UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum TKRing Mfg. Method

According to Don Boyle, the totenkopfring was made with a metal roll press with a casted die on top to make the design.

Can you explain to us layman how that works?

Josias,, yeah I've heard the same or very similar.
I mentioned it on another topic and was shot down. I was answered to as if the person knew from fact. I've since learned he didn't..

The process to make the HR was not really a simple one.

*****


Edited for language and insults. Please read our code of conduct.

quote:

The process to make the HR was not really a simple one.

Actually process is very simple. It just requires more high qualified workmanship at the beginning to make dies. Complicated it is for modern jewelers who can only do casting.

Gaspare - Yeah, I was also one of those who believed in the casting theme, vs. pressing. In fairness to Craig, he can't be blamed for the belief that they were cast, because among virtually all old-time jewelers, this seems to be the most logical theory.

G,
That's why your one of the best, your ahead of your time!

Mikee, thanks for the kind words. Not ahead but try and be through.. I believe mistakes have been made about certain things..

6 years ago I wanted to finally go ahead and start working on a book about private purchase rings. I had been gathering info etc. I decided to go to NYC and interview a few old time jewelers. I showed each one a 3rd Reich period ring. I asked them how this ring was made back in the late 30's/early 40's.. All said about the same thing, Carved model,,wax pieces put together,,'Investment cast',,made in the round, etc.etc..

I then pulled out this original master die for the ring. They quickly admitted they were wrong..
Now really they were not wrong. It was me. I didn't fully explain everything and that caused the mis-diagnosis..
Anyway,,,I do not believe for one second the HR was Investment Cast,nor rubber molds were used. And, although it could have been made semi circle I don't believe it was. I don't think it was just made, then hand finished and thats it. There were other steps involved that are not usually done for other rings......

I still firmly maintain my opinion that the Totenkopf Ring is cast "in-the-round" versus being cast or die-struck as a strip. Rumors to the contrary, I did NOT go to some discount jewelry mart and interview a 23 year old sales-clerk, to derive my opinion. Josias and I share a common belief (I think), based upon experience: "among virtually all old-time jewelers, [casting-in-the-round] seems to be the most logical theory."

I'm sorry Craig. I even have to jump ship. Don Boyle told me what he knew on Friday. As you know, I also believed they were cast. I didn't ask Don how he knew. He just said that's how they were made. Having said that, if you think about it, once the die was made, rolling blank silver stock with a press would be a breeze, compared to the fuss to cast each ring individually. I don't think myself, Craig, or anyone could be blamed for thinking they were cast, as that method has been so prevalent for so long. But the practicality of the Germans lends credence to this different approach.

Craig,, these are your words off WAF:

"There is an entire building in San Diego called "The Jewelry Exchange" and it is 8 floors filled with jewelry designers. I'm sure there is a similar "hub" in your city. I really did expect a variety of opinions, but down to the man (and woman) they all said the same thing." and - "By the way, my interviews took me to Munich"

You made the same mistake I made a few years ago. You asked a few got answers thought about it and left it at that..
I don't have your book and if there is more or some sort of period documentation, other examples I humbly apologize..


Almost every Tradesmen/Jeweler book from the 30s and 40s whther US or Europe show that commercially made for retail rings were made in the flat. And, thats what the HR is,,it is NOT a one off custom ring,,it was mass produced.

Gaspare: The San Diego Jeweler's Exchange (not Jewelry Exchange), which is ONE of many sources I interviewed, is not a hodge-podge of pimply-face 19 year olds selling jewelry produced in China. It's about 11 floors of established casters, engravers, watchmakers, gemologists, and other persons whose opinion does in fact count. That a few people including yourself have used the word "Jewelry Exchange" as a touchstone for their assault on my book, is a testimony to the weakness of their critique. You may feel free to disagree with my opinion about how Totenkopf Rings were produced, but if you actually take the time to READ my book, you will see that it is a well-formed opinion, that matches with testamonial interviews and physical evidence. Until we find the molds for the ring (or whatever was used to make them), we will not know for sure how they were made, and as I have stated IN THE BOOK if you READ THE BOOK, Gaspare, is that this was my opinion, but a well-reasoned one. Intelligent minds can disagree, and I expect you to honor and understand that. However, Gaspare, stating opinion as fact (like you have done) is one of the surest ways to expose the weakness of your argument. To say that "I made the same mistake you made" is frankly a bit on the arrogant side. I have made no mistake. I merely hold an opinion with which you disagree.

