UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum Don Boyle and the Wikipedia SS-Erenring article

Don rarely posts much anywhere,,but he posted at another site soon to be gone. Thought I'd post here for those interested in reading. Quoted word for word as posted there:


" Gaspare sent me an e-mial on some information listed on Wikipedia. It is under ( Wikipedia SS- Erenring ). It pertains to the SS Honor Ring and gives much information on it but also has some mis-inforation or wrong information in my personal opinion having examined more original Honor Rings and Honor Ring Boxes then anyone. Along with the original information I have accumulated over my 40 years of collecting and dealing. This being said everyone respects (Wikipedia) as they all should as I use them on many occasions but in this section on Honor Rings there is one statment in my personal opinion that has made its way to the most respectable information center in the world shuch as (Wikipedia) which is not true.
Please pass this information along to others so it does not become a part of reality because it is purely fiction and not true in my opinion. Th part under ( SS-Erenring) that states how the Honor Rings were made is ( LOST WAX METHOD ). These rings were never made with the lost wax method and I will give you two reasons why first if the lost wax method was used there would be no reason to have the skull seperate from the ring as it would be made as one unit or piece which would save money and time.
The second is not only would the skull and ring be made at the same time but the engraving would not be hand engraved but lost wax cast along with the ring and skull . It is just common sense. If you look at a mothers cross yo will see the date and a copy of Hitlers signature on the back and it is not hand engraved so why not do the same with the Honor Ring engraving and skull. Do it all together with the ring as one unit saves money and time. Everyone or most people know were the (LOST WAX METHOD) originated and I am tellng you as my personal opinion and from personal experence over 40 years this is not the way it is done and it is sad that it made its way to one of the most respected research sites as being true.
So don't always believe what you read aways ask questions from reputable dealer and collectors or dealers with many years under there belt of collecting and dealing and not people who have been in the hobby for a few years who like to ride on the coat tails of others to achieve a name in the hobby which they are not deserving of as there are many out there willing to share there time and knowledge. Thank You for letting me vent a little. Best Wishes Don Boyle "

I agree 100% with Don. I've done much research in the last 10 years for my ring book. Gone thru many period documents, advertiseing and interviews, 90% of private purchase rings were made in the 'flat' from a press and the HR also certainly wasn't 'Investment Cast. It is easy sometimes to make a mistake and I'm glad Don rectified it..

Other issues with the Wikipedia Article:

The author claims the owners initial is engraved on the inside of the ring along with his surname. We all know this is wrong.

The author also claims there are around 3500 rings still in existence? This is the highest number I have ever heard(less than 1000 is the usual estimate).

Hopefully there is a procedure in Wikipedia for correcting obvious errors and Don of course would be the most competent person to do this.
Jim

I also think that less than 1000 rings have survived until maybe the Wewelsburg hoard is found.

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:
Other issues with the Wikipedia Article:

The author claims the owners initial is engraved on the inside of the ring along with his surname. We all know this is wrong.

The author also claims there are around 3500 rings still in existence? This is the highest number I have ever heard(less than 1000 is the usual estimate).

Hopefully there is a procedure in Wikipedia for correcting obvious errors and Don of course would be the most competent person to do this.
Jim

Hello,

I just looked at and partially rectified the Italian translation, obviously a further improvement will come

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...Dopo_l.27era_nazista

I suggest to do the same for English version, if not already done.

Ric

I've only owned 50 or so rings (see my website for a partial catalog of the rings I've actually owned). Based upon this experience, I for one believe Totenkopf rings to have been investment cast, and was one of the first researchers to publish my opinion. The physical evidence is pretty overwhelming in my view, though Don and Gaspare and Jim Modena will disagree, which they are fully free to do. Consider this analysis, which cannot be dismissed out of hand:

http://www.craiggottlieb.com/d...ame=Lost+Wax+Casting

For me, the most obvious physical evidence that they were investment cast is that "mint condition" rings can vary in the sharpness of detail, which can only be attributed to the use of rubber moulds from which wax models were created, before they were invested in silver. A die struck example would not allow for this nuance.

Still, it's obvious that researchers can disagree on this subject, and so I personally do not believe that anyone should speak in absolute terms about this interesting but somewhat irrelevant aspect of ring study. I say irrelevant because although I find speculation along this line to be interesting and fun, the "how" is not as important as the "what" in ring study. The Wikipedia article is of course inaccurate in many other respects.

Craig:
I've chased you around on this subject since you published your book. If these rings were cast in rubber molds as you maintain please explain the following:

*What is the purpose of the seam behind the skull if these rings were cast in the round?

*Why were the skulls cast separately as is evident to anyone familiar with TK rings when using your method it would have expedient to cast the ring whole including the skull?



Jim

Hi Jim. I have answered these questions before, but here goes again . . .

1) Ring seams are an indication that the rings were probably cast in a very large size, and cut down. Most wedding rings are re-sized this way.

2) Skulls were cast separately, because the would NEED to be, so they could be welded on after the ring was resized.

