As usual, nothing new. Many questions, with evidences are posted in this thread, and no one answer from die striking supporters. Of course, ignore everything is not the best way to be believable, anyway you can go on with the head under the sand...
Is under everyone's eyes that they have nothing to say, they simply can't answer in a logic way point by point. And we are not talking about microscopic pictures, we are simply talking about evidences (like distance of leaves-ring edge, hand workings,...) no one has ever pointed out since now. This discussion shows elements NO ONE has ever investigate before. And instead try to understand why, you simply write some non senses. But that's a well known behaviour.
It is clear you don't want talk on ring, simply keep your eyes closed and go on. If you really wanted to discuss this matter, then you should have posted documented answers as I did.
Let me say one think: period sources confirm rings were mostly cast - comparisons show differences totally uncompatible with die stricking theory - hand working is uncompatible with die stricking theory - casting flaws are uncompatible with die stricking theory.
Furthermore: you NEVER, NEVER posted ANY: evidence, period source (I repeat: period sources DON'T show die striking/pressing but almost only CASTING production processes for jewelry and bijouterie).
Below you can clearly see the differences between an assumption of revealed truth (without any document, reference, proof and logic...) and what really period documents say. Be smart guys, if you don't want to live with the head under the sand, open up your eyes!
