Hi guys, here something I think we all could find interesting.

Some time ago I did a thread about the analysys of the SS-Totenkopfring:
TK ring microanalysys

Now, after some more months, I have to say that I must change some parts of that research since I checked better the rings and I found they were not die struck, but cast.
At the beginning I focused mainly on some sharp details, but after checking the whole ring signs are unquestionable. Sharps details in the recesses of the ring are found only when there were an hand finish. All the areas that in a die struck piece should be sharp and smooth, in TK rings are not.

I think pictures will explain much more better than words what I mean.

And considering they were cast, not it is possible to explain why there are sometimes air bubbles on the band, and why the eyes sockets of the skull show often peeling.
In this case the circle is closed and all perfectly matches.

does' this mean that everything we have been told about these things is wrong?

Antonio,,, Interesting... Well I'm not a big follower of these rings. BUT. I'll give some common sense evidence..
1st, not sure if published but Don has said many years ago the skulls were cast,,then later soldered on the ring..

OK my understanding of 'Lost Wax', 'Investment Casting' etc. could be pressure induced or done centrifugal or simple pour..
I had a couple ideas about how the ring was made but no one seemed to interested at the time years ago when I mentioned the process.. BUT, lets stay with cast VS pressed.

So years ago when everyone was debating about this I had my friend bring authentic HR to NYCs diamond district. A famous area for more than 100 years where the Jewelers run the block and plenty of deals made! I showed an old timer [who has since passed on] who was alive during WW2 and has been in the jewelry business more than 50 years at the time. I showed him a 2nd pattern [late] HR.
He look at it for a minuet and asked,,,'How many were made? or is this it?' At the time I think I gave him a very brief history of the ring, and so many made each years etc. etc. His finding to me were:

Is this a perfect ring? My answer is no,it has defects etc. He picked up a ring from his shelf and said , 'is this a perfect ring?' My answer was,,yes. It was a beauty of a ring and flawless. He was really surprised when I told him how important the ring was that it continued to have the faults. He said its because they stayed with how that die was cut.

He said thats because the base of casting jewelry is wax. Hard waxes, soft waxes, etc. When a ring is carved from wax every imperfection will come out on the finished ring. Same with a ring made from a die.. The big difference is,,,
- with a die you have one. That one makes working dies and all the rings will be the same. All have the same faults, imperfections etc.

With a cast ring it too will come out with all the faults. But only a few. By the next batch that big die flaw on the Sieg rune would not be there. Same as with any other flaw.. With a die your stuck with it. The working die breaks or wears and another is made from the 'Mother die' and again you will have all the same faults..

Unless Firma Gahr made all their rings from one big day of casting the flaws, faults wouldn't be there period. We know he didn't make them all at one time..

With any cast ring then , now , whenever, It would be only the first run that would have the faults. AND even then it would be because of lazyness. I say that because when the wax model comes out a flaw could be fixed in a few seconds and then wax soldered to its tree for the burnout. That means every ring would have to be touched. Too much time,,SO they just wait to the next batch and then its repaired...

What I'm saying is and all this boils down to IF cast,,,we would only see the flaws/faults in the first batch. A flaw in a 1941 isn't going to be in the 42,43,44 rings.

Maybe Hapur will see this and weigh in,,,or we'll get some other opinions.. I have a theory but its only a theory,,we'll wait a bit and then I'll explain.., Thanks,G.

I believe the answer is yes.
Look for example this ring with totally erased inside engraving: a clear air bubble is visible in the band.



Gaspare, I can confirm the fact that almost each ring, was finished by hands. Especially the '30 style rings.

Furthermore on the top of the ring there are some recesses areas that are orizzontal, and there's no way to do them with a die struck process.
I spent hours trying to understand, but there's no other possibilities IMO.
Private purchased rings, skull rings for example, are much more better in details, and they don't show all the casting signs that are visible in TK rings.

Look at the attached pictures, the second shows recesses on the thickness of the ring.

thats because private purchase rings are die pressed. I own a few period working dies. Have seen many others..

IF the HR was cast why does the big 'die flaw' remain on the Sig runen? Why wouldn't it be quickly repaired in the next batch of cast rings... We are missing something all of us.


Have you heard of a 'Pressed Penny'? It is a tourist type of trinket... Anyone here hear of them or have had one?

this for me stops it being a cast ring,,or 'fully' cast ring..... IF, if this was a full cast ring this 'flaw.fault would only appear on the first year of the 2nd pattern rings. ALL rings afterward [41,42,43,44] would have been repaired,,no flaw.

I believed we've always been missing something about the HR..

So my question still stands.. Does anyone know or have a pressed penny trinket?

One pressed penny coming right up!

Mike,,thanks so much! Whats really cool is usually the workings with the die is exposed and you can see how this happens.. Could it be some sort of design matrix is what makes the HR?!?.
It would come out semi circular. The engraving could be done,,closed and skull soldered on and a bit of hand finishing.

All methods need to be discussed. Simply saying they are cast isn't good enough. And until some one can explain why the 'die flaw' is on all year HRs we have still have a manufacture problem,,,as in How they are exactly made!....

this simple old device makes 4 different designs.. Through gears, dies and a crank handle. It can not only squeeze and deform a penny [coin] it puts a design like the example Mike shows. Some can be rather complicated and very well detailed..

So, there is a die in there, gears and the crank handle. With a few simple turns of the crank the penny comes out with its design on it and a slight bend to it. It would be rather simple to cut a HR design die and incorporate it in the machine.. Maybe some combination of casting and this? Maybe we don't have a clue!

any other ideas out there??

Evidence is not questionable in this case. And it is very clear they were cast. Nor pressed, nor die struck. Cast.
The only very detailed and sharp areas are those hand finished, and almost each ring (especially '30 style) has some.
We shouldn't complicate what is clear and no need, IMO, strange combos of production processes.

No one will ever answer your question, but you can do the same question for tens of ugly pieces made during the Reich. For example the Bandenkampfabzeichen, one of the most rare badge is for sure the worst ever made.

Furthermore many rings show hand made details that are not what we would expect to see in a such kind of ring (see picture below for example). But our feelings are only "our", and I'm quite sure that nobody during the Reich noticed about the flaws we are talking about here.
Gahr did thousands rings every year, it means in the months prior to delivery dates they made tens each day.

The antipartisan badge? It is a crazy looking thing, but they had some creative ideas I guess- CCC also an interesting piece, lots going on there. If only we could go back in time and get all the answers!

OMG, once again "cast".... We are long over 1st of April!
Please, can you explain me the seam behind the death head and the seperate death head??? If they were (cheaply) cast this all would not ne necessary. Cast a series of rings in each size, including the death head, and voila.
These original TK honor rings never have been cast.

The rough silver bars for sure have been cast, prior to the stamping process, therefore any bubbles can be included.

Regards,

hi members
good afternoon yes you are right again wotan OMG cast some people just love to beat a dead horse perhaps we can get some old dna from dead gahr factory workers to answer these tough questions that i think is piddly dunk . hey guys how about just sit back put away your strong magnification scopes and enjoy the few years we have left in this great hobby gaspare has been doing a fantastic job trying to hold our great ring forum together with out this above presure oh yes everybody has an opinion including my butt i think this topic has run its course and thanks so much woton for your great opinion i agree fully hope every body else agrees have a great day and god bless all andy militarynut

Andy
I agree. You can 'What if" and worry about something so much it will make you sick. I think for the most part not all of us are going to be sitting around with high poser magnifiers or trying to account for every nick and line on a ring. Enjoy life and your collection while you can! Life is too short.
Ron

Seam is the easiest thing to explain, and the reason is the same of what you think: resize a ring.
What you write is wrong, since the mold was only 1, and it would be a waste of money to make tens of different molds for the different sizes, it is easier make 1 only and resize the ring.
Skull is cast too.
And costs are almost the same: 1 mold and nothing more (2 if we include the skull).

If they were never being cast can you explain why there's no one single runic panel or recess in every TK ring that has no pressure signs? Die struck is a pressure process, vertical (and relief) areas MUST be straight, no questions about.
Can you explain why all the rings show casting signs everywhere? Look at the 4 pictures I posted (I have tens but if you know the difference between a die struck and a cast piece, you would have no doubt simply with one look at the 4 I posted): it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE make rings like those with a stamping process.
Can you explain why there are orizontal recesses? How can you obtain them with a stamping process?!?

I have nothing to earn from this thread, just share what I photographed. Pictures I posted are unquestionable, they talk by themselves and you simply can't explain them with another unquestionable proof as I did. If you don't trust your eyes that's fine for me.
But please, show us a single evidence that explain why these rings are struck an not cast.

PS: look at the picture below: the metal shows bubblings in exactly the same way in an original and in a cast fake too. Just the cast fake has lost a little bit of details.

You can find this bubblings in ALL the rings.
This is in a '30 style ring.
How can be ever die struck?!?!?
Same area of 2 rings shows the same macro details and is completely different in micro details: bubblings is different from ring to ring (that's normal for casting pieces).

I repeat: I win nothing thinking they are cast. No one wins nothing. I only find interesing to find real unquestionable proofs, and until today no one ever showed a single one, only theories. Here there are tens of proofs.


PS: can't understand why pictures change size when attached here...

* Antonio,, I applaud your work and efforts! There is something we are all missing so lets all take it slow a bit..

PLEASE have a look at this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting

It shows all the steps for lost wax cast / investment casting... So first things first,,, Lets make sure we are all talking about the same thing..

*Antonio , by looking at this site are you saying this is how the HR was made?

Man,, this is all some deep stuff... I?m gonna be honest and say- I cant really tell what I?m supposed to even be looking at in most of these pics! The magnification is so high, you could tell me it?s proof of life on mars and I?d say sure, but I?m no scientist.. anyone else have this problem?? Antonio, I also totally applaud your efforts here- but for me, we need to dumb this down a little... we don?t look in the microscope as intently or as often (if at all) as you do.. heck, you could have posted that last photo with the caption- ?January 1977- cover of High Times magazine- Maui Wowee!? And i would have believed that... sorry for sounding like an ignorant fool, and again- much respect to the work you have done!! But, I need a little help on these pics..., thanks!

Ok, you are right, maybe I didn't exaplain very well.

Since it is a little bit complicated to explain everythng in english, I try to let the pictures talk for me.

Yes, I think these rings were cast, with a negative mold. But lost wax was not the only casting method existing.

Casting signs are present in all the rings. For example the sharp edges of the die struck pieces are not present in these rings.
See picture below, where you can see a comparison between a rune in a TK ring and a edge of a "S" in a SS long service medal.

Other die struck items, this time in zinc. Zinc is not similar for comparisons, because its behaviour it totally different, anyway even with zinc die struck pieces the edges are straight and dont's show rounded or recessed parts.

If you take an original, and made a mold with it, and prepare a cast fake, the reaction of the base metal is the same.
If you compare the same recessed areas of an original and of a cast fake, you'll see there's no difference in the base metal. This means that the originals were casted too.

And of course the metal peeling of the skull is an unquestionable proof that they were cast.

Lets keep the skulls out because as mentioned Don has already said they were cast and I believe there is someone that has a couple period unused skulls..


I wish I had a bigger notebook on these rings as I've never taken a very big interest in them. Years ago SO many 'experts' were wrong about what they were saying I just let them be..



OK, Die pressed: Silver bar stock gets locked in press. Die gets locked in press.. Press a button, or a crank,,and the ring is done. A bit of hand finish and done,,almost as long as it takes to read this!!

Cast?? IF anyone took a look at the link at lost wax / investment cast your looking at 5 times the amount of time. Wasted material, and a lot of hand finishing and troubles..Just take a few min and look at that link!!

I do disagree on one thing. Maybe to the normal person the rings look didn't matter. But for Himmler and the SS men getting them,,it mattered how they look. Todays rings are perfect. Perfect because after that first run anything looking bad was repaired..
That big gouge flaw on the left Sig rune is a problem for me... Why would that be there? For me its there because thats a mark from a die cutting tool. And,,once its there , its there.

Also, the inside finish and engraving. It just looks its from a pressed piece of bullion billet. That much engraving you'd hit much more faults. Yes even on a pressed piece you could hit a bubble/fault and when polished it gets worse but you'd see much more with the amount of engraving in a HR..

With what your seeing some sort of method has to be offered. It wasn't lazer scanned, CAD plans, water jet, or whatever,,,it was the 1930s/1940s... What would the method of manufacture be??

At that period it was just ring, no one did look on this thru microscope.

We have been there already. We went thru all this 10 years ago. Look old topics.
Depth of TK is too deep for this process. I showed my period giant rolling mill, even that machine can not make that depth.

Cast awards of 3reich are made in zinc based alloys, not silver. That is completely diferent story, diferent casting temps, diferent machines etc. For example the Bandenkampfabzeichen is made on pressure injection machine, machines like that does not exist for silver casting even today. Pressure injection machine capabilities stops at aluminum. And those are big, complicated machines for big amounts of pieces made.

exactly, at the begining there have to be silver bar for pressing, and only way to get it is casting, then rolling to necessary thickness. And sure there is possible small pore from air bubble.

WRONG

I used to make cheap TK rings by casting for some wholesellers too. Since there was need for different sizes I had 10 "rubbers" (rubber molds) for diferent sizes. I spent one day making 10 diferent size models, one day mor making rubbers and saved weeks on labor to resize rings. Each rubber mold costs less than $10.

I've made thousands TK rings cast and die struck. Also hand engraved them a lot. Since I started to make notes approx in 2005 I've made little over 10 000 rings. So as engraver I will say that no way anybody would engrave such amonts of rings in round (finished) ring. It simply does not make sense. Next thing is quality/structure of metal for engraving. Cast metal ALWAYS is porous and often makes trouble with engraving.

Bottomline.

Silver casting at that time in Germany was not method of production of jewelry.
Look at other Otto Gahrs firm products - there are only die struck or hand made from scratch things.

If the skull is cast why not the ring? Following the "logic" of the die struck supporters it is easier to make a die for the skull too.





Die pressed CAN'T do inclined recesses or orizontal recesses. No questions about. Furthermore edges and recessed areas are all irregular, no one is straight as should be if pressed.


Lost wax was not the oly casting method.


Maybe whas immler himself to order the rings were made from melting silver. It could have more meanings for example in his esoteric new religion... Who knows?

That die flaw is recessed in rings and in relief in the mold, for casting or pressing is the same. It means they could have removed it with small files or small chisels.



I've done cast rings and the inside is perfectly matching with originals.


Mold, cast, resize, engraved, skull attached and... delivered!
I think will never know for sure the exact way, but finding traces of wax on almost the rings I've seen, they could be a trace... Who knows?

Name at least one more, please.

Please Hapur, why do you say that?
You can obtain very good cast rings and engrave them without any problem.
Even the cheaper way to make a copy can reach good results.

Anyway we need proofs, here proofs led us in one direction only: they were cast. It is not me, it is not a theory, it is the metal that speaks by itself. Rings tell us how they were made, not us to them. I've done nice copies trying various ways, and if you don't look at them with big magnifier or microscope, you don't see they are copies. Engraving is the minor problem if you really want to copy those rings.
Until today I read only theories and words, and saw NO ONLY single evidence that TK rings were pressed or die struck. The reason is very simple: because they weren't.

Proofs pro stamping: 0

Proofs pro casting:
1) Base metal is matching with cast copies
2) edges are all irregular
3) no pressure signs
4) casting signs everywhere.
5) EACH RING shows different cast signs, no one is perfectly matching with another.
These proofs are irrefutable.

6) skulls are cast too.

PS: this is the worst TK ring copy I've done. And it actually is one of the best copies I've seen around.

Hello Antonio Scapini, first I will hold on that you have done a lot for the collectorship. I see the efforts and the constant look for details. Writing high quality books, like you habe done has to be acknowledged, very few collectors are able to do this. And -naturally- each collector is permitted to have his own opinion about a fact, an item or so.
I have studied those honor rings for decades, do own several and have owned some more. I never did study the hrs with such a high magnification you do because I cannot find out anything with these high magnification and these high magnification pics. 7 or 10 times magnification watchmakers loups are fine for me.
I have had the luck to own and study an unworn ring which did come with the ORIGINAL PAPER BAG from GAHR (several information about the bestowed person have been written on this certain bag) and the ORIGINAL RING WRAPPING PAPER. On such a ring I could find no questionable inclined recesses or orizontal recesses. Imho these recesses do appear already with the hand enhancing and the first wear.
I have had the luck to own and study a nearly unworn ring with a stamping/pressing/rolling error. There you could see where the stamp (let me say so for all these processes, I do not know the different names as English is also not my motherlanguage) has torn out a piece of silver. Form and nature of this error clearly has shown (to me) that the ring has been pressed/stamped/rolled - but not cast.
Sorry, I have no pics but I know what I have seen. I too have nothing to earn from this thread but it is necessary to find the truth about the manufacturing process as it is important to isolate the fakes (how good they are) from the originals.
Btw I am also always a protectionist for the (true) version that the ring first had been bent and soldered together bevore the engraving. Collectors who claim that the rings have been engravedon the "bar" never have studied the engraving and never have spoken to old german hand engravers. If you study the engravings on period rings you see that these engravings have all sure signs of the "closed ring engraving theory".
I am sorry that I cannot got more into details because of my very limited knowledge on the technical expresses in english and at least, as said already each collector is permitted to have his own opinion. Although, if it is a wrong opinion, the certain collector is always in danger to catch a fake and to support, naturally unwillingly(!!!), fakers...
Just my 2 cts from a simple collector who also wants to enjoy the original objects of collecting.
Regards,

About the engraving Hapur, I can make it appear new, old, scratched, worn, very worn, with patina, without patina....
Just invest some money, find the right jewellers and engravers and everything is possible.