Gaspare: If you wish to discuss this matter further, you may call me or email me. I will not allow myself to become entertainment fodder for the tabloids. Back to the subject of this thread, lets talk about how Don Boyle knows that a roll-die was used? He may in fact be right, but I for one would like to know how he formed his opinion.

"I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BECOME ENTERTAINMENT FODDER FOR THE TABLOIDS." - Craig, we KNOW you're famous but, you're starting to sound more like Paris Hilton every day.

Back to the subject!! Now that it has been established that this "pressing" or "cold rolled" method was more prevalent than thought, then it only makes sense that such a method was most likely used. Germans are not only metallurgy pioneers, but masters of the "pressing" arts. You only need to look at the wonderful detail on their tinnies. The problem is that many "experts" in the TKR field have probably been under the mistaken impression that casting was exclusively used for making thicker jewelry. Now imagine how much easier it would be to make rings by feeding a length of plain silver band into a machine, which then stamps the design into a straight band. (Had it been cast instead, it WOULD have been cast round) Imagine being able to crank ring after ring out as long as you kept feeding the silver into it!!! Press!! Snip!! Press!! Snip!! Ring after ring after ring!! Hallelujah!!!! NOW - Was the skull cast or pressed????

OK,so which is it?Pressing as you call it and cold rolling are two entirely different processes in metalurgical fabrication,using different equipment and feedstock.
Go pick up an ASTM handbook at your Library.
I had 17yrs plus in the "business" in General Management.
Seiler (yank in uk)

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Back to the subject!! Now that it has been established that this "pressing" or "cold rolled" method was more prevalent than thought, then it only makes sense that such a method was most likely used. Germans are not only metallurgy pioneers, but masters of the "pressing" arts. You only need to look at the wonderful detail on their tinnies. The problem is that many "experts" in the TKR field have probably been under the mistaken impression that casting was exclusively used for making thicker jewelry. Now imagine how much easier it would be to make rings by feeding a length of plain silver band into a machine, which then stamps the design into a straight band. (Had it been cast instead, it WOULD have been cast round) Imagine being able to crank ring after ring out as long as you kept feeding the silver into it!!! Press!! Snip!! Press!! Snip!! Ring after ring after ring!! Hallelujah!!!! NOW - Was the skull cast or pressed????

Your argument is convincing so far J..what do you think?
(Seems it would be pretty tricky sizing a cast ring? With cold rolled all that is needed is to center the skull with the appropriate length band, leave a void, and weld it.)

Don Boyle said it was a "metal roll press" or "cold rolled metal". That's all he said. The main point is that it wasn't investment cast.

We are beating around the bush here with the problem being everybody is an"Expert" in metal fabrication without comprehending what these
processes are OR the equipment at the time AND indeed STILL being used almost everywhere.
I have two genuine rings (WITH PROVENANCE)
I have ALWAYS been of the opinion the manufacturing process is the simple,cheap,low volume,uncomplicated method known as "Roll Forming Mill"Ideally suited to a relatively small fabricator and used in THE JEWELLERY Business.I was with a Company called General Plate in Attleboro Mass subsequently Texas Instruments Inc.Among many metallurgical exotic
materials produced,the Company was the biggest
supplier of jewellery materials to that Industry.
Attleboro and the surrounding area into Rhode Island was the Pfortzheim of the USA.There were
literally hundreds of Roll Forming Mills AND Jewellery Companies in the area..Robbins,Balfours et al.Your Class Rings
possibly came from there.Don IS essentially correct except for the "Fine tuning of the terminology"OK Schools out...
Seiler (yank in uk)

So was the skull cast? or "squished"
I'd like to be the one to find those die.

