Hello, TO ALL those casting-theory followers (I too don't go on personal attacks, because they worth nothing). I can tell you that you are -unfortunately- on the wrong way. The wrong way especially because you do open gates for fakes which are always cast as no other process than casting can produce good (but still no perfect) fakes (which in a funny way is itself a proof for that the rings are die struck).
Only same few points: You all still do compare well worn rings with more or less wearing and time traces, even ground dug and even ugly and without skills restaurated, against each other. You all still ignore the obvious and most logicical needs of the manufacturer and the rings itself. You all still don t understand the fundamental jewellry manufacturing processes. You all still don t see and compare the most obvious analogies and disparities. You all still can t and don t understand the myths and thoughts of the era the original rings have been manufactured.
You can take it or leave it and I in no way want to support any author in writing a crude theory book and make money with my personal knowledge by prooving the facts each of us could reveal by doing CAREFULLY the NECESSARY HOMEWORK (each collector of items should do their own homework, it is fundamental to differ FAKES from ORIGINALS and CAST honor-death-head-rings are ALWAYS FAKES).
A very nice proof for totally misunderstanding of a manufacturing process is eg. concerning the description of CIT. -created a typical groove under the Sig rune?.. In my opinion, an engraver who repaired a matrix (probably bronze) had cut his tool too deep . It would be very difficult to create a completely new matrix- CIT END. The really obvioulsly misunderstanding is the mixture of negative and positive forms. The GROOVE in the RING indeed is a BAR in the FORM which could have been EASILY removed eg on a bronze form - IF it would not have been in a special steel hardened die struck form(!).
I will take only one of the fundamental ignorance you beat like a death horse and which shows me the totally lack of fundamental knowledge on jewellery generally and death-head-rings in special, by giving a simple hint (yes I still do no proof although I could, make your homework, find it out yourself!): CIT. -the distance between leaves and band edges are different (in die struck rings it is impossible- CIT END. Where is the superfluous material by a ring after the die struck process??? ? (which is, if you know and understand, a proof for that the rings are die struck in itself).
Imho the somehow aggressive form of detailed developing and defending the -casting theory- against obvious facts serve two directions: The making money with -the new theory- and finally making money with fakes that suddenly became originals due to the settlement of the crude casting theory.
Furtunately the crude theory obviously is not able to gain ground between SERIOUS collectors and experts, that is what I am told by what is going on behind the curtains. But the danger is that unexperienced collectors will loose a lot of money (death head rings are not among the cheap collector items) and truly original/period rings will loose worth because of an insecured mass of collectors. All this said this is my only fact comment here because I did not write for the matter of discussion, as said, I don t want to give away knowledge on this matter for free. Hopefully you take it (and understand it) or leave it.
Regards,
wotan, gd.c-b#105
"Never look for sqare eggs" as a late owner of an original FHH-dagger used to say.