Again: let the pictures talk themselves. If we want discuss about theories without any foundation we will not move of a single step. If we want to discuss the real evidences maybe we can go on.
I think I showed many here, and no one can confute them with other proofs. Of course we can close our eyes and, as a blind, go on.

I thought me too these rings were die struck, but everything is screaming the contrary and I found NO ONLY ONE proof to support what I thought.

BTW: just a couple of shots of a worn engraving on a cast fake ring.

So Hapur, without seeing the base metal, only with a 7-10 magnifier, you think you saw the details?
Why don't you explain to me the meaning of the pictures I posted and how can the metal of ALL the TK rings to react those ways? Bubblings, casting signs, irregular edges...

Exaplain especially the pint number 5:

Send me one of your pressed rings and I will show you the difference between a pressed and a cast ring!

Let me expain: I posted pictures magnified until 700 times,and if you look at the 900 more magnification you laugh looking at the casting signs you see in the base metal. In ALL the rings. '30 or '40.

Anyway I repeat, here are solid evidences, I thought it was so clear that makes you amazed as I was. I was mistaken. Abstract words and old stories worth much more that factual scientific evidences.
That's fine for me.

hi, i'm a little confused. I've been following your thread on waf in which you condem honer rings for being cast, now you say that good honer rings are cast. which is correct ?. mike

I too have no investment in whether its cast or pressed. Tell you guys one thing,,,if proven they're cast,,they're not going to worth a dime,,but first things first:

what needs to be done is a little experimentation. But first:

1. The flaw on the sig rune is big. Not even a magnifying glass is needed. You can see it while its being worn! SO, if cast and so easy to fix why wasn't it? The thinking is because its on the die and once there it stays there.

2, we shouldn't get hung up on open or closed engraving. It's been proven that its possible that it could have been done either way ....

3. for those that say there are other ways of manufacture the question has been asked a couple times,,what are the other ways?

- for an experiment I'd like to see a die pressed ring ,,something simple a WestWall or similar. Have a look at 700, then 900 and lets see what can be seen. Antonio,,do you have anything to use?

For my money, I'll take a "die-struck" ring any day.

It's just a better look and better quality, of course this is just my opinion.

Hi Mike, I'm always open to new discoveries. I'm always ready to change my mind when proofs are solid.
In this case the only possible explanation of what we see here is only one: they were cast. In no other way is possible to obtain rings made like these TK rings.

Of course each of us is free to believe what he sees, or believe other stories. I trust only evidences, as I always did. If someone says that these pictures are not interesting since he sees nothing, then I can only suggest to study how metals react being cast or pressed (but it would be enough to look at the picture below to understand everything: original and fake base silver shows air bubblings in the same way, not possible to obtain with a die struck process).
I repeat, until today no one single proof these rings are struck is surfaced, and it is not possible to explain the way they are made if you don't think they are cast.
If someone has better evidences for sure I would be happy to see them.

Anyway the world goes round even if we think that they are die struck, or if we think the SS champagne decals are good, or if we think the earth is flat. Just thought to share here what I found interesting, hoping to see other posting good pictures.
This is a hobby, not a matter of life.

Already answered to this: you can remove it even from a die used on die struck process, with small chisels. It doesn't matter the process, in both processes you can work on the die, those flaws were in relief on the die!
They didn't, who cares now?



The question is not what are the other ways, is to show proofs they weren't cast.
Worst of all no one is answering to my questions, but only with: "the way they were made was dies struck", even if evidences totally led us in another direction. Can't really understand why people doesn't want to watch at the pictures I posted.
Why should they be die struck? If you look at the same recessed area in all the rings you want, the same area will be different for each ring. Did they made more than 5000 dies with micro differences?!? No of course, simply the colding process generated different compactions of the silver.

Can someone show here, one single proof of why we should think these rings were die struck? We believe they are die struck but we don't know why and we don't have any proof.
No words, proofs.

There are 5 points: dismiss them one by one, showing evidences, since no one of them is compatible with a die struck process. Then we will be sure these rings are not cast.

Antonio,,,there is no way to get that big flaw out of the Sig rune on a die unless you did a weld,,which they wouldn't do. Grinding, files etc. would make a bigger mess period!. Now if it was cast it would only appear on the first batch.

For me with several 100 private purchase rings from the 3rd reich and owning tooling it comes down to whats the most common sense way... Train someone for 20 min and they can work a press.
Lostwax/Investment cast is very time consuming. It wastes material and there's lots of mistakes... This wax model would have had to be wax soldered to a tree. Then slip poured in. Then a burn out would be performed. Then the mold gets cracked open and the ring gets cut off from that stem. Then all the hand work.. I just can't imagine Gahrs people going thru that for a simple ring..

So would the HR be cast flat? Would it be cast in the round?


I would really like to see a die pressed ring under extreme magnification. Is there any way you can do that?

I don't normally post here but I was asked to so I'll respond.
I'm in basic agreement with Gaspare as to how these rings were crafted and I'll review some of the pertinent points:

First off the gentleman from Italy is not the only one to propose these rings were cast as C. Gottlieb claimed that in his infamous book published several years ago. And his casting ?theory? was for the most part refuted by others in the hobby.

Let's for the sake of discussion assume they were cast so we have to explain the following:
1.Why do the rings have a sizing seam? Were they all cast large in the round and then cut to size?
2.Why are the skulls cast separately and then attached? Wouldn?t it make more sense to cast them as in integral part of the ring?
3.Given the number of steps required as Gaspare outlined would casting and hand finishing make sense for a relatively high volume item?
4.Again as Gaspare indicated if these were Not made with dies why were the casting flaws never corrected?
5. As far as finish goes, anyone who has handled silver coins which are die struck particularly the collector grades know very well the quality of the finished surface. I for one dispute the assertion that a superior finish can be expected due to casting.
6.Additionally research I and other have done point to the fact that die stamping/casting was the most common method of silver fabrication during the 3rd Reich period.

Perhaps Hapur who makes good copies will tune in here and add additional information.
I always try to keep an open mind but to convince me and probably many others that these were cast is going to require more proof then a bunch of microscope images.
Jim.

Well put Jim.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I saw in medal factories they could chage the original die, and in TR they had the tools to make it. Removing small parts of metal was not hard then and not now, and the big flaw you are referring to is really big; but is big for us, I bet not for them. Again you are focusing in something that is totally useless and IMO it is only our problem, not their.

About the rest: prepare a die in steel (now silicone molds are the most used), put melt silver on it and all is done. No need to complicate what is simple. Ring could have been done flat or round, I tried both and results can be really close between them.
Same time as prepare a steel die for die struck. But we don't focus our attention on flaws, dies, etc etc.

About the question why they were cast is useless to make it, since they could have had tens reasons to do it. We'll never know. Maybe Himmler himself ordered them made that way, Who knows? These are only speculations.

At the moment I haven't any decent one to make some shots, but I'll do with a Krimshield, that is die struck.

thanks very much for the time and effort you are putting in to this thread, very interesting. mike

hi members
omg now we have to listen closely to more posts from mr. scapini on how when and where these ss honor rings were made i think i can try and sum it all up i remember back when reichsfuhrer heinrich himmler blasted his gahr factory ss honor ring secret plans along with a black box full of ss honor rings in the side of the mountain near his castle im sure robin lumbson can tell us more perhaps he knows where and which side of the mountain was it left or right side holly cow gaspare we all have our opinions and mr. scarpini has his opinion which most of us dont agree with his opinion so far i believe he is posting on deaf ears and he can magnifi what ever he wants it still doesnt change anything i believe we all could care less i honestly believe he is waisting his time here trying to convince us sorry mr scapini pick up the marbles you win o here to mr jim m thank you for your opinion and i have to agree hope your doing well god bless all andy militarynut

+1
I really don't care how they are made. I like them for the history and the history of the personalities. Instead of seeing endless super magnified images of nicks, scrapes, scaling and etc I really would like to see good HRs. I wasn't going to post again, but regardless what folks say about GDC, we have one of the best HR ring forums and members and hate to see it turn into a battleground trying to prove what (I think) most could not care about of the indepth metallurgy. Ron

Tanker:
I agree with your sentiments that some of the best minds in the hobby in regards to TK rings share their knowledge here. However; it is important to understand that with the escalating costs of original TK rings the fakers have moved in and are trying to make a killing. The cost to reproduce a TK ring in materials is minor and the financial rewards for a convincing fake are great. IMO there has been more attempted crap pulled off in this area over the last 10 or so years then all the other areas combined. This is why we have to remain forever vigilant in exposing their latest attempts. As an aside: If all you care about is admiring a TK ring I'd advise you to buy one of the honest fakes as made by Hapur and sold here. Because once the price goes into the thousands of dollars the chance of buying a fake goes up exponentially. At that point you had better have the utmost faith in the dealer you're buying it from!
Jim

i'll stick to dak rings, its safer. mike

I'm a bit busy now so I do not much time to play around. I think that at such magnification (x900) on any, even polished surface you will see some kind of defects.

About story of cast heads on TK rings. If there really are such signsin the eyes this can be result of soldering, as head will get most of heat during soldering. I have noticed that often when soldering head is close to melting temp, because I need to place it in correct position, I keep flame on it longer time, sometimes I need to resolder it because it is not straight. And it is very easy to overheat, just matter of seconds. Not often but there are cases when I need to replace head just because it is overheated and semi melted. And there you go, it looks like cast. Arround forehead and other outside surfaces I can go with sandpaper and grind off all defects, inside eyes - I do not care. Results are the same - inside eyes there are signs similar to casting signs

Same with band.

During TR and long after main soldering tool was gasoline/benzin burner. Instead of today's main gas burner it has much sharper flame and burns at higher temp. So at that time it was easier/faster to overheat piece during soldering.

About rest of discussion.
You know that germans did not use lost wax method during TR for massproduced items. Reason is simple - lost wax method as we know it today, good for massproduction was developed for dental technicians only after war in 1950ies 1960ies, in jewelry industry it came AFTER.
Otto Gahrs production all is die struck or hand made from scratch. I do not know about single piece made by him that would be cast.

Besides that there is manufacturing logic/practicability, that's in long version - we already went thru this ten years ago. If interested and thread is still alive there is much more.

Ok, again lots of words and no one explaining the pictures you have under your eyes.
No one answered to my questions.
Also you don't read what I wrote, so this discussion is really totally useless.
I'm not going to answer anymore, since seems no one is interested to see scientific evidences, but prefere put the head under the sand. This discussion is from the beginning a one-way.

I tryed with my hands to do these rings, and almost all what you wrote is wrong. Wrong about the dies, wrong about the time, wrong about the process...
Anyway if you are happy with your theory without any evidences, that's fine for me. When you'll find one please, give a me call, until then sorry, but I prefere to not talk about the sex of the angels as we do here.



Last example about the skulls:
Skulls were partially empty and were filled with soldering metal that is not so hot to take the silver close to a melting point. This is known even from a newbie that approach jewelling from 3 days.
Totally different from what you say. And I can prove what I say. But of course you're not interested, since skulls were soldered near their melting point on a die struck ring.



Just an example of what I just said: thanks for not reading what I wrote an the pictures I posted.

Ok, rings were die struck and skulls soldered as Hapur said. Case closed gents, sorry for posting here some useless pictures and infos.

When you make copy of something it is more than likely you will get same defects on copy.



With all due respect Antonio, what are you doing is not science, it's just playing arround with microscope. If you want to show real evidence you should show cut of metal to see metal structure. From structure you can make some conclusions. Or more delicate way is to measure density of metal. Forged, die struck metal is about 1/3 denser than cast.

Antonio, please do not take offense, nor anyone else in the discussion. I think the fact that we all love and appreciate these rings for what they are as well as how they were made (regardless of opinion) are all part of sharing the same passion for collecting and history. We aren?t a large bunch, but consider how difficult it is when someone comes up to you (all of you) at a show and says SO you are the ring guy? What do you think of this? (Then shows you a ring with signrunes, a skull, maybe a Nazi flag, and something about ?panzer? inscribed on the inside..) before you even get a chance to say it?s a fantasy piece, they have already accused you of 1. Not knowing anything becuase 2. They got it from a vet and 3. They think your stuff is a bunch of fakes anyway. Plus, they already asked Craig who was the true authority and wrote the only book they ever (claimed to) read on the subject and they know he knows his stuff (and it goes on...)
EVERY knowledgeable discussion on the subject we all have brings us closer to the truth, and continues respect and interest in the hobby as well as ring collecting in general. Every post here looks valuable to me, but I do not have to nor anyone else has to agree with anyone?s opinion in particular. You make excellent points, so does Hap, so does G, and on and on here... if 300 people have viewed this, 300 more thoughts added to the discussion even if not one was posted. Guys, this is about appreciating our rings and collectibles on every level... Andy made the point first- we can all agree... we can?t take any of it with us,, just preserve it for the next generation to appreciate, discuss, and study. The words written here by you guys will stay as long as there is a forum on the Internet,,, I?m hoping G chimes in with whatever I have missed here- maybe makes it a sticky?? And again thanks to ALL who read and participated in the discussion! It was a great read!!!

do not say it loud anymore, anywhere.

It is industry standard and mandatory rule worldwide since begining of hallmarking (so well over 100 years) that silver has to be soldered with silver, gold with gold with purity as close as possible to base metal. NOT with tin or something alike. There is only exception when you can use not silver - only when you are attaching something that has very low melting temp, for example attaching part with enamel.

JIm
I appreciate your views and I do like history and I have one original ring and that is all I need. As I said, I like the history of the rings and personalities I am not into the repro rings. If you are into rings as a business or have many you are not just sure of , maybe this metallurgy lesson Mr. Scalpini is giving is useful and interesting, but for me is just doesn't do anything for me. Not saying it isn't needed or important. I am speaking just for myself and not for anyone else.

So you are saying you can't prove TK rings were stuck or not. Again, thanks for providing another point that you can't prove.
BTW, with a good microscope you can see everything of a metal (is called matallography), you no need to cut it, it is metal, not a sandwich! What's in is also out!
Furthermore the die let unconfutable signs on the metal (rubbing and pressure) and you can't find them on a cast ring. Or do you think the pressure of the die is not visible on the metal? Do you use magic dies?

Again you have no one single evidence.
I've only asked to answer my questions with some pictures or some evidences. Not with words.
And again nor you, nor another guy replied to my 5 points and explain how is it possible to obtain what I showed with a die struck process. I appreciated that no one showed anything but all you agree on the die struck process even without any proof.

Good luck, also from the two good originals die struck rings that are sitting on my desk.

I'm sure this has been covered...but what does the records from the manufacturing companies that made these rings say how they were produced?

There must be a surviving record or people that are still alive that would know.

I would guess they use both die and cold wax processes to produce the rings.

Well since our Italian friend ignored my original questions for an explanation as to the purpose of a sizing seam if they were cast in the round and as to why the rings were not just cast as a whole -skull included? I have an additional question since he has chosen to focus on the characteristic of the metal and that question is what is the EXACT composition of the silver alloy used in make TK rings by the Gahr's during the 3rd Reich? I am no expert but it is apparent that the silver used by the Gahr's as opposed to the 925(Sterling) used by Hapur have very different wear characteristics? So if you know tell us what the EXACT composition was that they used?
Jim
N.B: The sole person I know that ever had the metal content analyzed was John Peppera who never shared the results with us an in now departed.
Johnnyrocket: i'll answer your questions as best I can. The Gahr firm of Munich was the sole "manufacturer" of TK rings and to the best of my knowledge no actual records regarding their production have ever surfaced. Years ago Don Boyle maintained he knew one of the workers with a last name of Pretschel(SP?) and that he was Don's primary source of information. I also believe that this same man made a limited number of TK rings after the war.
Jim

Antonio,, we trying to apply science without doing it the right way..

IF there is another way they can be cast I too would like to hear it. Those rings weren't lostwax/investment cast...
Check my photo - where was the wax stem cut off from the HR? *Also I disagree and we'll have to agree to disagree about the Sig rune flaw. For me its gigantic. Files etc would only make it bigger. It can be seen while wearing the ring,,

Really I appreciate your work. It's just not fully scientific yet.. Where is your 'standard'. Micro shots of a pressed/struck ring VS the cast ring? Hapur made a great point.. You neatly saw a cast ring in half and a pressed ring in half you would see big differences. We would have to see something like that...

. As it is now,,if you have a die sturck HR its a fake. They can't be cast and pressed,,its either one or another. OR we're missing something entirely.......

Antonio your a valued member here. Always good to have you aboard. I think a bit more scientific standards and follow up is needed etc. and we're all hungry to see it!

I'm not agree with you Antonio
for me the question is not how the rings were made, as a person familiar with the production of their copies, I can say my opinion, the originals were made unambiguously STAMP

Is there such a thing as injection molding or pressure casting like with plastics?

Tex,, the 3rd reich near the end of the war had just started playing around with the idea. I had a few years ago an injection molded General Assault badge. Not particularly a nice looking thing.. And, I believe [please correct me if wrong] wasn't the Anti-Partisan badge injection molded[?]... I believe if you read back Hapur states why they weren't injection molded..