I would suspect a "Frugal" German Co.made a simple die,rough pressed a "form" from
the ends or tails of the original feedstock
and simply finished to shape/detail by a hand finisher.IMO
SEiler (yank in uk)
This ring was NOT fabricated by some fancy
investment casting process as purported by an
"Authority"on WAF AND eagerly supported by somebody selling books.

tsk tsk,,,

Those old die must be sitting in some forgotten Swiss safety deposit box?

I assume it is worthless as we all know how the TK rings where made, and the round shape is not a cast for my view. Anyhow why it would be cast when the skull is seperate on the ring and below is the seam line?

Anyhow the source and real info's are in Germany to find and not anywhere else. Trust me the differences for basics are way different around the globe, even for jewlery.

Craig,, You took what others told you as fact and used it to form an opinion/a theory on how the HR was made..That's always doesn't add up to fact or the correct sum.
I have no reason to read your book. I'm not interested in the ring..

Call you to discuss this?!? that's what we have this wonderful forum here for.
Please if you take this all as an 'assault' on you or your book then I really do apologize.. It's really not meant to be...

Yes, lets get back to business. Most mass produced commercially made for retail rings [lets add themed towards the military if you like] made during the period were NOT from a rubber mold nor were they made in the round. I've got my own interviews and findings to go by from the last 6 or 7 years, *and to back them up an amassed collection or period dies, photos and documentation....
*Now the Honor ring is a little different. It is a mass produced ring though!. Looking at it I'd think there was more than the one process on how the design is on the ring...

"lets talk about how Don Boyle knows that a roll-die was used? He may in fact be right, but I for one would like to know how he formed his opinion."

I would say he knows from his relationship with Mr.Piechel who most know was a employee at the Gahr firm... Don's a great guy. But he really ,for whatever the reason, doesn't want to let all the nuances about how the ring was produced known...

*Robert, Yes, the German had their own ways with certain things. I'd say with jewelry though its pretty much the same as the rest of the world at the time,,not politics,,just sharing in an art

I think in the near future the HR dies, or parts of them, will eventually surface....

No, Gaspare. I took verbal testimony and formed an opinion, that is all - I never claimed it as fact, and neither should anyone else, absent physical proof in the form of molds, dies, or whatever. You DO need to read the book, since you are on record on the forums as criticizing it. And for the record Robert: we all do NOT know how Totenkopf Rings were made . . . we can only form well-reasoned theories. It is fun to speculate, but it is presumptuous for anyone to claim opinion as fact - Robert, Don, myself, Gaspare - anybody. Until we come up with either the mold or the die, all judgements will be merely theories. And if dies surface, or molds surface, that would be great. I don't care if I'm right or wrong with my theory (which many people believe, incidentally). I would love someday to uncover the truth. By the way, does anybody know if Piechl spoke English?

- and for the record I'm not critiquing the book as I said, the ring is not my thing..
I saying mass produced commercially made for retail rings during the 3rd Reich period were not from a rubber mold ,,and very very few were made in the round,,that's all..

Craig,,Piechl was alive in 2002 as Don set up a deal right here on this forum for a member to buy one of his last reproduction rings. Either he,,or his rep must have spoke english as Don sure doesn't ,nor did the buyer...

Piechl's rings were most likely made using the same molding process I describe in my book, and Josias uses on his reproduction rings. Reason: the early Piechl rings show much greater detail than his later specimens. The likely scenario is that Piechl produced rings from only one mold, and it wore out as he used it.

Regarding Piechl, I assumed he didn't speak English, because all of the correspondence that I have seen from him, to collectors in the States, is in German.

Craig, why don't you just call Don Boyle and ask him how he knows that a roll-die was used.