Both of these interpretations make sense, and are supported by the above-illustrated evidence in support of the investment casting method of production. Although I respect others' opinions, one cannot ignore the Brumm ring showing evidence of being a poor CASTING (a ring that both Don and I agree is 100% original). One also cannot ignore the evidence, presented above, that rings routinely appear, in mint condition, with varying degrees of sharpness. If die-struck, this would not happen.

I do of course respect other opinions on the subject.

Yes we can go round and round on this all day and night. Theories are: Investment Cast [IC],,Die Cast [DC],,Struck,,Pressed.

Tell you why I don't go for the Investment Cast. I've seen an HR badly damages. Craig you have also, as you did a great job restoring a HR.. Well the one I got to study the inside just did not look like investment cast? *Investment cast pieces whether now or long ago have a certain look to them inside and this HR did not have it.
*Another reason,,super worn rings. Unless modern methods of IC [investment cast] when an older IC ring gets really worn you will come across a pock mark, a dot, a pop. I've seen many worn rings and never seen one display anything eve close.
* Another and its is a common sense thing,,IC is just to long, too many steps, too many different tooling/manufacture pieces for the method.
*and last,This might not matter to many,,but years ago I saw something. That something was explained and ever since that day I believe Don fully. No I can not say what I saw. There are 6 or so that I heard of that have seen it too and the all of us made our promises first.

* and finally,,I've been collecting Private Purchase rings since the mid 1970s. I have a solid 10 years collecting info for a book I've been working on. Everything I've seen, had translated, interviews, and own a few pieces of original tooling,, the PP rings were not IC and made in the flat. I own many rings more complicated than the HR and there would be no reason why the Gahr firm would deviate, it is just the way it was done back then...
We have a nice topic pinned to the top about a supposed method of making the HR but I firmly believe it is a little more/different than what is shown but the basic idea is there.

none of us were there, so in the true meaning of our 'forum' we will not suppress anyone's theories/beliefs and all are welcome.
I just ask anyone posting to please add why or why not you believe what you do.. thanks , G.

Craig,
I respect everyones opinion as well as yours. But you are speaking in absolute terms so would you please explain how or why you came to believe your statement as factual. "If die-struck, this would not happen." Thanks.

Donate one of your rings in the interests of
the Collector Community.
It can then be sliced,diced,mounted,polished
and the structure looked at to determine cast versus wrought.Simple.
Seiler

If you reread the statements above, I am hardly speaking in absolute terms. With respect to the constant detail loss commonly observed on mint rings, I can say that the striking technique of production would not yield this because dies do not wear out, then un-wear out, then wear out again, dies are not known to do this. This observation is best explained by investment casting. But like all theories, it's just an opinion, based on interpreting observations.

Don't forget history. Gahr made all their other high-end jewelry using investment casting; a look at their work shows this to be obvious. Their non-jewelry work was also cast; look at the DE tops and sword hilts. In short, they were a casting firm, not a machine shop. This is another reason I believe in investment casting.

One other reason I believe this. Using x-ray fluorescence analysis, David may and I discovered what in the casting world are called flowing agents in the silver alloy. These elements are known to have been mixed into silver alloys produced to be used in casting, to increase the flow of the silver into the investiture when molten.

I am NOT a TK ring expert being just an interested 3rd Reich collector who has studied these for the past 10 years. I consider Don Boyle,Gaspare Bua and a handful of others to be the real experts when it come to these rings.
However my background in the metals industry along with my own investigation leads me to believe the rings were die cast as casting in rubber molds was virtually unheard of in Germany prior to the 1950s based upon discussions I've had with some senior jewelers.
Furthermore; To me the "casting" of these rings in in one huge size as just a band, resizing it and then attaching the skull is ludicrious and it would have made far more sense to cast the rings whole in multiple sizes using this procedure.
Here below is what Don emailed me last nite and is what I and everyone else I know in the hobby believe he is correct:

Jim GDC has put a block on me so I can't post that is why Gaspare posted my comments. He is in left field on this one . Why do the hand engraving in the round . It would be more difficult and a lot more sloppy looking not nice and well centered as you see on the originals.
Second if the lost wax method was used why not make a wax mold in many different sizes with the skull it would be about 25 different wax moulds in all if you make it from a size 5 to a size 15 . Also in a wax mold you can only use it a few times before a new mold would needed to be made . Not cost efficent. Last in a die struck or die cast cold rolled or pressed flat we all know this is the best way to go and makes sense when the skulls were made seperate then attatched . They can be engraved flat so the engraving is nice and uniform then turned and sized and at the same time you can make many strips to have on hand as you needed to produce as soon as the orders came in and not wait to melt the metal and wax cast it. As for the clarity and sharpness on the rings on one verses the other . The Garh factory had more then one person working at thier factory on these rings. They were all hand tooled or cleaned up before they went out so that would explain how one would be crisper looking and another not as clean. If you have ever worked in a machine shop as I have making parts for the government right out of high school. I can tell you when I ran certain machines the parts came out a lot nicer then when some other person who ran the same machine as me did. I used micrometers and other insturments to get my accuacy right. Hand tooling is the key word here and Die struck or die cast . Not (Lost Wax Mould) common sense prevails here no matter what others might say. This is all I will have to say on the subject and let the public world wide make there decision on it. You can print or publish any of this if you want but the people around the world know from common sense this is the right way. Regards Don

I can only look at physical and historical evidence, and cannot try to guess the motives behind how and why Gahr might or might not have built jewelry. Labor saving during the Reich was not as important as cost saving, and investment casting was much more economical than purchasing and using a heavy die press.