To ALL the members here,, I just want to say to you all,,, a very BIG THANKS! Why??, because this topic could have turned out very ugly very fast.. I believe over the years our part of the hobby have matured.
They might be trivial trinkets to some collectors but when a few thou$and dollars are thrown around on their prices [and I'm talking Private Purchase rings] they aren't so trivial.. And,,with the Honor Ring prices some with double digit Thou$ands collectors will get crazy when they see theories and photos etc they don't like.

We had no cursing, no name calling, no insults, degrading etc.etc. We saw things we didn't agree with, on both sides, and we kept it very civil.. Thanks guys.....

- * So we have the 2 camps. - those they believe they are cast,, and those that believe they are die pressed/struck .. We're in a new age and this new age the microscope has now become part of our hobby. With it comes big responsibility.. I do like this scientific way but it has to be refined. To prove the HR is cast a more through scientific method must be developed, must!

A cast ring is needed, and an authentic ring is needed. To each vertical and horizontal cuts must be made and then cross sections can be examined. Left over filings from the cuts can be analyzed a number of ways etc. I do believe the microscope in the end will reveal much but as I mentioned it must be done properly,responsibly,scientifically.... This is much harder than most of us think..

- *in the meanwhile,,,anyone have a messed up, worn out, damaged,relic condition authentic late pattern Honor Ring they'd like to donate to make some real history?!?

Injection molding is not suitable for casting silver because of high temp. Injection molding is widely used today and was used during TR for aluminum like alloys and alloys with lower melting point, so 600 C and lower.

Back to Antonio's pics. He made systemic mistake. Guy made copy of ring with defect. He copied not only ring pattern but all defects too. So he compares defect with copy of very same defect.

If somebody want to play science - density is keyword. Measuring density and comparing with other will not destroy or damage ring and it will give measurable results.

Interesting point brought up by Hap and g - density.., so should then the weight of honor rings be fairly consistent?

I'm far from an authority on TK rings but they are being IMO analyzed in the dark without answers to these questions:
Density is related to the specific silver alloy that was used in crafting these rings. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever had a real one tested other then J. Peppera who is now deceased and never released the results..

And I'm back back to my basic questions that have been universally avoided:

1.If these rings were cast in molds as proposed by the Italian gentleman why is there a sizing seam?
Wouldn't it make more sense to just cast in different sizes then cut whole castings apart to do so?
2.Why wasn't the skull cast as an integral part of the ring? Why go thru the extra steps to attach it later?
3.Why are the wear attributes for original TK rings quite different that the ones Hapur casts out of
Sterling(.925) silver?** Is this because the silver alloy used by the Gahrs was quite different?

This thread has danced around microscopic images, suppositions and perhaps examining the entrails of a chicken for answers. Yet no one seems to be able to answer these basic questions!
Jim

**I've had my copy crafted by Hapur for over 10 years, wear it all the time and it exhibits only minimal wear. We all know this isn't the case with original TK rings.

As I expected: The sound of silence is deafening!
Jim

Not my area of expertise but I'll take a shot at an answer. I do have a little experience making silver jewelry using lost wax casting, die stamping, and fabrication from sheet/wire

1 - If you look at the distance between symbols on each ring regardless of size, they are quite close. The only difference is in the distance from the skull to the nearest symbol and is fairly equal on both sides of the skull. In my opinion, one master was used, the ends of the ring shank were trimmed for the needed ring size, the shank was formed and soldered together, and the skull was soldered over the seam.

2- To cast the ring in one piece, you would need a master for each size and it would not have a seam. Otherwise you would have a sizing cut and seam in the leaf design. Or you could cut through next to the skull, but would end up with the skull not being centered in the design.

3 - We are quite confident today knowing that Sterling Silver is 92.5 parts silver to 7.5 parts copper. This produces an alloy with a fine finish and good wear characteristics. Go back even 20 years and this is not always the case. As long as the 92.5 parts silver are present, the Alloy is Sterling Silver. But the 7.5 parts could be tin, zinc, bismuth, antimony, or other compatible metal. All would show different hardness and wear patterns. If the alloy is Coin Silver (90 to 10) or Mine Silver (80 to 20), the difference is even greater. Today, some Sterling Silver is alloyed with nickle which produces a very hard alloy, and some Sterling coming from Asia does not use either copper or nickle and is fairly soft and easy to crave.

I like Vern's presentation and observations. He states some very good points to consider here.

very interesting info from Vern

With all due respect to Vern; that's basically what the majority of us have been saying for quite some time. My points above which are along the same lines were posted for the "cast in the round in molds" adherents to refute if possible. So far silence!
Jim

Not my fault if you don't read what others said.
Already answered your questions on post #338017.

About the silver and other metals % it is not a secret, just take a ring, go to the jewelry and ask: can I have a metal test on this ring please? And in 1 minute you'll have what you asked for.

The next minute you'll realize that knowing the metal components is totally useless since in 10 years of production Gahr received and melted silver wih different %.

It is not my silence disturbing, but not reading what others already said.

I posed several questions and no one ever answered them.
No one posted an evidence, JUST ONE, explaining why these rings should be die struck.

When you study medals/badges if you want to know the difference between a die struck and a cast piece you need to study the badge under magnification. See the pressure signs, see the straight edges and look at all those signs that make that badge die struck.
In all the serious books there are showed forensic evidences.

For the TK rings you all think they are die struck, but no one ever looked at them in deep and showed some real evidences. Only bla bla bla... Why? Not only don't want to watch at the pictures I posted, but also don't show anything in support of your theories.
I think it's time the old myth falls, since they are only myths.

Look at the difference between a die struck piece (I already showed some, this is a Krim shield) and a cast one.... The cast one is a '30 style TK ring, cast in a possibly round mold, cut, sized, with a cast skull soldered on it and delivered.
But hey, you know they are die struck so, that's fine for me.
Any proofs to show?

Not to be confrontational, but what is your agenda? You are certainly pushing your idea strongly.

Not to judge other peoples motives, I would think that some people (ie. collectors) are just purist and have an innate curiosity as to the origins and the process of manufacture concerning the objects of their interest.

It's probably that simple.

Sounds like a plan:)

Quote: "About the silver and other metals % it is not a secret, just take a ring, go to the jewelry and ask: can I have a metal test on this ring please? And in 1 minute you'll have what you asked for."

Really? I asked to have a silver ring tested at a couple of jewelry shops a few years ago and was told in order to analyze the exact metal content of the ring it would have to be sent to a lab equipped to do this!
You reportedly have multiple examples of TK rings so why haven't you had this done and reported the results?

Jim

Didn?t craig offer some TK ring component micro analysis implicating a drill and fill technique as part of his coa? It was even on his website that there was some known other metal involved? Is this related to that idea? If I recall it was like 80 percent silver 8 percent something or I can?t recall...

TK analysis- Craig?s here?s a link

Jim is right everthing Vern posted has been gone over many many times but we always welcome ideas..

I agree,,maybe the first pattern HRs the silver was a more stable bullion used.. By the 2nd patterns I agree it would be useless to test the alloy. One batch he might have used 835 then the next year the best he could buy was 800. The material used to 'cut',,to mix in the silver could have changed... I think we shouldn't waste time on it,,,and I also think John P. thought the same after doing some tests...

And yes,,dies can make some complex shapes, angles, etc. 99% of private purchase rings were pressed. Quick, easy, unskilled labor can be used and VERY little waste. So me being a PP ring guy my thinking was the HR was the same. There's always been guys looking and studying them so for me it makes sense.

SO,,what stays the same ?!? what stays the same are the flaws....And for me thats what is not being answered. I know to you Antonio that sig rune flaw is nothing but it IS something!. Something that can be seen when the ring is even worn!
I would say a present from Himmler to someone he would want it perfect so why not a perfect ring all around after the first batch!.

Antonio if you really studied the Lost wax/investment cast method you know they can't have been done like that.. So we're looking at maybe some type of unique casting method..

I'm in for anything but we can't compare apples to oranges.. I wish we had an old 'one looker' from an old collection. These rings need a vertical cut and a horizontal cut etc... Showing a shield is nice but its a no go. Same with comparing to badges unless they are made out of mainly silver. .. Antonio,,you have what looks like a nice stamped ring on your site. A skull with a manufactures tag on it.. Check it with the microscope. Look in a soft line, look in a sharp one. Inside and out. It's not a HR but it appears to be a stamped ring. Maybe show us those photos at the same magnification etc. and it will help very much!.

And IF you really want to get down to it,,if all rings are cast then you have nothing to compare to. Were some HRs pressed? and some cast? or they were all cast. IF all then there's nothing to compare to,,end of game..
It would probably also mean the end of the market for HRs sad but true.. You yourself said you can find good jewelers etc and anything can be done with them. IF they are cast then I mentioned something a long time ago.. Lazer scan a ring,,, cast it... IF your materials are even close then you have a good ring that can not be distinguished from another. ..Enjoy!

About the tester: just go to a serious jeweller and ask for XRF metal and alloy analyzer. It is an expensive analizer, years ago a serious one went over 20K.
Say to your jeweller to download one of the hundreds PDF on line, for example this: http://info3.thermoscientific.com/LP=415?wt.mc_id=cad_xrf_eBook_banner_blog_0615_metals
and you'll find out you no need to send the ring anywhere. Just need a second. And yes, I did it and it is totally useless.


Gaspare, it will be made at the right time.

I only have a question: if you all think the TK rings were die struck, can you provide here only 1 evidence? Not bla bla bla.

The comparisons I've posted are just to show the difference between a die struck piece and a cast one. It doesn't matter if the die struck is a shield, a medal, a badge or a ring, die struck process has its way and it is thousand miles away from the cast one.
If you don't want watch what you have under your eyes that's fine, but show me you are right with real proofs.
No one ever answered to my questions... The reason is simple: no one ever looked and studied in deep these rings.

What's the real, unquestionable evidences about the die struck process? Anyone has something to show?

I repeat: NO BLA BLA PLEASE.


You are wrong: originals can't be copied as they are, even if they are casted. Under the microscope everything is very well visible if you know how they are made.

Many of your questions were answered by Hapur,,,read deep..

OK, the comparison to the shield is a waste. A no-go..
To show the members here [who some only collect rings] you have to compare to a die pressed ring.. *You have what looks like a nice one on your site. A skull with the makers tag. That appears to be a pressed ring.. *Use the same magnifications and take the same angle shots [or make new ones]..

Compare shots from the eye sockets, shots from sharp detailed lines,, and shots of on purposed smoother lines from the ring and other shots etc.etc.. Compare to the pressed ring!,,,to the HR your saying is cast.. That the guys will understand!..

For me if they're cast I still want to know why then after the first run they weren't perfect! Come on ALL the SS men would have liked a nice neat, perfect , sharp, nice detailed ring to wear!

- Hapur mentioned comparing medal/badges is useless. Zinc, AL,Brass, etc. all react differently under pressure,,some even turn molten to a degree, so scientifically keep it to a related item,,ring to ring. Then do your Cast VS Pressed. ..

As far as copies,,, Come on my friend ,,we aren't trying to simulate a brain stem , copy a spinal cord...
A quote from you:
"Invest some money, find the right jewellers and engravers and everything is possible"... You can't have it both ways,,,a cast ring can be copied...
In 1993 I started restoring old British, US, Spanish, Italian motorcycles in my shop. A few times we've had parts missing from late teen, early 1920s motors. Think of how complicated a camshaft is!! We've had old ones scanned, used cadcam etc. and new cams produced.. Do you really think something like that could be copied and not a cast ring from the 1930/40s!!

So, lets get it on.. I'm sure the guys would like to see photos from the pressed ring VS the cast HR using the same magnification, same angle photos etc.

I'm sorry, no one explained how cast signs are possible in a die struck piece. Just looking at some pictures even a blind see the cast signs.



If you know the difference between a cast piece and a die struck one ALL the items made in thes 2 ways have ALL the same characteristics. Shields, rings, medals: die struck process has its signs and you'll find them if a piece is made this way.




Ehy, I've posted several pictures with unquestionable cast signs and no one wants to look at them or exaplain how are they possible. I've asked here ten times to see ONLY ONE signe picture as a proof these rings were die struck or pressed.

WHY ALL THOSE SAID THE RINGS ARE STRUCK NEVER SHOWED A SINGLE EVIDENCE? WHY THEY SAID THAT IF THEY CAN'T PROVE IT?

I can prove they are cast, I can prove the skull were cast, I can prove how they were soldered, I can prove Gahr had several molds for each style of ring.... But before I would like to know which are the REAL proofs of the naysayers.
Do you think the ring is pressed? PROVE IT.




This is an opinion, that cannot in any way must considered. Tens of TR pieces were bad made or had flaws, including some of the most important awards. This is only a ring, and with naked eyes you hardly notice what you are talking about. We should let the pieces talk for themselves, not us talk for them. Exactly what happened for years on this subject, and exactly what happened in this discussion: all talk for the rings and no one let the rings talk.


Already answered: a pressed piece has ALWAYS the same characteristics, no question if it is brass, steel or silver. I posted some shots of Tombak, steel and zinc die struck pieces: no one of them can ever show casting signs.



As I told you you can copy everything, but under microscope there's no way to escape: the truth will come out.
For example: on rings there are some signs made with tool, these were made on the mold and then transferred on the ring when cast. If you copy the ring and make it by hands the signs cannot be the same, under high magnification you'll see big differences. Same if you try to cast a cast piece: you'll loose something.
I tryed, I have many forgeries I've done, some in multiple parts. This is why I can prove what I say.

there are just going to be things we're going to have to agree to disagree on...* For some of Antonios questions they were answered by Hapur on pages 3 and 6, so for those following please re read them carefully..

Antonio, sorry,,I have a few 100 PP rings but no microscope! and I'd say most collectors don't have one,,,,yet!

I agree with you on some things but please,,check with any engineer [I already checked] - "different metals react differently to pressure and of course heat"..That is fact not opinion.
One other thing on your last statement: "if you try to cast a piece: you'll loose something. " this is probably true for the home hobbyist but past that ,This is simply incorrect and there is no argument there either..

I'd say most collectors will eventually want to see comparisons of your cast ring to a ring that was pressed and at least as close to the same in material. This can go on and on but that is what is needed..... Thank you for your efforts and we all look forward to your further findings...,Gaspare

Again: no one has a single proof. Have you ever noticed that there are 3-4 different dies for each style ring? So how many dies Gahr needed to press his rings? 3-4?
Even this is clear enough, but not for you, nor for those who know how they were made... You no need 3-4 or 5 dies if they are pressed. you need if they are cast.

No one can show you why these rings are die struck so you are believing only to your old stories.

You prefere to talk in your own inner circle where everything agree without explaining why they agree.

Hapur explained nothing, and showed nothing. Only if you close your eyes and trust old stories you can say he explained something.
But ok, you are the experts, I'm not and I don't want to be. So trust the experts and go on.

hi antonio
you are right no one here on this ss ring forum has proven nothing and i am a dummy i am like sgt. schultz i knowv nothing but in your eyes your idea is correct only to you so guess what then pick up the marbles you win the game end of conversation thanks to all the members here that posted on deaf ears hope you guys finaly get the message loud n clear nothing will chang this mans opinion and our opinions dont count thanks god bless all andy militarynut

_

Andy,,,yes,, things get hot and everyone is going to hold their cards down pat now!

It's got nothing to do with experts. We're respecting you Antonio,,you the one who wrote the book and showing the photos.. AND, we really are looking for your further work, progress and findings..





No matter who posts what ,,I stand by my facts on my last post on this page! Shits happens as they say and for now we're agreeing to agree to disagree.., Thank you..,Gaspare

I have a couple of more questions:

Hapur or the other experts can tell me if Gahr used only 1 die to press his rings?

And why the engraving of the same letter is made in a so "strange" way? For example the "S" shows the engraver inclined his tool at least 3 times 45 degrees left, 45 degrees right, and again 45 degrees left. But if the engraver engraved a straight band, why should have ever struggle so hard to make a letter?

Sir, you should really learn some jewelry basics before talking about science and research.
Here is link for your education what does mean hand engraving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpEnRKk6VIg

Seriously Hapur, have you ever watched at a TK ring and its engravings?

Anyway: how many dies used Gahr following your theory?
1 die for '30
2-3 dies for the transitionals
and 1 die for the '40?

Or is this another of the questions that cannot be answered at?

Really, Mr. Scapini, what are you trying to accomplish going on and on and who are you trying to convince, yourself? If you like your research and the way you go about it, then that should satisfy you. Do you want your research to correspond to your book?

I think the language barrier is just too much sometimes.. Antonio tried us here I guess as an experiment as his main forum is always WAF.. And I'm glad he did as he really wasn't prepared... Now a collector I respect with the right equipment and has the experience is going to do it for Antonio,,please watch this video,,it is only part 1 and shows a cast HR:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUiJSBLHezQ


Part 2 will show an authentic HR under his scope [hopefully]... Be prepared guys,,there just might be a way they were cast somehow. Maybe a weird method Gahr used [?]. Whatever, we will find out soon...

* I do thank all who participated. I know none of you ever claimed to be experts and apologize for Antonios comments about our opinions being from 'experts' and the' blah blah' as he calls them on WAF.. To me that is an insult. None of us lost our patience and gave him his space to do whatever he wanted here but I will always stick up for our members here and posted so on the WAF.