I am sure he will tell you how he formed his opinion. He is a great guy,and always willing to help If asked..

All the times I have met him, and spoke to him he has always gone out of his way to help.


Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sepp:
Craig, why don't you just call Don Boyle and ask him how he knows that a roll-die was used.

I am sure he will tell you how he formed his opinion. He is a great guy,and always willing to help If asked..

All the times I have met him, and spoke to him he has always gone out of his way to help.


I certainly agree with Sepp.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gaspare:
- and for the record I'm not critiquing the book as I said, the ring is not my thing..
I saying mass produced commercially made for retail rings during the 3rd Reich period were not from a rubber mold ,,and very very few were made in the round,,that's all..

WW2 era "rubber" left VERY much to be desired!
It's hard to believe they could cast with this?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion because we are unfortunately not in possession of production manuals or materials. Don has his opinion, I have mine, and there is legitimate disagreement on both sides of the coin. Both sides have made valid arguments, which can be seen by reviewing both GDC and WAF. It's up to observers to form their own conclusions from the arguments presented. However, I believe that to speak in language that suggests that one side is factually correct is not productive. This is the reason I presented my view as just that - one among several legitimate hypotheses.

With regard to the use of rubber or some other material to produce molds from a master - it's not really relevant exactly what material was used. The point is that lost wax-casting, and follow-on casting, has been used since ancient times, with excellent results. There is evidence that it has been used for detail production even in ancient civilizations. Google will provide references to my claim. To suggest that the Germans suddenly forgot what 2000 plus years of casters have known, does not make sense in my view.

But again, exactly how Totenkopf rings were produced is a subject that is open to debate, and I hope that my language has encouraged such conversation.

When I originally formed my opinion as to the TKR construction method, I was going on EXACTLY the same information as Craig. However, once I became aware of the fact that the "roll forming mill" that SEILER described, or similar pressing or stamping device was widely used at that time, then it only seemed logical that this method is infinitely more practical. Put it this way: I would KILL to have such a device, and not have to cast each of my repro TKRings. You only need to look at the incredibly detailed tinnies produced (solid and hollow), to see that they were really into stamped metal. Another factor that we're missing is that this "rubber mold" step that is used in casting created flaws such as mis-shapened bands, casting lines, and other flaws that occur when the wax is forced into these rubber 2-piece molds, and the 2 halves of the mold aren't aligned PERFECTLY. This is why , of the 4 rings I've had cast so far, they're ALL different in overall shape and flaws. Of course, all 4 also have similar flaws as well. The absolute "SAMENESS" of each original TKR also lends evidence that they were NOT cast. As for Herr Peicl, he could have used EITHER method, depending on the availability of equipment to him. Back to the originals - Once you add the fact that Mr. Boyle proclaims they weren't cast, I'd say it was a high probability they weren't. Listen to SEILER on this one.

I offer as evidence on this very topic - an original period WW2 German die for a mass produced ring,,made flat. Also a picture from a period book showing regular rings being made in the flat. Both by the way from a metal master..
It is not just for these 2 rings.. I've had to study report/make comment on well over 100 rings,,and all the same..

You want to talk fancy, multi piece with a bunch of embelishments? ,then yes probably cast from a model and soldered up, hand finished,maybe burnished afterwards or gem set in.

As far as Herr Peicl,,either he knew English or the 2 members on this forum knew German because they both ordered the last of the rings he made.. He knows/knew 100% how the HR ring was made,,and believe what you want but so does Don...

OK - I've seen some distant photos of a Peicl ring. But nothing closeup, and I don't remember seeing the inscription. Anyone care to post closeup pics of their Peicl? TKR?