1) Historically, Gahr was a caster.
2) Metallurgical analysis shows the silver allow to be mixed specifically for casting.
3) Constant variation in detail to mint rings can best be explained by investment casting.

To me, this is a strong enough argument to make investment casting a real possibility, but I do not speak in absolute terms regarding my hypothesis. Don's arguments are not really that persuasive:

1) Engraving? Sure, it's easier to engrave a flat surface, but I am not arguing for the shape rings were cast, but for the fact that they WERE cast. I do believe they were cast round, but that is a completely different argument, one that cannot be proven by science or history, either way.

2) Rubber moulds wearing out? There is evidence that they DID wear out - read my argument about loss of detail from ring to ring, on mint rings, and you will see the proof that the moulds DID wear out, though not as fast as Don might have us believe.

" I can say that the striking technique of production would not yield this because dies do not wear out, then un-wear out, then wear out again, dies are not known to do this. '

Craig, your really incorrect about this.. Sure dies wore out or broke..
A period die cutter explained in an interview to me..
A hardened die is made,,then a 'working die' made from it. The master was kept in a 'die vault' [really a safe,locked room]. The Working dies used until it either wore out or broke. at that time the Master was taken out and another Working die produced.
This is not opinion when it comes to Private Purchase rings, this is fact.. The Honor Ring is also a mass produced ring.

As far as the alloys used,, what is called a flowing agent now wasn't called that then in the 30s and 40s.
the same alloy could have been used in the pressing theory...
Gahr being a casting firm. Well that is your belief. IF they were their letter heads,work orders,advertisements [whatever survived that we can view] would have said it.. From what I remember it said they were 'Goldsmiths'..
I've had the opportunity to inspect 2 other pieces from Gahr,,they certainly were not cast pieces.
Not sure but what about the SS civil pins,,where they cast or pressed or die cast? anybody??

I am not dimissing they cast certain pieces but they certainly were not a casting only business. A good jeweler or should I say 'Smith' back then did it all...

The entry in the Munich "Yellow Pages",Sept
1932 has him listed as "Chiseler and Goldsmith"
He had RZM #87 according to Bundesarchiv,Koblenz.
His business card states..
"Werkstatte fur kungstgewerbliche
GOLSCHMIEDARBEITEN
Ausfuhrung nach eigner Zeichnung oder
Angabe Geschmackvolle Umarbeitung.
Bronzen,Treibarbeiten in Silber,
messing etc.
Reparturen schnell,sauber und billig
Otto Gahr,Munchen
Inh.:Frau Lina Gahr,Mariannenstr.5/III 1."
He is further listed as
Otto und Karolina Gahr
Die Silberschmiede der NSDAP
und der SS.
He is further listed as
Jeweller and Goldsmith.
The SS ZA from Gahr is a blanked
plakette in 900 silver filled with
enamel and 900 silver SS runes.
Karolina Gahr is listed as having recvd
70kg of siver alloy for the rings (11.5gms ea)
after appealing to AH and Pohl instructed to
do it ASAP.
Nowhere does it state the Workshop was a Casting House.
The Standarte eagles are listed as "Bronze,
silver or Gold washed."
Seiler

quote:

With my responses below each item:
1) Historically, Gahr was a caster.

Response:Where's your documentation to support this allegation?

2) Metallurgical analysis shows the silver allow(sic.jm) to be mixed specifically for casting.

Response:What documentaion can you provide that shows that a specific silver alloy was mixed for casting?


3) Constant variation in detail to mint rings can best be explained by investment casting.

Response:The variation in detail can best be explained by hand finishing these rings as those who know anything about jewelry making have noted previously.

I'm basically done with this thread unless some NEW information is forthcoming. I think what has been posted by those who know how these rings were made adequately refutes the rubber mold ring theory.
Jim

RE: Mr. Peter J. Shemonsky

“Consider this analysis, which cannot be dismissed out of hand:”

Lost Wax (Directed Research) Opinion

Seemingly typical of “Directed Research” mentioned are two part dies. And then with some skewed incorrect assumptions, stamping is completely disqualified altogether with a three part die set. (Two part dies can and do leave “flash” just like casting, and he does not seem to have been aware of the actual practical work in that area that Hapur demonstrated.)

But what really caught me by surprise was another statement he made that supports stamping - not casting!

Oppps !!! FP