So,,We learned what we learned about the HR from the early pioneers, Robin Lumsden,,Don Boyle... Maybe the new technologies will show something different that what was taught for so long...,Gaspare

He dodged the primary questions I asked regarding the construction of original TK rings regarding the sizing seam and why weren't the cast in one piece and so forth. As far as I can see he is a "True Believer" and nothing contrary to his beliefs matters.
So be it and as far as I'm concerned we're beating a dead horse. I don't think he swayed anyone's opinion and we're all seen the quality ring someone like Hapur can produce using dies. I for one will stick by my belief that they were made using dies.
Jim

I dodged nothing. You simply didn't read my posts.
Rings were cast in round, cut, sized, soldered, a skull was soldered and you have the ring. Is it clear now?
I can add that you can find sizing seam on most rings, but not in all. Not in all.

You are a myth believer, since you posted nothing proving what you say. You said I was joking, thinking it was 1st april... You didn't watch at any picture I posted, you didn't read any post I made (since this is the second time you write the same thing, and already replied to that). Indeed a serious approach in front of some evidences...

I can prove there were used several different dies, I can prove they were cast, I can prove there were rings with no sizing seam..... You can prove nothing of what you said, only trust Hapur that make good copies and old stories without a single evidence. I believe in proofs, you in bla bla.

Gaspare: I stopped posting here what I'm posting on WAF because it is totally useless, no one of you would believe anything, since you prefere cover your eyes, go on with your old stories and you "pressed" rings and say I'm joking, I'm beating a dead horse and so on... Very respectful!
No one ever compared 2 TK rings, but all you know how they were made. Jo shows what I already found, and he said this in the video too. He found out other things that will be revealed, but the evidences the rings were cast, the missing seam in some rings, the different molds, the engraving.... Everything was what I discovered spending months on these rings; and everything I'm posting on WAF was already ready to be posted here. But, as I said, I stopped posting here seeing you prefere to keep your eyes closed and don't look at the evidences.
Tell the truth: those unprepared are only you since you don't want to hear nothing but your revealed truth. This is the reason. Many of you thought my post was a joke, and no one ever looked at the pictures: if you ever looked at a cast piece you'll find out the pictures I posted are so clear that even a newbie can recognize them. And now that the truth is coming out, you try to ridicule me saying "I'm not prepared", you understood that maybe it's time to bury the old stories... A little bit late, but better late than never. It's not my fault if this thread stopped without a sense. On WAF it is going on, and it will be for the next week at least, since I still have to show many things... Even if you think I'm not prepared. Luckily here there's a lot of guys well prepared.

TANKER: I have not to convince myself, I'm only posting evidences. Here, only you are tryin' to convince yourself you are right. My book is older than my research, when I still believed the old stories like you do.

Mr. Scapini
I do not try to convince anyone, that is what you are trying to do. I do think it is a language barrier as mentioned before. Your analysis/research may be correct but the way it is being presented is turning a lot of folks off. Just my opinion. For me, I don't believe I will post anymore about it as it seems to be the same over and over. Good luck Mr. Scapini.


[quote TANKER: I have not to convince myself, I'm only posting evidences. Here, only you are tryin' to convince yourself you are right. My book is older than my research, when I still believed the old stories like you do.[/quote]

hi ron
members i think this has gone far enough with mr.scarpini and him trying to convince us that his opinion is the only opinion does he know any more good jokes well we aint buying it hope thats understood mr. scarpini your right and we are wrong well mr. scarpini please listen up carefully here and im not going to repeat myself again in america our country we have the right to voice our opinion and you and nobody like you is going to take our god given american rights from us so keep your microscope and your opinion and your miss understood dna we do not like it thanks hope all you members here agree this is my last post on this above ss honor ring matter i will enjoy this hobby untill the good lord calls have a great day members andy militarynut

Quick question?has there ever been any war time SS honor ring dies discovered?

there def is some sort of language problem:

"your old stories and you "pressed" rings and say I'm joking, I'm beating a dead horse and so on"

I've never pressed a ring nor have the words of 'beating a dead horse' come off my keyboard!!!. I just don't know where your getting this from?? I've done nothing but give my opinions and try and get you to show your case a little better...

Yes some of the guys here didn't know what your super close up 900X photos were. Comparing to different metals,,different pieces completely! It was all done wrong PERIOD.. Also, some know you from WAF, know you wrote a book about the HR and wrote it was made from a die! that just a couple months before all this you were claiming the HR was die struck!!! SO excuse them for not jumping on your photos and findings!..
- And, I guess you agree,,or at least Jo agrees! Why Am I writing that,,,because he is doing it the way we, or I asked.. The way he would have also from the start. Show a cast fake HR,,,then in your/his part 2 you guys are going to show an authentic HR!! - Done.
Thats what I've been asking since the beginning and I'm glad its going to be done.. I don't give a shit if its here there anywhere. Once its proved correctly it's done and out everywhere. I've wrote nothing negative about you here or there and only asked for for things to be done more clearly so everyone will understand clearly....
Have a good day..........


PS
Johnny,,, so far no tooling has been found or documentation on
how it was made.. 20 years ago someone told me they have
part of the skull die!!!! But I've never seen it and its never been
mentioned again!.. I'll give it a shot though!

Every few years another joker comes in with books and signing certificates spouting off about how things were done. No different and this guy signs certificates and claims he can authenticate just about anything, even hoocaust clothing, stars, Clay candle holders into groups or types, and now once again.... Honor rings.. cant tell this guy anything and thats the way he is.

Its about signing your name for money.

I personally like Antonio a lot, so I am saddened to hear if he took any of this personally. But I do believe Ajax has just made a very astute point, or rather points. G always says too a real ring is a real ring and a fake is a fake. Without reading too deeply into that, it is a truism- real honor rings were made and they remain to this day. They are rare and will likely remain valuable despite how we think they were made. Fakes have continued to proliferate since the war ended, so what is new there? More cast fakes were predictable anyway, and old collections will still remain a largely trusted source of known rings as they always have. If you have an honor ring, appreciate it and enjoy its history. When the time comes, many people will stand in line to be the next to preserve it for the generations to come.

Poor guy.
If you don't understand that I've done this research just to let collectors find out by themself the real from the bad, I hardly doubt you'll understant the research itself. Same I did for the Memel, the BKAs, etc etc... Not so hard to understand that good books/researches help collectors. Same I did with all those that wrote a book and asked my help.
If you are blind it is not my fault.
And yes, if someone asks my opinion I'm happy to give it, not for money for sure. Simply look at the time I spent on researches and books and you'll find out how stupid are the things you wrote.
No one become rich writing books and spending months on comparisons and researches. And luckily I no need the few euros that can comes from COAs or militaria or books. What you wrote about money really makes me laugh loud! I simply do what I like to do.
I'm lucky enough to have time to spend, and the day I'll be tired of this, I'll simply sell everything and I'll go on with my life.

But again, you are attacking me, not discussing what you are not able to discuss. Pitiful.

Follow the thread on WAF, maybe you learn something...

Nice talk here, where all believe in a theory without any proof and when you start showing proofs they start to attack you. Indeed a great respect and knowledge.

All due respect Antonio but your theory has some holes in it as well. It has been claimed that those rings were indeed die cast. Die cast as finished rings as well (rather than strips). That is a physical impossibility unfortunately and here's why: die cast objects are cast between two steel halves of a die that meet at the widest outside point- in this case it would be roughly half way through the width of the ring. Even though the die could be injected with molten material (in this case silver) and produce the correct shape of the ring, it would be impossible to eject the ready ring from the die since there are details on it that extend above and beyond the line where the cast halves meet. For that to be possible any detail below the red line would have to be smaller (or sticking out less in layman's terms). Steel die is not a rubber mold- there's no give on it to allow something to squeeze past it or bending it.

In short, your theory of those rings not being die struck also eliminates your theory about them being cast as rings.

Sorry, having problems attaching pics.

Nothing wrong with what I said, its true. No attack there, just saying that every few years this repeats itself with a new name and face, you just happen to be the name and face this time. All I am saying is that most of the guys are full of crap and while sometimes they may make some sense, other times they kill their own credibility by chasing the buck. You sell what you research, if your standing in a crowd holding a holocaust camp cap that?s flat new and claiming it?s real and a type 3 or one of 3 types and that?s why its $2000.00, you can do that, but I say your full of S**t. And if your full of it there, why should I care what you say about rings?. Your an elitist, a condescending and fairly obnoxious researcher, who when met with criticism deletes the opposition with administration powers. That?s my research and I have seen you do it. Your credibility is maybe so so.

Why not just be honest, you can?t twke criticism and talk it down aggressively.

Matthew, Welcome to the forum ... Good post. Hopefully it will be seen and commented on[?]


Guys,,go at it all you want,, an opinion of someone is fine,,, I feel the limit is right there and please don't push it.....please don't make it personal.

So, Jo has already shown a copy Honor ring that was made from a cast..
Next he will be showing what an authentic HR looks like...
I would also like to see what a ring that was produced by a press looks like also. I don't think that will happen but I feel it really should be done..

So,,Part II is out:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHAgY9d6PI


I'm sorry Antonio,,, for me it rasies more questions than answers.... You 5 points on WAF ,,maybe at best it explaines 2 of them..

Jos first part he used a 2nd patter. This part 2 he uses a 1st pattern. Not really a big deal..... I wonder if something happened to that ring? I've seen 3 HRs that were worn totally smooth , even skull,,but the engraving was way better than that. Maybe a clean up inside with sandpaper long ago? Here's JPs 1st pattern HR,,just about the same wear to it on outside.. Check out the inside of Johns..

I've only handles 30 or so HRs. Not sure how many were 1st pattern but thats the first I've seen where you couldn't see a seam! VERY interesting.. Does ANY member have a 1st pattern where you can't see the seam.. Antonio,,not sure IF your still here but what is the ring size of that.. We might be able to do an experiment of our own! IF that ring is a size 10 lets say,,,and we get to see another size 10 but no seam,,well than that probably proves it!

Thanks Gaspare- good to see you as well, been too long!

Next contention is- "the engraving was done on a round ring hence the angled cuts"

Here's a relatively small badge from the same period. Also features the same angle cuts. How many people would believe the engraving was done post-assembly? Another physical impossibility. It had to be done with both parts separated. And if both arts were separate then why angle the chisel?

The chisel was angled because it's one of the hand engraving techniques. You run the chisel straight and it will not eliminate any material other than mark or score it- it is not a machine engraver or roto-tool after all.

Hello matthew, welcome to the forum! I see it highly important, informative and, especially, logically what you told us about the die casting process. Thus would make it impossible the rings having been die cast. So no die cast process, no lost wax process, I truely wonder -Mr.Scapini- what casting process remains?

On the other hand -matthew-, you are on the wrong trace concerning the engraving. Here Mr. Scapini really did hit the nail and his observations are 100% correct. These rings, due to my investigations and personal experiences, have been engraved in the post assembling state. EACH elder, german hand ring engraver I did ask (and there were several, whenever I could find one personally) told me answering my question when a ring was/is engraved "NATURALLY in fixed (round) state". Even today engraving with engraving machines are done in fixed (round) state.

Regards,

Hello Wotan,

Thanks for your warm welcome!

Regarding the engraving: since the rings were produced in flat strips then joined at the ends to form a ring (think the part about it being impossible to cast them as loops proves it), they would be almost certainly engraved in their flat state as well, IMO. It is simply easier that way, especially if the engravers are part of the in-house staff (hourly wages). If they were an outside source then yes, they would work with finished product but simply because they had no access to the rings half way through it. From what I gather, Gahr was a company with big enough workload which would in turn mean that they almost certainly had engravers on staff. Especially on a pieces produced in such quantities as those.

You are also right about the engraving machines doing the work on the rings in their finished state. But I think we can agree the rings were not engraved by a machine at that point in time.

Finally, whether my version or yours is closer to the truth the contention was that the 'angled' engraving was done that way only because it was performed post assembly because of the room restrictions. I have posted another piece with the same type of hand engraving which, IMO, disproves the theory put forth by Antonio for no other reason other than the engraver had all the room to work with yet he still used the same type of angled engraving. Would you agree?

Hello Matthew, we, as we are no ring engravers, have a wrong expectance. We (I once did it too) think it would be easier. I can assure you, those ring engravers I have asked the certain question " would it not be much easier...." did only laugh about my question. Engravers, ring engravers too, have been very skilled and well trained craftsmen.
Until the ring is fixed in the round there are several steps of fitting and corrections, also with tools inside which would/could harm the engraving so the engraving always was done at last, at the fixed ring, without risk and with more safety in splitting the free space. at least that is what they told me.
To our best knowledge the ring engravers did their work "in house" by Gahr and it is said there have been four of them, therefore differences in the appearance of the engravings and in the single letters.

You are totally right, these TKRs have been hand engraved, never by a machine. I only wanted to express that even nowadays, after a most significant change in the process (from hand to machine) rings today are still engraved in the fixed round (I think, because of the same old reasons).

The first letter "S" really shows best how often the engraver?s tool has to be set to form it. Moreover there is, obviously in the whole inscriptions, no real straight scheduled, strict horizontal line. I do not know for sure why an engraving at the rear of a badge would be angled but I think it was so deep in the thinking and automaticly executing of these engravers that they always did engrave this way. Just my personal thoughts.

Regards,

Totally agree: Possible? Absolutely. Only possible engraving style because of the curvature? No, just a general style of the engraving technique as seen on other, non curved items. Another proof they were cast in loop shape? Not even close, IMO.

-

The HR could have been engraved in circle or in the flat. Both ways have been proven to be done for many years. Not really a big deal.
Lets also agree about the material its made from.. For me not too important. We DO know the 1st and 2nd patterns were a different alloy. And, in the later rings the alloy might have changed year to year as silver became harder to get as the war progressed. So we are ok here too.

- * Now the HR used in Part 2. It has or appears to have no seam.. #1 - is this an authentic HR? The inner band and engraving. How about a simple comparison,,looks at the inner band and engraving on the part 2 video,,,,and compare it to The photo above. Does it appear the same? Almost looks like at one time someone took sandpaper to the inside and then polished it . Jo says it is unquestionable an authentic ring because of the exam show 'micro patina'.. Nice term,,,some don't believe it. I do but don't believe it could show a ring made in the 40s or one made in the 50s,60s,70s etc. There is always a + and a -...... To get its age exactly,,,that I disagree with him..

I'm writing this because we have to realize Antonio might /probably not come back here. But we can continue without him if we want. and we will get to all of his points! BUT 1st,,please members -
1 - does any member have a authentic HR without a seam? Does the inner finish and engraving in part 2 compare to the photo above? Does it matter?
2- do you believe the scope can show a 'micro patina' that can prove it was made exactly during the war years?









Below are Antonios points :
Cast proofs:
1- rings shows casting signs everywhere
2- many dies were used to cast them (not only one)
3- some rings are not cut (so casted in round)
4- engraving is made on round rings
5- skulls are cast too

1- All original rings will have a seam. Some will be visible and some will be not. And here is some good and some bad news. Good news is- it can be proven by bringing the seam back and making it visible. Bad news is- the ring has to be heated up to see it. And once it's back, it will not go away without polishing.

2. Let's not get silly.

Mine also has a seam and it is 34 date

I am NOT claiming to be any sort of authority on TK rings and there are others posting here with far more experience then I.
However; I have looked at a fair number of TK rings over the years and have never seen a legit. one without a sizing seam. Some time it's hard to see depending on how it was soldered but close inspection will reveal it's there.
Jim

Tanker,,too bad,,,his is a 37... But,,do you know the size of yours? maybe one of you can get a size from Antonio on WAF?!

Matthew,, not silly. These guys are publishing on the internet, around the world!! IF we're going to have a serious discussion we have to cover all bases and cover our asses on everything .
We will be highly criticized, insulted , made fun of,etc. on the net,,believe it!. We can at least offer something here,,,hey, maybe we're all wrong!!
At least we won't assume, make incredible statements etc. so please lets do it right.. I thank you for your answers. Lets see what tomorrow brings. Then I have a few more questions..

Gaspare
I will try to get a size on it. Ron

What I really want to know , the HR in part 2 , who said its original ? Are we to Trust someones word that its genuine...

I smell motives , Someone that stands to make large sums of money selling these so called Cast* originals .....that were once deemed Fake

.

That is why I started to partake in the discussion. To prevent another artifact from being flushed down the drain because "it's science so don't argue". Having a microscope makes you as much scientist as having a helmet makes you a biker.
Based on that flawed logic you can literally prove anything- even that the eye nerve endings are directly connected to the sphincter. All you have to do is use a needle- if you poke the subject in the ass, he'll cry and if you poke the subject n the eye, he'll shit himself. Here's your proof. That's the type of "hillbilly science" we're being served.

There's no scientific test that can be performed that it will tell the age of an artifact. On the other hand you can isotope test for Caesium-137 and that will tell you if the test subject was smelted prior to 1945.

There's a reason Antonio never came back or answered after I posted proof pushing his die cast theory out of circulation and that part is definitely not a (rocket) science.

I am posting the email to me with the authors permission. I'm sure many of you "oldtimers" remember Rob Wells as a respected student of TK rings and he used to actively post here. He also wrote the foreword to the infamous Gottlieb TK Ring book BEFORE he saw the actual content!
Jim

Hi Jim,



Having quickly read through the thread on WAF, a lot of opinion has been exchanged on this subject. The Italian gentleman (Scapini) clearly has his views - for whatever reason - but I think he is wrong. Most of the 'evidence' for the rings being die-stamped is logical and credible, and over the years has essentially become irrefutable, whereas the counter claims and associated explanations of them being cast don't really stand up to scrutiny, especially as acceptance of this position would immediately make (good) fakes much easier to pass-off as originals. Whether Scapini has a vested interest in this is unclear to me, but Gaspare has basically stated everything that needs to be stated - in the absence of any period documentation from Gahr. And if any such documentation were to magically surface, you can be sure it is fake paperwork being reverse-engineered to support some dealer's position. I don't know if CG is still actively promoting the cast theory, or whether he is even still in business, but cast TK rings are something I simply do not believe in.