J. , they were not made as authentic HRs were made. His were one piece lost wax cast rings..
At one time he'd put whatever you wanted in the band to include your name.. One member/ring owner now lives in CZ.
The other member might post if he sees this,,lets hope so..

found these Peichl ring shots on the new forum:
http://worldwarmilitaria.com/f...657&highlight=Peichl


*

I had shared some thoughts privately with others who have encouraged me to post them here.
"The rings were cast round in a rubber mold"

If these were cast in the round what is the purpose of the seam? I've seen rings from size 7 to size 16(American measurment) so were there different size molds?* If you cut these round castings apart to resize them wouldn't the ring now be out of round? Why don't we see other types of cast ring examples with a seam if this was a common practice?
*Also if these were in fact cast round wouldn't you occasionally cast one which was the right size for the order where no resizing was necessary thus making cutting apart and a seam unnecessary? But we all know of no legitimate rings without the seam.
Just some more food for thought.
Jim

Jim - No, it's still possible to cast it in a LARGE size, saw the ring, then file it to a smaller size, squeeze together, and solder. BUT BELIEVE ME - If Don Boyle says it wasn't cast, I'd take him for his word. REMEMBER - This whole cast vs. stamped (or roll pressed)debate was fueled by the MISTAKEN notion that casting was the main method of making "solid" type jewelry. "All" the old-timers, including those I've talked to seem to concur on this theory. HOWEVER, Roll-pressed or stamped jewelry was apparently quite prevelant during this era, and the Germans are masters of not only metallurgy, but all it's applications. Once you've gone through the steps to produce totenkopfrings in production by CASTING, you'll realize that it would be a MILLION times more practical to stamp or "roll press" them while a flat bar. GOOD POINT brought up - the fact that there are no known rings without a seam lends credence to the "stamped out flat" theory. Indeed, my first TKR copy has no seam for this exact reason. It was larger without sizing it. Remember that Don knew Mr. Peicl. Somehow, I can only assume that the subject of manufacturing technique came up at least once.

I don�t disagree that the Germans had a lot of expertise when it came to metal stamping. With changes forced upon them by the need to speed up production and economize for the war effort - using stampings instead of the more traditional forging and machining processes. And could very easily get off topic with some of the things that they did. But to get back to main issue under discussion. There is not a one to one equivalency as to what is available now as compared to 70+ years ago. And believe that things have to taken in the context of what was commonly available during the time that an item was made.

I don�t know if this helps in the discussion or not, but the image posted earlier looked like only 1/2 of a die set. And more specifically, the male or �punch� component of the set. While not perfect. And of course not a TKR. With a little imagination, the image below I think shows what the other half might have looked like (more or less). Besides the missing half, also missing was the die set to make the metal �blanks� that would have been embossed. Or alternately, to shear off the excess. With the thickness of the stamping most likely not exceeding that of the band portion.

There were (and still are) machines such as rolling mills. But with a punch that looks like it has a fairly flat face, and flat back. And being reasonably certain that it was at one time paired with a corresponding die. With all due respect to everyone concerned. How would they have been mounted and used? In the context of the early 1930�s/40�s, with something other than a conventional punch (or coining) press?

Very slightly off topic: For mold alignment problems there are a couple of techniques that I recall (from a long while back) to minimize them. With one of them having to do with the fixtures used to make them. But if aligning molds can be difficult: At worst the process might have to be repeated. But if a set of stamping dies are misaligned. It can not only destroy the dies (which are not cheap). It can also damage the press which is even worse.

If it hasn�t been looked at before, the �NSKK High Leader� dagger thread (re: fake castings) might be of interest. Where casting versus stamping was one of the multiple issues that were discussed. With since the topic ended some additional information having been gathered. FP

NSKK High Leader Thread

Both images side by side.

Hi Fred:
As usual you bring a great deal of technical expertise in the working of metal to the forums. The ONE issue I would like to see addressed is:
"What was the purpose of the joining seam if it wasn't used to size rings die cast from flat stock?"
Please note the no one has come up with a reasonable or any explaination since my original post. I continue to maintain that Don Boyle,Gaspare and many others here are right in their assumption these rings were originally die cast and have seen nothing posted to refute this.