impeccable? something... it means ?perfect?.
Anyway I think, too bad, that they never post any article or anything period related to the die stricking production... And this means they haven't any period document.
Furthermore there are tons of questions die stricking supporters cannot answer, since they are totally uncompatible with that kind of production preocess. Here are some:
1) Why there's no one '30 style ring without hand finish? But all, ALL, '30 style rings show so much hand work?!? Anyway you can find them in almost all the '40 style too, see pictures. So, why do rings show hand finish (scooping marks, file marks...) if they were die struck? A die struck item no need so much hand work after it was struck. This is totally uncompatible.