Regards,
Rob

As per my conversation witrh Mr. Scapini elsewhere- we're back to 'plaster dies'. In batches of 10-20 no less. It's really getting interesting now...

[quote=Gaspare]
I'm writing this because we have to realize Antonio might /probably not come back here. But we can continue without him if we want. and we will get to all of his points! BUT 1st,,please members -
1 - does any member have a authentic HR without a seam? Does the inner finish and engraving in part 2 compare to the photo above? Does it matter?
2- do you believe the scope can show a 'micro patina' that can prove it was made exactly during the war years?






It is very sad that Antonio does not come back and refers/answers to Matthew?s post about die casting. Imho this does absolutely exclude the die cast theory.


1 - unfortunately I personally do not own such a "seamless" ring. Although I have seen some "seamless" ones, obvious period ones, in the net I personally do not believe in true seamless. Imho they do have nearly invisible (to the naked eye) seams. I have had a private discussion on this phenomenon. First of all there should be done exact examinations if there is REALLY no seam. It is said, metallurgically the deathhead and the other ring do have differing alloy. It should be examined IF this is right and IF yes, it would need an examination for the case of a "no seam" if the deathhead and the ring have the same or differing alloy, so this would be a proof to the one or the other side.
There could be also done a serious metallurgical examination of the seam area (eg. with special acid) which would show different metals and might not have the dangerous effect of heating (as suggested).
Imho I do NOT believe in a no-seam-ring until there is a SERIOUS, SCIENTIFIC proof.

2 - due to more than 70 years these rings are around, the "micro patina" might (for me: sure) have changed a lot of times. Artificial patination at GAHR, polishing by the wearer, wearing by the wearer, again polishing (not known how often), natural patination and much, much more. I can show you rings in my evidences which have been offered through the years and each time they were offered they did look TOTALLY different concerning patination! As said, they were polished, repatinated, polished again and so on. How do you want to see "micro patina" on such rings (most rings got abourt the same treatment during 70+ years!).


I think it is a shame, that there is a mudslinging behind the curtains, concerning Gaspare, who is trying to do his very best and in a most honorable way! It does not look to me that "Mr. exactly exactly" does the same.

@jim_m, this have been my own misgivings in a private discussion. IF the collectorship beginns to accept any casting process as THE period manufacturing process for SSDeathHead Rings (and it is my serious and honest opinion, due to experiencees, it is NOT!), the door is open for the mass of fakers to produce "better" and "not so good" "PERIOD" rings by casting.
Even more (sorry, I cannot read Italian) it is said, Mr. Scapini has told the collectorship in his book the ring has been die pressed. Now he says it has been ean error and it is die cast (which cannot be as our member Matthew has proofed!!!), why didn?t he make the mistake NOW (die cast) instead of his first opinion (die pressed)

@ The_Collector, the same
"this have been my own misgivings in a private discussion. IF the collectorship beginns to accept any casting process as THE period manufacturing process for SSDeathHead Rings (and it is my serious and honest opinion, due to experiencees, it is NOT!), the door is open for the mass of fakers to produce "better" and "not so good" "PERIOD" rings by casting"
for you.

Guy,,,thanks so much.. I like the discussions going on here!


A worthwhile experiment:, IF, if we could just get the size of the ring tested... I say that because an authentic HR the same year or within a year but the same size and it has a seam and boom,,all done!
While every authentic 2nd pattern HR shows its seam the 1st pattern sometimes can be very hard to see.

Antonio is a true believer, We can't fault him for what he see's and believes. I just think mentions of GABs being injection molded and other badges hurts him more than helps. Zinc, pot metal etc. is not silver.
I true die cast involves pressure. Molten metal is forced under pressure in to a mold or die [hence die cast]. Allowed to cool then opened.

Question 3 is,,Could the HR be made like that?? I've spoken to several old time jewelers and asked them. They said 'silver jewelry has never been die cast back then,,and not now..
Now,,I received an email from an old member who was part of the metal testing of the HRs with John P. He said,,there wasn't much silver in them!! SO,,not being much silver I wonder what the hell they were made from as they leave no marks on a finger when worn all day long! BUT, might lend it to the die cast theory better! A conundrum!

The post sent to me about the material of the HR:



" Years ago I gave my ring to a physical analysis company to tell me the composition. Pepera and I communicated a lot about this and I convinced him to send in his rings for analysis. I think he sent in 8 or 10. I have the report around here somewhere. Not a lot of silver as I recall. Himmler was worried about the use of silver at the time and the supply the SS had. That is why the discontinued SS sword fittings in the war. All in my documentation files."

And Gaspare I have maintained publicly for quite some time that original TK rings don't wear at all like the Hapur .925(Sterling) examples we can use as a benchmark for metallic content compared to an original. My over 10 year old Hapur example which is constantly worn shows very little wear which I am sure would NOT be the case with an original example.
"Not a lot of silver as I recall" per the member who privately contacted you!
I have long suspected that this is the reason why J Pepera kept the results private.This is the first time I've heard this and now begs the question. If TK rings are NOT primarily silver then what metal or alloy are they made from? Would it be possible to get this member who contacted you privately to publicly post the information he has on this testing? Additionally I now suspect this may be the reason the Italian guy continuously evaded my question regarding metal content! I also agree with Wotan's assessment as he posted above.
IMO: A Pandora's Box has been opened here and only the facts and the truth are going to get it closed again!
Jim

And another point: For whatever reason the time allowed to do an edit on a post is now apparently measured in seconds! I immediately tried to edit my post above and was told the edit time had elapsed!
Jim

Thanks Jim,

The settings were incorrect but I have fixed this.

Dave

Jim,,, We might get those reports! He is going to be gone a few days though so a little more time and we'll have it..

A post from Antonio on WAF:

"Casting theory is also supported by the existence of the so called "transitional" rings and of the 33 very first pattern rings.
How many dies should have made Gahr if they all are die struck?
Only for the '30 style rings I showed 5-6 different types (easy to do on casting molds when you have 10-20 per time, but non so easy if they were die struck dies) + the 33 first pattern + the transitional patterns + all the 40 style patterns. At the end Gahr had more dies than rings! "

I really don't understand this quote! There was nothing in the videos that proved at all they were cast in the round. OK, lets say they were made by some method of casting.. WHY would Gahr have more than one piece of tooling?! Done in the flat even IF cast you would cast a bar. Trim to fit,,then round! One mold/die..One... Guys,,am I missing something here or something I don't understand?...,thanks , G.

About 15 years ago, I was looking at my only ring, a remake (according to Boyle) of a 30.6.34 ring to an SIPO man. It was very large, 22.5mm inside diameter and weighing 12.18 gms and I suddenly wondered what it was made of. The common statement in books of the period by Boyle and Patzwall and magazine artitcle, was that it was silver. Well, it was obvious there was silver in it as related in the 3 November 1939 report on the quantity of silver available to Gahr for the manufacture of SS-Ehrenringen, SS-Degen -Beschl?gen (fittings) and SS-Zivilabzeichen. The quantity of silver available to Gahr was 15,050 grams. That totals almost 531 ounces or a little over 33 pounds of Feinsilber.I believe this info is also found in Patzwall's book on the TK Ring. I located the documentation myself in the National Archives.

Okay, so I want to know what is in my ring. How much silver. I had a PPK grip tested a few years earlier to determine the exact physical composition of them, so I returned to the same scientific testing lab:Chemir Analytical Services. I supplied them with my ring and they conducted the test using Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis as well as density testing. The general conclusion was that the surface of the ring was composed of primarily silver with low levels of aluminum and copper. The density was determined to be 9.95 g/cm3 suggesting the ring was made of a silver alloy. Four areas were tested: the skull, two areas with runic decoration and the edge. All but the swastika on the side showed only large amount of silver and some copper, while the swaz area showed some aluminum

I was chatting with John Pepera about my test and he was fascinated. I urged him to test his rings. At the time he had ten of them that he provided me a list of with names, dates, measurements and weights.Within a week, John provided me with the results of his tests on four rings with various dates: 1939-was either Ramspberger or Koscula, 1939-Bruns, 1942-Stube and 1944-Clement. John used Argo-Tech/ ATC Materials Laboratories in Cleveland and they performed a Niton analysis via Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence. He sent me the results listings. In general, all four were silver alloy with copper in the following percentages:
1934 91.1% silver 8.86% copper
1939 90.5% silver 9.49% copper
1942 96.3% silver 3.70% copper
1944 92.8% silver 715% copper

The actual result showed miniscule amounts of aluminum and tin that were combined with the copper in the genera results.
As usual, my interests found something to research and I left these pages in my TK ring file.

JoeW, thank you so much for this valuable posting. I knew that I have read comparable datas already before, but my personal research since days have brought no result.
Your insight coinsides perfectly with the certain proof of delivery from november 39 to Gahr. In this proof of delivery it is mentioned "Feinsilber" and is assumed to be 900 silver. And GAHR for sure did not melt/alloy (and therefore change) silver respective it?s contence.
Regards,

The flaw is on MASTER PIECE, which can be from metal (silver, metal, gold, bronze etc.) From this master piece are making molds. The flaw stays there... See my book: http://www.totenkopfring.cz/master.JPG

Im writing there about molds. There were 4 variants. Variant from 1940-1944 is same as 1938-1940, just little bit repaired. And thats reason of flaw in Sig rune. Jeweller made a too deep notch, when he tried to highlight the contours...

Transitional ring is the myth, it is Variant of mold no. 3.

How can I put foto here?

Greetings,, Welcome!!

go to bottom and click on Use Full Editor... make your post then at bottom left look for' Attachment Manager'...IF still a problem email them to me,,much thanks...

To Hapur:

Rings were engraved as a ring. Here is evidence. Btw I was married 2 weeks ago and my jeweller engraved our names and date inside without problems. He told me: "I made thousands engravings, it is no problem for me..."



More infos about producing in my book...

Fotos of production, again. Comes from my book:

I see Antonio responded to my post on WAF. We either have a language barrier or he simply misunderstood the difference between a steel die and a plaster mold.
It has been theorized by Mr. Scapini that the rings were die cast. Not mold cast- DIE CAST. A die is made out of metal (typically steel). As such it is not flexible. Only objects with vertical OR horizontal cavities can be cast and ejected from it. NOT BOTH. It has to do with the way the die splits (opens & closes) after the casting process. It doesn't matter if it opens horizontally or vertically. A ring with that type of detail and in those locations can not be cast in its finished state (as a circle or a 'ring').

His idea of "you can cast rings in other ways, for example with 2 halves half for the right part and half for the left part of the ring" is simply outlandish and ridiculous. It also negates what he claimed before (rings were cast as rings). Which is what his claim of " you can also cast them with multiple plaster molds or wax. " also does.

It is really simple: the rings were either die cast or they were not. They were cast in molds or they were not. They were die struck or they were not. According to Mr. Scapini they were die cast until I proved it impossible. Now were back to plaster and wax molds. And judging by (now erased or cleaned as they like to call it) posts on WAF, it is not a first time he changes his mind. Not to mention the facebook adverts of the WAF thread as saying "here we go with another truth" but when engaged about it simply claims "But not everything is already said, and I can't say it now here" What the hell is the point of reading it then if the truth is not revealed?

I absolutely agree. That is why Im upset - he turned his mind in 4 months (I can declare our conversation, where he is calling me stupid, if I don?t want accept his MICROSCOPIC EVIDENCES) and now he is comming with 180 degrees opposite version and screams again - you MUST accept my MICROSCOPIC EVIDENCES! I am afraid of his behavior because it just brings the confusion between the collectors. The scientist must be sure of his conclusions before presenting it to the public. Even if he had to research 100 years. If, in just four months, he turns his theory completely, he is just going to get embarrassed.

hi martin
so nice to see you posting here and on whermach forum about the makeing of these ss honor rings by the gahr firm and by no means dont get upset at mr. scarpini calling you stupid i have had that and more said to me over my many years in this great hobby but i am like a wolf i wait till i have the right opertunity to confront these cowards . i respect if and when they have the nerve which most doesnt to tell me to my face come to the two big shows and tell me listen every one has an opinion but to call names thats a no no mr. scarpini can do all the investigation he wants on these very unique ss honor rings in my opinion it wont change didly squat so with that please stay well my friend and keep buying the most rare ss personal artifact from himmlers ss this crap discussion drives the prices up not down god bless andy militarynut

Dear Andy, I look at you that you are holding him. Hope you have read on WAF, how he accused Don Boyle for fake rings with his COA. If I understood well, he was talking about you and your cooperation with Don in that business with fake rings: http://wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=944795&page=9

equirhodont,, Yes he went back and forth.. Your findings have stayed the same. No sense calling people out ,,lets let them argue like that over there...

You have some good findings I believe. Certainly different.. Many are waiting on what size his test ring is. That will 'tell' very much!!

*Have you seen the test results of the HRs silver content.. Most over 90%!! I find that very surprising and didn't expect that....

Please, can you tell us about your book? Where published? how many pages? Color photos? ,,where and how to get one , etc. etc....,Thanks

Yes, I know about 90% silver. In documents Gahr is talking about "fine silber", so I made tests on my rings. Average is 92% of silver.

My book was published past year, has 800 pages, is based on Boyle, Gottlieb and Scapini books, but I found and added lot of new thinks - for example - where Himmlers ring was discarded, I have discovered the number of ring patterns and Im talking about production there etc.... Second half of the book is about 26 rings in my collection - fate of all officers. It is in Czech, but there is hundreds of images. I?m looking for English publisher, but it will take long time to make English version. You can get my book here: http://www.totenkopfring.cz/en.html
See video here: https://youtu.be/_HtExFDGnDI
Im also selling some rings from the book here: http://www.totenkopfring.eu/

Quote from equirhodont:
"



Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 53
Czech republic

Yes, I know about 90% silver. In documents Gahr is talking about "fine silber", so I made tests on my rings. Average is 92% of silver.

I have a question: What metals did the other 8% consist of?
Jim

Here you are:
Ag, Zr, Pb, Zn, Cu, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Si

-
Jim,, The other materials are listed in Joe W.s post.. He tested his rings and John P.s rings... Pretty sure the HRs listed are in the pinned topic here from John.... Joe W.s post - His post:


"I was chatting with John Pepera about my test and he was fascinated. I urged him to test his rings. At the time he had ten of them that he provided me a list of with names, dates, measurements and weights.Within a week, John provided me with the results of his tests on four rings with various dates: 1939-was either Ramspberger or Koscula, 1939-Bruns, 1942-Stube and 1944-Clement. John used Argo-Tech/ ATC Materials Laboratories in Cleveland and they performed a Niton analysis via Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence. He sent me the results listings. In general, all four were silver alloy with copper in the following percentages:
1934 91.1% silver 8.86% copper
1939 90.5% silver 9.49% copper
1942 96.3% silver 3.70% copper
1944 92.8% silver 715% copper

The actual result showed miniscule amounts of aluminum and tin that were combined with the copper in the genera results.
As usual, my interests found something to research and I left these pages in my TK ring file. "





, * eruirhodont , Thanks for the info on your book. Wish you the best with it!

*
i

G:
Ok I see the results which to me are puzzling. I am certainly NOT a metallurgist but I would think that those tested combinations of silver and copper would yield a very durable metal that of course would wear well. As we know this was not the case with TK rings and they wore rapidly as anyone who has examined them can attest. I of course accept these results obtained by Pepera but they IMO in no way account for the wear seen in TK rings.
Again; I have a TK copy made by Hapur of a known metal content which is .925(Sterling) and after 10 + years of constant use shows virtually no wear.

Here is the composition of Sterling from the Internet:
"Sterling silver is an alloy of silver containing 92.5% by weight of silver and 7.5% by weight of other metals, usually copper. The sterling silver standard has a minimum fineness of 925."

I'd really be interested in some sort of explanation regarding the vast differences in apparent wear!

Jim

Jim,, for me also,, VERY interesting.. How does all that explain the almost premature wear on 1st pattern rings!! You can [with an experienced eye] also see the difference in silver color between the 1st and 2nd pattern.

As far as wear,,,something to take in to consideration,,, A cast ring will wear much much faster than a pressed ring! So we have what we hope is originals and we know they are wearing out fast,,yet a pressed ring like Hapurs seeming to last and last ..

Hello, imho, concerning the wear seen on many rings we do forget HOW and under which CONDITIONS these rings have been worn! Even when SSleaders most of them had to jump into mud, climb tanks or trucks, did hold rifles and pistols and much much more. Only a small percentage have been these paper pushers some collectors like to mention. So an extensive contact with steel might be expected which might cause a lot of the wearing traces and the worn down condition.
I dare to doubt that any of the modern rings do have nearly the same to suffer what most TKRs had to.
Regards,

Exactly! i have friend paper pusher, who wears my TK ring for almost 20 years, his ring is like new. Then there is logger - he needs new ring every two years as old one is completely worn out. By the way - inside of rings are are never worn. Sure there are scratches etc but engraving is perfectly readable.

Sure, you are right - it is not problem.
But for like every job there is easy way and hard way. Ask your jeweler if that is not much easier to engrave on flat surface compared to finished ring.

[quote=wotan
On the other hand -matthew-, you are on the wrong trace concerning the engraving. Here Mr. Scapini really did hit the nail and his observations are 100% correct. These rings, due to my investigations and personal experiences, have been engraved in the post assembling state. EACH elder, german hand ring engraver I did ask (and there were several, whenever I could find one personally) told me answering my question when a ring was/is engraved "NATURALLY in fixed (round) state". Even today engraving with engraving machines are done in fixed (round) state.

Regards,[/quote]

there is big difference in engraving one or two rings for wedding, or present, engraving already finished ring from store's shelf and making thousands of rings from scratch, knowing that at the end there will be engraving. Engraving flat is simply easier and less time consuming.

tried to watch those ridiculous videos, but after "pearls" like eight diferent engraving tools with different angles, and solder filled hollow skulls it is more than clear that persons who made video do not understand even basics of jewelry making.

I already few pages back gave short video of hand engraving. There is one simple gravierstichel (graver in english) which is tilted at differet angles to get finer or thicker line, curve etc.

just have read wise words on WAF forum

Originally Posted by Chris Boonzaier
"

I think the problem is, anyone can film through a microscope.... the ability to analyse and reach conclusions is not sold with the microscope

It looks like Mr. Scapini has taken his toys and disappeared! I have asked a few times on WAF about dates/pics for the ring he used and have yet to see a reply. Maybe he is afraid if he post that info, he maybe exposed.
Ron

I think Hapurs testimony was significant here. Besides the obvious, a quick search on haps posts reveals a consistent eye for casting details, casting flaws, cast rings altogether really. Most of the folks who have been collecting for long enough to research the forums can easily see the valuable part hapur plays in identifying cast pieces. He?s called rings cast that Gaspare calls not cast, more than on one occasion.... If ANYone is going to see what Antonio sees it surely has to be hap! Since it is not and hap doesn?t agree with the assessments and the videos and images, I don?t know what else there really is left to say tbh.... just my 2p,
Mike

I agree with Byzanti, I gotten two rings from Hapur and there is none better. In fact his rings are better than the originals I've seen.
I wish Prof. Herbert Zeitner was still alive...what a story he would tell.

hi members
boy am i glad i think i see daylite in the tunnell about how why and where these ss honor rings were made and by who and are the gahrs still alive and what did they eat before they engraved these honor rings all these people are dead and can not answer us so why are we persuing all these e mail posts enough is enough please dont make me puke with more posts lets get on to collecting learning about our rings please plus we are all back to square one all over a microscope i believe prof.zeitner was he hermann gorings private jeweler in berlin or am i mistaken might be two zeitners please correct me if im wrong now who has the next ring for us guys to give our opinions on thanks much god bless all andy militarynut

you know this is a long topic with no real conclusion.. I guess he wanted to try here to see if there were any supporters before he went on his own forum. He's a financial supporter and a Moderator yet he starts here [?]

Anyway ,,, I am going to start off with a few things.. First,,IF anyone has been following this topic and the WAF ,,,do you see it or take it that I am insulting him? or name calling , anything disrespectful? Sometimes I take stuff personal and get carried away.. IF you please let me know here or privately I would deeply appreciate it!!!. , thanks guys..

OK, next.... and again,,IF you guys see where I'm way off base here just come on in and say so please! We had a couple very respectful professional 3rd reich collectors perform some tests on their HRs and we posted their results back then,,and again on this topic. Shows they are mainly silver. Antonio is to much for me to type,,I'm lazy so I'm going to refer to him as Tony from here on.

So I've read a couple times on the WAF where he claims they are not mainly silver. Think one quote he says that are not silver.. At first I thought he meant the solder. BUT no,, I read, and reread,,he means the HR itself . At least one time he says 'because they aren't silver'... Now the tests done were up to date [at the time] and still are the professional way to test for what some is made out of scientifically. . It was something like over 90% or around 90% silver..

BUT,, Tony seems to me to totally disregard the tests. Doesn't address them or hardly acknowledges the test.. Am I getting it right so far? He's done his own thats fine,,but you can't disregard these tests!

He's made some ,,what I would call some wild claims.. Now this is just me gents, my opinions.
He's stating there is a Tin band in the center of the band.. He does n't explain why?, or what it would do? or how exactly it gets in there... right so far yes...

OK. I worked in the A/C business for about 13 years [air conditioning]. Tin is used for the duct work for carrying the air.. Tin is a hard metal. It also rusts easy which is why 99% of the time its galvanized to prevent rust.
He does not tell us the width or thickness of this band. * Now we ALL know what aluminum foil is. its in almost every house . It is of my opinion that IF, if it is the width of the inner band and that it would have to be thicker that the AL foil to do something [what?] .. SO IF thicker and in a lets say heavy worn ring. Lets say one of those soomth babies we see once in a while ,,,or at least a pretty worn ring ..

OK a simple test... IF you took a very strong magnet,,or made a simple Electromagnet [they are very strong!] Wouldn't you think that the magnet would attract the ring?? At least have some pull to it,something? even a little?? I don't have one,,but if anyone can do the test and would like to post the results here I'd appreciate it!, much thanks....,G.

He's also made some claims about they are not die pressed. But we know they are not die cast. Every professional jeweler says it wasn't dome back then, and isn't in use now. just not a good way to make jewelry , especially rings..

So how are the made? Honestly,,I don't know.. I used to think die pressed, because of the slip of a tool on the left Sig Rune left a big gash at its bottom. commonly called a die flaw... But tony says NO. They are from a mold,,and probably up to 3 molds IF I understand right [?]. OK, SO why is the flaw there. It could be fixed in a minuet if from some sort of mold for investment cast or lostwax. But Tony is not saying yet exactly how. Why leave the flaw there after the first batch? Thats a question I have..............

He also says the HR is NOT a mass produced ring! .... What is mass produced. How many?.. Many Private Purchase [from now on known as PP here] rings were made less than 1 thousand.
You take a kind of common ring,,one of the WestWall patterns. I know from an interview I did years ago for my project that the company that owned the master die made 500. Then knowing it was a popular design after selling out would sell the working dies to other firms that wanted to sell the ring. [Not all companies especially the real small ones did not employ a die cutter]. They would buy a working die at a good price and could make many many rings before it got worn or broke.. silver and brass are soft and were the 2 main materials used for PP rings and don't forget the HR is mainly silver according to the tests. But we're getting away from the original question,,,what is mass produced. So with some working dies out there, they too would do 500 or so to see if they will sell. A couple companies doing that and you could have a 1000 or 2 made it its patterns lifetime..
Once the market flooded and a lot of kids and people have them they fall out of favor and time for the next style! A couple thousand ]if that] and that pattern is done..

SO,, The Honor ring. Made from 33 [but not many that year and 34. ] But figure 35 to 44. Less than 10 years.... Thousands were made.. Don or someone figured it out. IF someone knows the guesstimate PLEASE post here,,,,whatever it is 3 thousand? more? ,,,that is mass produced my friends,,ask any jeweler,, For a specific pattern that remains the same design and only certain people got them,,not something you can go out and buy , a few thousand IS mass produced......

Well getting late,,so thats it for now... I'll continue tomorrow.. AND please,,if any of you would like to post and not be spoken to rudely which has been happening over there the last few pages please do. Questions? Answers? theories? ALL welcome here and will be addressed respectfully...If not at least we'll have the questions for posterity with no name calling and disrespect and the collectors can make up their own mind.. You see a microscope isn't always needed. The love for the hobby, years of study and yes sometimes some simple common sense will answer way more that microscopes and expen$ive tests.. The hobby has been around a long time without them. And it IS good to have them,, I'm not saying they aren't,,and I do appreciate Tonys tests. But the questions come from inquisitive minds..not computers etc.
I thank you members...,Gaspare

I was able to check mine with a simple magnet, I do not have an electromagnet or any access to one, but I can say definitively in the case of a night of the long knives dated ring and a 1940 dated ring, they do not react at ALL to a magnet. 40 has of course lighter engraving minus most of the name, long knives is complete inside the band. I put the magnet to both inner bands, no reaction or pull. These are both well known originals.

I do not think you are off base and the points you and many others raise are valid and should be addressed respectfully as they are neither contrary points nor personal attacks... they are the established statements of known findings through the ages to this point. If anyone at should feel challenged or attacked it is you and the ones who have helped establish the conventional and accepted wisdom pertaining to these rings. As far as the ironic and personal counter attacks on people who are merely restating said conventional wisdom about the honor ring itself, I think Shakespeare said it best... ?The lady protests too much, methinks....?

Mike
I also checked mine and a magnet does not react either.
I am no expert, but would like to make a comment if I may. I looked at the engraving and a pic of the so called "inner band" pic on WAF and the engraving depth on an original ring is deeper than the thickness of the "inner band".
That leads me to this question, What would the purpose of the "inner band" be then? Since the engraving goes through the "inner band" it certainly would not be to make engraving easier.
I do not subscribe to the "inner band" theory. Ron

Well I do not subscribe to it either Ron for a number of reasons. Primarily because it is an unnecessary step that even in the face of German over engineering still does not make sense. I own a very nice private purchase skull ring that has a hollow skull of course and has interior engraving really very similar to Gahr engraving. It has a date of October 1935. We know how these kinds of rings were made and what they were made of. Engraved In the flat or in the round, there is no second, separate inner band, of course. Antonio himself did in fact make a passionate point for engraving in the round as it pertained to a cast as a round ring theory. There was no inner band necessary there either. COULD there be an inner band, is there a bevel or line evident on many rings? Yep. Both of mine have what appears to be a bevel or an inner line. But is it necessarily two rings, or a ring and an inner ring? I sincerely doubt it, but I am willing to entertain it as an interesting observation, which is in fact, the only thing we are studying here. Hey look what I can see here in this utterly ambiguous image is completely subjective and is not an scientific inquiry by any stretch of the imagination, but it does lead to some entertaining videos and neat-o magnified pictures.

Really proud of you guys. We are taking is slow ans making a tiny bit of progress. True we don't have a microscope nor paying for expensive testing which would be nice. Tonys done some good testing. But what does it all mean?

So, I would say the majority of the material used on the HR is silver..

Tin. Is there a tin inner band in there. wouldn't a x-ray show it clearly? Did I miss that over there? Does anyone understand it clearly and saw the test that showed the actual tin band? And, if is is thicker than AL foil there should be some kind of reaction to the magnet test.. It's got to be thick enough to be some kind of supporting structure [?] What is it doing in there? Tony does not explain it anywhere I read,,maybe I missed it . Guys do you se anything about it, what it does? and how big it is?

Last,, guess its a matter of opinion. For me a few thousand rings IS mass produced.. Andy,,or anyone with Dons book. Could you please post the guesstimate of how many were made.. I'm pretty sure it was a few thousand!

So now maybe we can address the one piece? 3 piece?The u-tube part 2 is supposed to be showing an authentic ring. They claim it was made in the round, engraved in the round and a hollow skull soldered on. Not really understanding what part 2 is about. They show a mess of a ring. sure looks cast. Don't think in part 2 Tin is mentioned. BUT they do state that size ring would not need a seam and does not have one.

The engraving,,well he's right. They engrave round rings all the time not. So flat or round it could be engraved fine either way so no problem there..

What I do have a problem is: IF you take the same year HR in part 2,,and note the year . they claim that size doesn't , never had a seam..

OK then,,why do other HRs the same exact year, same exact size and they have seams. In fact they all have seams. Now what? I think Tony explains it as they were resized,,then resized back to original size ... That doesn't make sense sorry.. OR again I'm not understanding his explanation.
So far all authentic HRs have a seam. You might not be able to see it but its there.

ChrisSScollector. You have a theory about eye sockets and non hollow skulls.. I don't believe the skulls are hollow. I was shown years ago 2 authentic skulls. Not hollow,,kind of shell shaped but a nice flat where it could be soldered to the band.... Chris, I invite you here to maybe help us understand a bit better without all the rudeness, sarcasm, etc.

And again I also invite anyone else to address what is written in this post...., Thanks again guys,,,Gaspare

Member Ric was kind enough to send this:

14K to 20K,,,,20,000,,,twenty thousand!!

Guy,, I would say most of the PP rings we collect didn't hit this number of production! Tony,,the HR WAS a mass produced ring. It just wasn't available for retail like our PP rings , meaning you couldn't buy one,,,but for sure even at half that number and it would be classified as 'mass produced'..
Thanks again Ric.!!

So you are saying that an original HR may very well have that inner ring? Also, Antonio..you are confusing Ric's word "composition" with the word "construction". ,,And at the end of the day, how do you know that ,,,,,How do you know that some original HR's might have a hollow skull, and other original HR's ,,,,
- This has become so murky now that who knows what's a real ring and what isnt....


Other than 2 or 3 others , [one only collects SS cloth] Most are confused.. After so many pages and accusations etc. what has really come about there?.. For me ONE thing,,we are not sure the rings were die pressed.

There has NOT been a method or even a theory explained how they are made... There are contradictions everywhere.... No explanation about the part #2 ring. IT has no seam and claims it never did.. Yet there are rings the same date and size that are authentic and they all have a seam...

Where is the proof they were made 'in the round'? - These are not for Tony to answer...... There's like 30 something pages of confusion there. I want to hear from others, either pro what? or Con..
There ARE guys that know and can refute Tonys findings but they choose to stay out of it. I've had emails saying he's hurt the HR market more than anyone in its history.

I don't see how,,nothing has been explained, nothing has been proven. TRUE,,no proof has been provided the rings were pressed. OK, yes I concede that myself.. But on his theories,there is no proof either.
Members here,,any comments? , especially from this page and the page before where things got paraphrased... ANY and ALL comments are welcome......

you know it was also claimed that with a press/die you couldn't get complex angles or difficult designs.. That isn't true. while most die cutters made the simplest die so things would be easy there were complex ones
. Rings that did take more that one pressing. But never the less these complicated designs were tough, with tough angles that would make you wonder how they were made.. This bothered Tony. He had written that on the 2nd pattern especially the curved band would be too difficult to have it come out right,,,that is couldn't be pressed, had to be a casting.. And he could be right,,maybe it was some kind of unorthodox casting,,but there were dies that did the same..

This die from 1927 would make a way more complicated design than the HR. Yet was available for years before and afterward. Just wasn't done much because simple was better. Less waste, unskilled labor etc. etc. but the technology was there certainly..

Also,, about the lines that look like a inner separate band. ,,,,and again,,maybe there was,,we just haven't seen any proof yet..

But it could simply be from the rear/inner supporting die! Some had smooth insides,,some had the reverse of the cartouche design. The inner line could just be from something like that. Either pressed,,or cast,,,but it doesn't automatically mean there is another band incorporated in to the design..

What was probably the worst was a member there asked a very valid question. He was dismissed out of hand, insulted, and his theory wasn't even considered by Tony. He just insulted and tried to make a fool out of the member. Lucky the member was a experienced in metal work, and with the HR in general for years and took it all in stride. People get frustrated when they can't get their point across,,when there isn't proof and he can't understand why others don't see it his way.. I'm open to it ALL. Other than some testing that showed materials about the solder , there still isn't proof about anything else.

The HR was a mass produced ring.. The HR was mainly made out of silver. Was it pressed? don't know. Was it cast? don't know. He shows terrible detail shots that look like it was from the worst of castings I've seen. . Made in one piece? Please where's the beef so to speak. There's some sort of explanation but its not absolute...


This is a 1928
die set for both
types of reverse/
inners etc.

G.,

after an impressive waste of time and money Antonio scientific tests proved nothing.

I can tell you none of my 8 Honor rings show a double band construction, none of them stick a magnet, none of them show an hollow skull e to end all of them show a nice seam.

As Hapur rightly said : "anyone can film through a microscope.... the ability to analyse and reach conclusions is not sold with the microscope"

That's his true limit, he is not able to distinguish a die struck ring from a cast one and the purpose of tons of pics by playing with microscope is to hide his lack of experience.

Ric

hi members
i repeat like rick not one of my honor rings have a tin ring on the inside also all my skulls are not hollow they are solid silver its just a shame and a waist of every bodys time including his to get squat out of it also that some one with the money does all this research and comes up with nothing plus buying a very expensive miroscope then his attutude with outher members asking opinions then e mailing the person back and say his opinion is right and the person asking is wrong wow glad we are on the tail end here perhaps we can go on to outher rings that we collect private purchase rings and rings that we never seen before thanks every body have a great day god bless andy militarynut

To me Andy:
It is truly unfortunate that others with extensive knowledge like yours are unwilling to get involved and say what has to be said. We all know who they are and their reasons for remaining silent is baffling
This guy probably wouldn't agree the rings were made using dies even if someone produced an original set.* I fail to understand exactly what his motive is here unlike when another came up with the "rings were cast in the round in rubber molds" theory.

* There has been a persistent rumor for many years that Roger Steele did have a set of original Gahr dies and they are now in possession of another dealer, Whether this is in fact true may never be known.

-
Jim,,,, R.S, owned these infamous dies:

http://phpstack-500133-1583587.cloudwaysapps.com/~germand2/ubbthreads.php/topics/338738/2.html

He also owned molds taken from/made from authentic H. Goring s rings. 2 that were known. He was credited with all sorts of fantasy pieces too. Dagger parts ,medals, jewelry etc. Along with selling N.O.S. dagger parts , having flags made from the original makers etc.
Whats true and whats BS,,,,don't think anyone is around that could tell us anymore....

. But getting back to the HR.. Well there also isn't anyone left alive that could enlighten us, nor did any tooling survive. I have heard for years that a piece of the bands tooling survived and was badly damaged but as much about it ,,it was never produced . So maybe that is a myth too..

We 've been having some good rational discussion about the HR here. Some solid facts - the silver content,,,- the amount produced,,,etc. Maybe you guys could post the inner bands of yours [even if they are on their own topic] and WE can address the inner band multi piece theory.. Much thanks so far guys.!!

I am trying to get a good shot of my inner band to post. Ron

Gaspare
See if these are good enough. I can tell you that nothing is magnetic and there is no inner band. Ron

Ron:
Good pictures. And that's exactly what the inner view of any TK ring I've ever handled looks like from above and below. Now note the light area surrounding the band in Ron's photos. IMO: Under different lighting/viewing conditions this can very well make it look like there are two separate bands. I think that's exactly what's being shown in some of the photos over on WAF. Whether this is inadvertent or being done purposefully to deceive remains to be seen. Stay tuned I guess!
Jim

I agree. Lighting can be deceptive and can make lines appear where they are not. I believe Mr. Scalpini is using certain images to support his theory/agenda.
Ron

This belongs to a former member here.. He is on WAF. His name is Chris and is a SS collector.....

These are photos of his ring, and has given us permission to post them here on this topic.. IF I remember correct it was gotten directly from a Vet..

Now these last 2 rings posted here ,,Tankers is a early pattern. The 2nd , Chris's ring looks to be a 2nd pattern.. Ffor me 2 different rings. Yes they have the same emblems on them and the same engraving on them. But the shapes are different. The Early has a flatter type band. The 2nd has a rounded outer band..

In both these photos I can see a seam. A little tough but they are there.. I also can kind of see a line going around on the inside. I don't see where or how that would mean there is a 2nd band there.. Tanker,,, Chris,,,,thanks SO much for the photos.. Could I bother you for just one or 2 more.. Try and get a photo of the inner band. Not a birds eye view. But on a angle, so you can see most of the flat inner. Doesn't matter if there is engraving or not. We we are looking to see IF the line is visible on your rings... Thanks SO much...

Chris does state he doesn't see anything inside that would believe him that there is another band involved in its manufacture. He also states there IS a seam,,and he tried the magnet test and got nothing.. Thanks Chris..... ,G.

No problem Gaspare . Here are a couple from ones I previously posted on my thread. On actual inspection, I see no trace of an inner band. What appears like any is just an illusion with angles/shadows. A very difficult subject to phohotgraph!
Ron

Here's 2 more of Rons famous ring.. One of the best out there,,certainly in the top 10 or even top 5!!..

I see a seam, I don't see evidence if 2 or 3 piece band.. and he mentions the magnet dies not attract.1

Always goo to see the ring Ron! , thanks for being part of this..

Thanks Gaspare
The top 2 are with a flash and bottom ones are not.
Yes, there is a seam and no evidence of an inner ring band and definetly non magnetic I tried to take without flash and on a cloudy overcast sky to prevent shadows but a very difficult item to photograph:)

Look hard enough you will see anything. Tried to really show these so called inner bands so I took these 2 well known, certified, documented original rings downstairs and snapped pics with the light from my downstairs fridge at night. Used a basic photo editor magnifying tool and voila here you go a conspiracy theory is born. What do you see in this cloud? What does this inkblot mean to you? That is all we have been playing over this silliness. There could be a metallurgical difference between the inner and outer bands sure. What could cause that? I do not know but probably much much more than one thing. Anyhow one ring is a 30s, one is a 40s. Likely obvious by the early vs later ring differences we are all aware of by now. Some may say they see inner rings with different metal qualities. I have realized these angles shadows lines impressions could be just about anything. But no gahr jewelers are alive today to answer these questions, and we did not work there either so let us call speculations and observations just that. It is a matter of opinion and as I said on the other forum- if you own a real ring, you know it.. And It is awesome.

In my experience you can forget about using a magnet to test for Tin. Tin is just as magnetic as silver or aluminium.
Most "Tin cans" are actually steel with a thin tin layer on top to make it non-hardazous for food.

Well you learn something every day.. Trig you are right in a way.. a quote from scientific american:

"SCIENCE PHYSICS MAGNETISM
Q:
Is Tin Magnetic or Non-Magnetic?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Tin is magnetic in the literal sense of the word. The effect is so weak that it could be considered non-magnetic for all practical purposes. It is called a paramagnetic substance scientifically, but it has such a weak effect that it can be compared to a diamagnetic element."

OK so in its pure form is isn't strongly magnetic. BUT,,,in the 1920s, 30s, 40s. when you bought tin it was automatically alloyed with a Ferrous material! IF you were buying Tin for airshafts you did not have to buy 2 different metals and make your tin ductwork!
SO, Trigg are are right in a way. But If you bought a sheet if tin to make something it was magnetic.. Weird yes..

We don't know what tony found in his tests as I think they were related to solder. The band?,, I don't know?

Mike,,thanks for the photos. Chris, Tanker too..

IF, IF we just had a ground dug HR that was broken in half, or even a cut in it.. Tony has a lot of good points. but presented very confusing. The guys that don't believe in his theories,,well they are going to need a more clear presentation..
I don't know what was proved on WAF other than the HR might not be pressed. No method has been offered as how the HR has been made.. Not real proof that it was cast in one piece? and if it was then what about the Tin inner.. What would that be in there for?. How thick was it? Was it Tin bought from a commercial source therefore Ferrous and magnetic? So many questions and I'm sure you guys have your own..........,G.

My neighbor the math and science guy! We made a basic electromagnet with some wire a nail and a battery and tested both rings. Non magnetic. Just FYI

I have no bone in this fight, I am an edged weapons collector, but I am interested in manufacturing techniques.

The way Antonio is presenting his case on WAF is most confusing.
His presentation is not very scientifically done, with poor descriptions of his testing and he is not saying much about his test method and what inaccuracies can occur for such tests.

His findings on the "inner band" is interesting in the fact that there is a different composition of silver there than on the rest of the ring.
But there is (at least for me) just more questions arising about the way these rings were tested.
-Were all rings tested at the same exact spot on the "inner band"?
-Were more than one spot tested on each rings "inner band"?

My questions come up because the chemical composition he shows on the tested rings are so very different from each other. From 14% to 64% silver. Tin from 22% to 85%.
Are these values consistent on all of the "inner band", from the back of the scull to the rear?
For me these results are just showing that this is probably not a physical "Inner band" that has been made and in some way added to the silver ring. It is more like a smear of tin, uneven on the inside..?? Maybe the solder when finalizing the rings in the seam behind the scull run on the inside of the ring?
If it was a seperate inner band added, I would assume the alloy was more or less identical in composition of silver and tin over time..

At least for me, until a lot more test data with accurate descriptions of how the data were extracted is presented, I do not believe in an "inner band", not yet.

I would agree with you of course. Making the claims he did as he did served only to becloud rather than clarify anything about these rings. Most unfortunate. No matter.. we move forward!

I also agree. and Trigger appreciate you coming aboard here..,
I mentioned this to him here, there, and in private emails. That he would have a mess on his hands and confused members there...

Here. ok, we're no scientists, no super microscopes. But we have some guys experienced members. Members who have studied the HR, Members who have done their own independent. work and have their own findings. some have chosen to keep these findings private for whatever reason, but I respect it..

There is also a problem most don't know about. John P. had many HRs,,over 10. Well it has been discussed that one if not 2 were not authentic. John hated CoAs, hated paying for them, hated that there was just this one 'guru'. So what happened to these 1 or 2 HRs?! His whole collection has been sold, someone has them...

Trigg, Mike, Tanker, Jimbo, Andy, Evgeniy, Hapur etc etc etc.and you others,,, all have valid questions,,and no coherent answers.. Please keep these discussions going, your questions,, your theories, all of it because in the end its this site that is starting to make some sense,,and in the end run will make the most common sense.. Thanks so much...........,


Well keep plugging away at it and if anyone needs help resizing a photo or anything my email is posted ..

I am going to stop posting on the WAF thread. IF I post anymore, it will be here. It has become obvious that no matter what is said on WAF, it will fall on deaf ears. It is unfortunate that Mr Scalpini has muddied the waters so much that future collectors will have doubts/fears about collecting such a historical item.

hi ron
nice to hear again please nobody is mudding the waters not even mr. microscope from italy let them say what they want over at waf they have thier opinions and we have ours let me just say this to every body here in my opinion i have been in this great military hobby for over fifty five years and i learned the hard way by meeting many wonderfull knowledgble people and some that were so dis honest they would if given a chance screw any one but eventuly the worm turns they have heard the calling those people are still in with the devil thats untill they pay for what they have done here on earth we still have a few left that might hear the calling soon but they cant hurt us as far as ss items the most sort after ss items is still in demand number one is an ss honor ring second is a nice ss dagger then ss sword they will all ways hold thier value thats my opinion and we shouldnt care what people say about these three valuble ss items if this isnt enough they all can bring thier microscopes to the max show i will have some of my honor rings there they can look they can buy there will be no hacksaw cutting or testing at my booth just looking and possible buying hope every body agrees god bless have a great day andy militarynut

Well said Andy.

hi mike
thank you i have all ways called a spade a spade in this great hobby what you see you get i am here for a very long time i have really enjoyed this hobby and still do along with all the good guys the bad guys or trouble makers i take with a grain of salt they dont pay my bills those type of people only hurt this great hobby we all are here to learn and enjoy as far as ss honor rings that people showed don boyle over the years to get papered i have seen many happy people when don papered thier rings good and i seen several sad angry people when don papered thier ring bad some even was yelling at him calling him names and you dont know what your looking at real jerks that cant take no good ring for an answer many years ago a dear friend of mine asked me to take his ring to get don to paper it good first question i asked him was did don ever look at his ring his answer was yes and don said its no good i said if don told you it didnt make the grade then why do you want me to take it to don his answer was that i was dons best friend i told my dear friend listen to me yes i am a very dear friend to don and you to only difference is that you are a real jerk for trying to cash in on my reputation one thing you forgot my friend my reputation is not for sale to you or any one else now get lost and dont you ever contact me again you are dead to me you lost a good friend have a nice day with out me ok guys sorry i got carried away again god bless all have a great night andy militarynut

yes emotions run high on this subject. I see the latest post by Tony. He is getting completely out of control with his answers,,,and he's supposed to be a Moderator there!!

Some things I don't understand there:

Tony thinks the HR is NOT a mass produced ring! There were close to or ,maybe even more than 20 thousand HRs made!! 20 thousand!! Twenty Thousand!. Friends/members there are many PP rings are not made in that quantity! Any manufacturer would classify it as a mass produced ring...

1. more than once he states the HR is not made mainly from silver. Maybe I read it wrong but thats how is reads to me. Years ago more than one person had the rings material tested. They all had the same results,,they are minimum of 90% silver.. Friends,,thats a silver ring to me.

2 - Tony is now to the point of saying that even PP rings were not pressed! He does have a problem. I ,,myself,,me,,OWN period ring dies including one for a famous/common WestWall ring. I have friends that own others. I've also had a interview some years ago with a German jeweler whos last name is Wilm and told me their mass produced rings were made with a die and press. Sometimes didn't even produce them but just sold the working dies.. BUT we won't get in to that now.

3- Something kept private / confidential but I don't feel like I'm letting anyone down by saying this because the person is deceased.. It was well known to a few collectors that 2 of John Peperas HRs probably weren't authentic. His HRs have been sold. Tony I understand owns one. Could it be one of the rings he had tested? Does it matter?

4. The ring in part #2.. Tony claims there is no seam. just a skull soldered on.. Problem is,,the rings the same size, same year all have a seam! His answer was something about them being resized then resized again to their full size[?] I didn't understand it then and don't now..

5. Jim M. A retired professional business man also a antiques buff to the point he is considered professional by many. Also a military collector I've know for a good 15 years now..He explained exactly how a case like Tony is trying to prove should be done. Instead of thanking him,,Tony insults him..

6. It seems like whoever disagrees with tony he insults them, is impolite, dismisses them outright, answers sarcastically etc. And,,it seems to be getting worse. Hey happens all the time on our forums,,and its up to the Moderator to correct it. Except that Tony IS the Moderator!!

7. he wants proof they are pressed. Well, there is none. I do admit something is weird there. Maybe firma Gahr used some unorthodox method,,but we don't know what.

8. So far though Tony has only proved that there is tin and other materials in the solder used for the skull.

9. He claims the skulls are hollow. They are not. I told Tony something in confidence and now I'll tell everyone. There is a private collector that has 2 fully made 2nd patten skulls. The are not hollow. They are kind of shell shaped,curved in back,. thick in the middle and thinner at the bottom and top. He completely dismissed me! and said on some of his they are hollow so they all must be hollow and they just get filled up with solder.! Actually hard to do,,but I guess they could have been clamped to keep from popping off.

10. So far I don't see where Tony shows the method of how the ring is made. He doesn't explain why the Tin is in the band. . Why his ring is one of the only few that don't have a seam.He is fixated about the imperfection in the rings he shows etc. But guys like Chris SS collector whos had a vet acquired ring for many years doesn't display some of the things Tony's rings do.

11. Ric F.,,, he deserves the trophy for being gentlemanly, polite and good tempered.

To point 11, a close second in that trophy running should be Ron (tanker). I think we can all say here we have only ever seen a polite, inquisitive, and respectful man in his ever constant and reliable demeanor... but how much is the man supposed to take??

yes Mike I agree. 'Tanker' Ron is a good dude. A valued member here for a long time. And,,has one of the best HRs out there! He knows whats real and whats not..

Tonys insults are ridiculous. They are getting worse and worse by each post.. My suggestion would be to complain.. I did,,to Gary Wood. A old member here in the SS section and a fine moderator there in the SS section... I'd suggest everyone not liking how Tonys treating members, his sarcasm, his complete rudeness, to PM or emil Gary Wood.. He's the fairest guy still there on that site that I know..It's not right how he is treating members there.. Yeah, Ron you too a tie for 1st place.. But keep on trucking,,don't take the bullshit,,demand for respect!

I have again shown "Antonio" how he could present his evidence is a structured and methodical manner and he brushes it off or ignores it. I am done with pressing him as I have not received any support from other quarters on this. To date all he has done is provide a mishmash of "evidence" supporting his construction theories. When I pressed him to show in detail how they could have been constructed this way; again I was ignored. I'm done with this as It's a waste of my time trying to reason with a true believer. Carry on gents.
Jim

Its a shame Jim.. You gave him great advice,,,more than once. and he dismissed it out of hand like it was nothing.. You could tell him the sky is blue but the microscope shows its red so its red.

He's done. he's insulted anyone and everyone that tried to answer him..

I've had it with him,,,He doesn't use his own brain, his own common sense..... Hey Tony,,,where is the inner band markings on this Honor ring huh?!?!

Somehow his research/testing shows the HR is something like 88%, less than 90%. Where all the prior testing has shown a minimum of at least 90%. These results have been published ,,yet he dismisses them out of hand.

Where is the method of manufacture? The HR is what? 1 piece, 2 piece, 3 piece?? I've seen a couple times you suggest the HR isn't silver at all? but your own tests show they are!
You have a ring with no seam,,,yet other HRs the same year,,the same size etc. all have a seam,,your answer,,'maybe it was resized and resized back to the bigger size again.

Hollow skull?,,maybe on the fake HRs.. Don has 100s on file that all have solid or semi solid skulls. Andy has had at least 10 HRs at a time,,ALL had a seam. This smooth one,,don't you think it would have worn thru?! But Don doesn't know what he's taking about. SO,,whos authenticating your HRs? Yourself?!

- and yes,, John Pepera did have 2 HRs that to him were questionable, but fake to others that inspected it. He's had 9, 12 ? HRs at a time yet he still could make a mistake..
Your setting yourself up as infallible! Thats dangerous...

I have been polite and nice to you in every email, every post here, every post on WAF. Yet you have insulted every friend I have on these forums. It's done....


W.T.F, have you REALLY proven?

Hello G. and friends,

lab report posted by WAF #667 clearly say :

"THE RING WAS PRODUCED IN AT LEAST 2 PHASES AND USING 3 DIFFERENT ALLOYS, IN PARTICULAR IT IS CLEAR THAT IS A "BILAMINATE", IE OF AN OBJECT COMPOSED OF TWO LAYERS OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS AND JOINED TOGHETHER"

Since that's a fact and I have no reason to doubt it, to me it leads to 2 possible explanations :

1) Gahr worked on 2 layers separately, let's say inner layer to be engraved and outer layer to be impressed ? Later Gahr had to join layers before adding the skull.
Wishing to accept this first hypothesis, a question raises :

why the seam joining two layers is never visible (under strong magnification even) , while seam behind skull is almost everytime visible without magnification even ?.

2) Gahr received a blank silver bar already bilaminated (there could be different reasons to explain it) by his silver provider and worked on it.
Wishing to accept this second hypothesis, the die casting theory is definitively dead because is virtually impossible to cast a silver alloy by keeping its bilaminated structure??..am I right ?

Ric

Ric,, forget about die cast.. True die cast,,like the toy cars.. It involves a permanent mold,,molten metal, injected with pressure, gages to check etc etc. . Wasn't done back then, and not now.. IF it ws a viable method for mass production of rings it would still be used because its more refined now than ever..

Gahr getting it already drawn as a bilaminate? Can't imagine it. Most rings were pre war,,maybe up to 42. But when things started to go badly no one was buying PP rings. Now the HR was a present from the RFdSS! So I guess he could and did what he wanted. but to have a company take the time, the important materials that were needed [the HR was made until 44] I just can't see a company making drawn, ready to use material like that,,,,just my opinion...

So Gahr would have had to been making this bi laminate himself!! Again,,just my opinion,, I can't see it!!

Could the tests be wrong about it being a bilaminate? Maybe some kind of contamination?.. Look at the worn smooth ring above.. Wouldn't we see something ,,anything show such a 2 part construction? I'm up in the air about some of the testing. Things go wrong. The one test he said the outside is 88% maybe lower for the outer band.. It's been tested more than once. All showed over 90% silver..

Biggest question as I see it now is,,,WHY? Why 2 piece, the tin in the solder is no big deal. ?BUT, if he claims there is a Tin band inside the HR,,,Why? It's not saving anything ,,it certainly makes it more complicated to make.
Why would you think so Ric?

Hello G.,

I do not believe Gahr worked on two separated layers then joining them, but the reasons for Gahr requesting a bilaminated silver alloy to his provider could be few :

1) since the inner layer is softer, to make the engraving job easier ? (my preferred one)

2) to save silver if compared with an alloy with more percentage of silver ?

3) to prevent engraving area from oxidation ?

Anyway I see no reason to believe lab result uncorrect, since it was performed on several rings even and it paradoxically kill the die cast theory.

Since double band is never visible, it means that Gahr received blank silver bar already bilaminated, more likely the same way SS cap eagles/skulls factories received cupal alloy ready to be impressed?.(during pre-war period).

Ric

I did never believe to die casting theory at all, but to definitively kill such insane and nonsense theory we have to logically argument.

I guess that bilaminated structure is not compatibile with production by die casting and a confirmation about it would be a perfect assist.

Ric

At this point the waf thread has descended into the motivations of the Germans who made the ring as being irrelevant to the inquiry at hand so I believe I have made my last post over there. I recall at sos 2015 Andy showing me and vinny an iron cross made some way or with some material that was non standard, I believe it was a brass core, or something to that effect- the first question Andy asked us was why we thought that happened. We of course could not guess, and Andy said if the Germans were anything- they were intentional. Not a mistake. Brass does not oxidize in the same way as iron, he said- and this was a KM mans cross. They had to withstand saltwater conditions. Sorry for the story but it always stuck with me as an example of understanding the maker and their motivations. It is deeply insightful- and how important is that to understanding the HR...? Is there anything more important than that? Otherwise it is just a piece of metal. To that point- take a look at this band! Is it an old smoothie? No... the engraving on the inside only says HOU Titanium. That is my wedding band.

The image of a double band can be seen in almost any ring as a play of shadow, and perhaps elevation. Not just the HR.

Mike
I think I am with you! Seems like posting on that thread by Mr. Scalpini is like running into a wall over and over. He is pushing his idea and he is the one with blinders on. I will stay here!

Mike,

you hit (again) the point :

German were/are an intentional people, they do/did the best they can/could at the lower cost possible..and Gahr was german !

When Scapini do not answer to "why had Gahr to be so complicated in making ring" question, is because he forget above truth to support his nonsense theories.

Ric

hi members
ric i just have to say this about german enginuity especially during the third reich they all did better quality work very little mistakes were made yes when they had slave labor working for them even in the last days when germany was defeted they still tryed to have quality items not quanity i had a machinest friend his father told hin in the 1950s the machinest of america sent germany what they said was the smallest dril bit in the world german machinest looked it over and made two drill bits out of the one america sent them and they said these are the smalest drill bits in the world thatswhat i call enginuity i personily feel gahr silversmits made a great himmler ss honor ring i will rest my case hope every one agrees i will be very happy when the colusion ring saga is over no body knows just guessing call muller its over guys god bless andy militarynut

Andy,

The version of the drill story that I heard was that in the 1950's, The Japanese sent a drill bit to the Swiss claiming it was the worlds smallest. The Swiss sent it back with a hole drilled through the shank.

hi dave
was it the swiss your probly right well the germans were just as gifted ok you win pick up the marbles have a great day god bless andy militarynut

Hi all,

I follow waf thread since the begging and I do not believe what I read. To me, Antonio does not know exactly what he is saying as he changes his point of view several times acording the replies he got. He has a true that created on his mind according his investigations and he would never change it although the real truth were in front of him. So, to him, the rings are cast and he can change how they are made but not that they are cast

He made some rings and he believe an expert. The bad part is that he does not want to read and asume expert opinions as they not match with his cast theories. Another bad part is that you cannot speak with him, because if you not agree his ideas you are his enemy and we will mock you.

Seems only interested in two questions that ask every time to Rick...

I post serval times some questions about the reason of the seam if they think they were cast in round and got no reply. Also ask him some info about how many rings he has studied and no replies.

So it does not matter what we said as he will negate and ridicule it. From my point of view the best we can do is show, specially on waf, that his ideas are wrong and why. As there are other members that will read his opinions and we don?t want they were confused about HR manufacturing.

My nick on waf is magferran. Fascinating info about HR is here. Congratulations to real experts...

Kind regards All

hi sir
thank you for your opinion on mr. antonio scapinis ideas on how the gahr firm made these ss honor rings there is no one alive from the gahr firm that can answer these hard questions about how they were made also you are right in my opinion he is ignorent to the fact that people like you me and many great experenced in third reich rings here has no opinion he calls us names i only made a few responces to him and i know they wernt nice ones but who does he think he is to me he is nothing and i told him so in my opinion he should take lessons on how to address outher people let him come to america i will help him on how to address another collector the trouble over on werhmach forum they let him get away with his rederic with outher members because he is a moderator poop on his title as shark tank mr. wonderfull says your dead to me the sad part is nobody gets to enjoy thier hobby and he is hurting his own hobby so far there is a few thousand posts and nothing positive learned all hot air but some still feed in to him they should learn this is a dead end hope all agree god bless andy militarynut

von ropen (magferran)
Welcome aboard! Glad to see you here. On this forum you will find a very courteous , knowledgeable and most helpful group of folks. Ron

Welcome von ropen- I read all your posts on that thread, you made excellent points!!

Many thanks to all for your kind words and great welcome. As I said is a pleasure be in this forum reading your clever ideas.

I invited ' von ropen (magferran)' to have a look here after he made some intelligent questions and was answered by dismissal or ridicule or just plain rudeness. So von ropen first, welcome to the forum here.. We have a great international membership truely from around the world! We get crazy sometimes here too but not to that point they are at WAF. The real shame of it all is that he is a Moderator and should be helping not hindering..

So von ropen [how about VR?],, Seems you collect Honor rings.. Do you collect other 3rd reich jewelry? You are welcome to post just about anything here,,private purchase rings, cufflinks, tie clips, Fobs, stickpins, Brooches, bracelets, cigarette cases etc. etc. There's over 20 or so back pages to look thru. Plenty to see and learn and to add to even very old posts, please feel free to add to anything... So have a good time here..

VR, this is also the Premier forum / Site for daggers and anything blade related. I do believe GDC was the first and still the absolute best when it comes to blades. We also have other subject forums to visit,,,click on 'Forums' to see the list of other subject areas. and again please feel free to post anywhere. Free to join and to post photos ,,I think the limit is 170kb.. It's always good to have a few sites to go to so thanks for including us in your group. SO enjoy the site and look forward to seeing any of your collection.. Thanks...,Gaspare

Hello magferran/von ropen,

thank you for offering your point of view here on GDC and on WAF.

Ric Ferrari

Gaspere VR is good yes thanks for invite me to join the forum it was a fantastic idea. All the point af view that are posted here, and replies are with respect To the rest of the members as I discover reading some post.

About jewelry only interested on rings, sometimes when I go to an antique shop I like to keep an eye to cigarette cases and lighters. So will keep an eye to the the forums. Principally I collect iron crosss, from all the periods. And badges also. But enjoy keep an eye to different stuff and discover new things.

Again, thanks for the welcome Gaspare



Ric, excellent work on your replies to Antonio. Seems he is obsessed with you

Thanks again to all the members

Actually that's a big issue because I have an hard time to depersonalize discussion to research the truth.

Ric

Well there are two options if Antonio won?t share his discovers.
1-he is not sure about what he has discover due the replies of the fellow members or
2- he only want to promote his future book as tanker has pointed in WAF. This ?affair? helps him to create some controversy

In any case he is not fair with community members

If you pay attention to key statement in WAF.#1 (along with thread title), to me his purpose appears clear :

"I already asked this on another forum (I suppose he's referring to GDC) , and the result was: they were die struck since experts said that and this is enough for us.

Good, but this is not enough for me"

Since the beginning his purpose is tying his name to the truth of how honor ring were made, just to promote himself like the new "go to guy" after previou step....to dirt Don Boyle public image.

Researching the truth is just a pretext to flood with tons of miscroscope "evidences" on WAF and GDC, with no interest in anyone disagree with him, even if by a logical way.

Of course having no interest but to promote himself, he did not pay attention to research true evidences supporting his theories and now he's taken by fear of being unable to finish the job.

Like a cherry on the cake, to dispel remaining doubts, he has candidly admitted (WAF.#766) :

"On my side I will close soon this discussion, because I'm tired of all the useless posts made until now. A civil discussion can be better made in few, where no experts chime in with "the advanced collectors said that is the truth"....."

"Find out the truth" in community interest has nothing to do with this dirty affair...here it's just a matter of $$$$$$$ IMO

Ric

Dear Odal,

I wish you were here, to silence bullsh*t pushers :

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=960453

RIP

Ric

God, I miss him dearly,,yes RIP my friend..


This HR. Worn to death.. Where are exposed bubbles that would be from a cast?? Where are the 2 bands?? Something is weird with the HR. I don't know what it is.. Some kind of unorthodox manufacture...

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8241561#post8241561

Game over

Ric

Yea it is closed 😂 someone should be angry

Seems as it were polished until leave it plain... extrange. Does a wear can do this?

Looks like a 30s ring. They were thinner, the outsides much more detailed/fine - not sure how to put it exactly. But it looks like those generally wore pretty fast compared to the 40s. Plus, they were worn through a war- maybe 10 plus years on a thin ring, or more- seems like some could get worn to smooth, sure. They noticed how quick they wore so the design changed, as I understand it.

Hello,

I was ready to post a technical question but unfortunately (or fortunately ?) Gary Wood closed discussion before.
So having Hapur like a member here, I guess this is the right place to post the question :

Antonio Scapini said :

"Porosity is made by casting or struck process !..Both metals are casted at the beginning! Is the second work (to make them become rings!) that give them their density! "

Antonio forgets (on purpose ?) that Hapur prepare blank bar by rolling mill and that has an influence on porosity (or density ?) :

https://youtu.be/I_jvDXT3Flk

Am I right ?

Ric

Does Antonio tested Harpur?s big or small band ring?

All Honor rings by Harpur made by silver sterling and to my knowledge he only changed skull shape (big and small)..if I did understand your question.

Ric

He has two rings. One with big band and other with a bit smal close to the original. Also two skulls... there is a photo of the two rings in the forum.

Here is a link to the thread... I prefer the small band

http://phpstack-500133-1583587.cloudwaysapps.com/~germand2/ubbthreads.php/topics/319844/re-personalized-reproduction-honor-ring-source.html#Post319844

VR,, that HR is from natural wear! There are several out there. Some worn during the war and then the US vet kept wearing it!

No matter how smooth the outside the inner engraving is still pretty good!

There are other photos on this topic of worn rings like that one. You just don't see the things Tony is talking about when they are that worn.. IF a true cast you would see pock marks/bubbles the more worn it is.
This photo is of a famous HR. In good worn condition. The engraving looks deep and fine. You can see enter marks from the engraving tool and even exit marks. [plunge and exit marks]

Thank you, VR

I didn't know of another band less wide, so I do not know which band Antonio tested

Ric

Hi all, I try long time dont post any my opinions
But Im realy dont understand, why still we continue to discuss this topic ???

My English is weak to understand everything 100% and the harder it is, to express all the nuances in the dispute, this nonsense and the plumb line, tin platinum, I just do not even want to dive into all the nuances that refute it, but it's enough to understand one thing that should have stayed, a trace from soldering, a tin strip to a silver-based ring - 1
2 - it would be very well seen
3 - the inner surface of the ring, just as it gets dark - it is oxidized like the outer one (this means silver, and not tin)
4 - stupidity about the ease of engraving on the tin surface, engraving is done even on gun steel and for a very long time, which means it's a complete mess, that a plate of tin (as I read one of the assumptions, was put to facilitate engraving)
5 - the process itself, is very complicated (although as I said we do not see on any ring, traces of soldering, otherwise it would look like a sandwich)
All this theory, I am a complete failure, for what so much time to spend on it))) ???

P.S. use google traslater )))

E., yes all seems weird but he has testing to prove his claims. I kind of don't understand it myself,,but he has it...

I have always thought there was something weird with the HR. So look horrible, some look great. When you really look in close to them , especially the 2nd patterns you see weird things.. Maybe someday we'll get an answer..

hi gaspare
i dont get what you are saying please explain with these words weird /horrible/and do you mean looking close with your eyes with a microscope or what . when i first laid my eyes on a honor ring many years ago i thought they were well designed by the elite ss himmler and his high ranking people of the ss since 1933 in my honest opinion i see a genuine hard to find ss artifact thats not ugly or weird both the honor ring and the ss officers sword is still the most sort after artifacts of collecting ss and also in my opinion these ss honor rings to me are not weird nor horrible looking even a very worn unsightly smooth honor ring still has that mystic feeling about it of who might have owned it in the ss so this is my opinion maybe while at the max show you can examine the ones i have for sale appreciate any and all opinions thanks god bless andy militarynut

Andy,, you know I enjoy the hell out of these rings!. One of the coolest rings made during the 3rd reich! My weird and horrible comments relate to the manufacture.

The HR displays hints of being pressed and hints of being cast.. For me the easiest and simplest way would be to press it.
- A drawn bar from bullion,,chocked up in a press table. A die on the ram, press a button and you have it!
* But how do we explain Tonys tests? Like I mentioned I don't want to get 'in to' them because I don't understand them. They are in Italian and,, I'm not clear of what they are exactly showing so I don't comment...

We,,all of us,,have fun imagining how they are made. Hapurs video seems to have the answer! But when you look close maybe its not the case.. We all have relied on Dons comments, opinions, findings, expertise etc.over many years... But he's left us hanging and won't comment on the tests,,,OR, maybe he's been studying them and will come out with some revelations..I don't know!

But yes they are cool. To me the highest award, present, call it what you want. Imagine getting one of these from Himmler!,,the award document!, The cool SS box!,, the privilege, the prestige!,, all of it and it can all be worn daily on your finger!,,,,again, from my opinion,,,you just can't beat it!

Hey members,,,going to be at the MAX and want to see some of the finest, authentic HRs out there??? Visit 'MilitaryNuts' table.. And if your lucky he'll take them out and show the to you,,,and IF your real lucky and in the market for one he might just sell you one of his!

HR are fascinating. To me is obvious that are stuck, but as they have different skull is what confusing people. And the constant change of pattern due Her Himmler whim does not help and collectors may think they have manufactured in different way. To me the wear is something I do not understand, why Himmler offered an 850 silver and only changed the design nor the silver content.

I think, von ropen, that you have touched on an interesting point. These mysteries are both the frustrating points as well as the thing that draws you in even deeper to these amazing rings. I believe the mystery parts attract as well as confound the true collector, but nonetheless reveal the ultimate truth about these pieces- they command a respect that projects them to an elite status among militaria collectors and are also ultimately and undeniably the king of all rings.

hi gaspare
thank you for clarifing your coments on weird /horrible on these historic ss honor rings i apoligize if i made you uncomfotble also i know i some times get excited myself and cant understand some peoples wording untill they clarifi themselves also i have to agree with your sayings about hints of these ss honor rings being pressed i believe with what i was told years ago they were pressed cut sized first then after being pressed the master jewelers at the gahr firm joined the seam putting on the early 1930s skull up to the transisunal 1939 skulls which was thicker in size then the master jewelers started to boldly carve out the runics as silver was soft material to work with so the runics would look raised i used to watch the master jewelers down on cannal street n.y.c.forty or more years ago do this type of custom work just amazing to watch these masters turn out thier master pieces sadly now those masters are gone to the gahr firm in the sky most of these masters were european jewelers that did this type of custom work last in my opinion the wear on these historic honor rings are probly from the the silver content that was used high silver or low silver content that was used but any way this is my opinion on how they were made i hope this helps to answer some of this mystery around these great ss honor rings that we all can possibly research and who owned them we here are the keepers of this german history hope all our members agree see you all at the great mighty max show cant wait to show all my treasures there plus they are all for sale just ask and the rest we all can talk about god bless andy militarynut

No need to apologize!, Your family to me and if we can't say things bluntly to each other than no one can!!

Andy,, you can still go on Canal st. and sometimes see them work in the front window!....

The owners/workers have changed over the years! From Dutch, English, German, Irish, Italians and now the Asians have a firm hold on the area. Little Italy has been encroached on by China Town,,,but they're still there its just real Little Italy now!
But on a weekend you can still catch a glimpse of a jewelry worker doing their thing in China Town and Little Italy. They work fast and neat. Still do a lot of custom jewelry and of course the repairs and resizing. Some use modern tools,,,some are using tools easily 60 yrs old or more!