Translate German to English - Click here to open Altavista's Babel Fish Translator Click here to learn about all those symbols by people's names.

leftlogo.jpg (20709 bytes)

Upgrade to Premium Membership

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
Hi Chris.,,

2 questions -

1 , what date is your ring?

2 , Do you consider this HR authentic?

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
S
Offline
S
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
Hello, Gaspare!

My ring is dated 21.6.44

As for the ring you posted, I will not comment on it, as I have only studied 40's style rings over the years. I will add that I am in no way trying to imply that I am a TK ring expert because I am not. I have observed several things about the 40's style rings though and have handled several originals other than my own. Also, my comments and opinions are mostly based on my own observations and not just because someone else says so. That being said, my father made some decent cast reproductions a few years ago from dies that he made from scratch, and he has said that after his experience with casting his repros and comparing them with my original ring and other originals, (ones that we both have examined in hand), that in his opinion, there is no way that the originals were cast.

Of course, some details of the originals were done mostly by hand, for example the teeth. My father made his skull die, so that the teeth were nothing but a solid bar on the die. After the skull was cast, he would, by hand, cut the teeth into the teeth bar on the skull. I would assume that this is likely how the originals were done. Regardless, in such areas, you will find slight variations among the originals. However, all of the 40's style originals that I have handled myself years ago were made from the same dies and other than those few areas, they were all nearly identical. One could even compare pebbling behind the rune panels to be identical. It has been years since I have seen one in hand, (Not since Craig's book was released). Anyway, as the years go by, it seems that more and more variations are being discovered and excepted as proper and original, but isn't it strange that all of these variants were nowhere to be seen decades ago? If I were looking to buy another ring, I would safely stick with the standard type, which above all else, are far better in quality and do not show these typical casting signs that we see on these variant types and with the main style, we know these are original by vet acquired examples.

Just my thoughts!

Chris

Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 55
L
Offline
L
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by SScollector
Thanks, Jan. The first time I heard of this claim, was in Craig Gottlieb's book on TK rings.
Do you have this book? If so, I can find the page if needed, but it is in there. Then, several others have stated this on other forums and websites. I have never liked nor believed in the authenticity of those rings that have strong craters in the eye sockets, nor would I accept rings that have those sharp vertical lines within the leaf veins as I showed in the first photo. Usually, these two features, (among others, such as sloppy crossbone and skull details), will all be found together on these strange, and obviously cast TK rings. These are my honest thoughts, and in my opinion, like it is with any other rare and expensive SS item, fakes are everywhere and true mint originals are very hard to find.

Chris


Chris,

You are correct, the reference to "craters" is in Craig's book, page 21, photos of Brumm ring.

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
I really don't know where to start from, but I'll try to make another post using common sense and pictures/comparisons against the usual ?unfounded opinions? offered from the other side.

First of all: if you want do discuss an argument you should first answer with documented replies to all the questions raised.
And this should be made using: PERIOD DOCUMENTATION (I repeat: I've never seen any document posted talking about the ?die striking? method in period jewelry magazines...), pictures for comparisons and, if needed, scientifical data.
Of course, until today, nothing was ever answered to, nor posted by those supporting the ?die striking? theory.

Second: when you talk about rings you should at least post good pictures and make comparisons with other rings of the same period or the same production period.

Third: opinions of jewelers, friends, fathers, ?experts?, worth like a piece of used toilet paper. Or we discuss on evidences, or we speculate. And to be honest I really don't care anymore of what you, your father, my father, my friends, my jeweler or myself think about rings. I only want to discuss EVIDENCES. Words/opinions are not, so I'm not interested on them.


Fourth: here we start discussing Chris' ring.

As you can see Chris' ring show a different position of external design if compared with other 21.6.44 rings or other (as he called them) ?standard? (????) rings.

Fig 1: Note the position of the leaves and note the long scooping along the runic panel. As we already know no one die struck item needs hand finishing with chisels or other tools.

Fig 2: Another 21.6.44 dated ring (Voss)

Fig 3: A third 21.6.44 Ring ?Richter?.

1.jpg (48.64 KB, 446 downloads)
2.jpg (35.81 KB, 445 downloads)
3.jpg (32.2 KB, 446 downloads)
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
Second point: Some problematic flaws visible on Chris ring... Better pictures I'm sure would reveal much more...

Fig. 4, 5, 6, 7

4.jpg (57.06 KB, 444 downloads)
5.jpg (47.92 KB, 446 downloads)
6.jpg (47.5 KB, 435 downloads)
7.jpg (41.46 KB, 430 downloads)
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
Third point: A very interesting flaw present on Chris ring, and a typical characteristic of casting production. A very small metallic protusion on the upper edge.
This is perfectly matching with the other TK rings, and TOTALLY uncompatible with the die striking process, since this protusion extends exactly in the opposite direction to the direction of die movement.
Of course there is an explanation also for this flaw no one ever noticed in all these decades... Ad of course the explanation has nothing in common with die striking or die pressing production.

Fig. 8 Chris ring

Fig. 9 - Hartmann

Fig. 10 - Reebmann

8.jpg (43.22 KB, 427 downloads)
9.jpg (44.07 KB, 427 downloads)
10.jpg (46.27 KB, 425 downloads)
Last edited by Antonio Scapini; 03/30/2020 03:37 PM.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
Fourth point: another very interesting flaw I can notice in Chris' ring. Some small flaws in the internal of the ring... Alse these flaws are matching with cast original TK rings...
So, or Chris ring is a fake (and having no documented provenance it could be...), or it is a prefect fine original, with all the perfect characteristics a cast original TK ring should have.

Fig. 11, 12, 13 Chris Ring

Fig. 14 (Z.)

11.jpg (43.65 KB, 425 downloads)
12.jpg (37.2 KB, 428 downloads)
13.jpg (29.83 KB, 425 downloads)
14.jpg (30.82 KB, 428 downloads)
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
PS: I no argue about the skull, since it is well known eyes sockets of the skull can show flaws exactly as they not. We have tens of documented original TK rings with flaws on eyes sockets. A personal statement like the one made from Chris on these flaws is only a personal speculation, without any proof and I would say it also is offensive in regards of the documented ones and their stories and of those owning original TK rings with these characteristics. A statement a serious collector would have never written.

S7302195_1.jpg (53.52 KB, 421 downloads)
S7302195_DUSKOW_1.jpg (54.08 KB, 425 downloads)
S7300113_1.jpg (51.55 KB, 430 downloads)
r6_1.jpg (36.62 KB, 422 downloads)
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
S
Offline
S
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
Well, we can agree to disagree here, as we all have our own opinions. That is all that any of us have, opinions that are based on facts and observations that we have made over the years of studying them. Unfortunately, we will never reach an agreement on this topic, I'm afraid, but I wish you good luck with your project.

Chris

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
ok,, some photos and theory/opinion!

, Chris don't know if you know the other 21-6-44 rings,,,but would you consider what you see , them to be authentic?

Antonio,, these photos are interesting.. Some who show the real extreme magnification just don't do it for me. But these are helpful.

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
S
Offline
S
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
Gaspare, I don't think that I understand your question. Which rings are you referring to? Thanks!

Chris

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
his photo number 2 Voss and 3 Richter ,,both same date as yours....

Really,, I was hoping to show HR of the same date and condition.. To show a standard.. IF ,if they are pressed from a die they would all be exactly the same with the exception of some small embellishments... Hapurs die struck rings come out of the press needing no work if I'm correct.. Should be the same with these.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
Photo credit = Martin Toman



Here is another 21-6-44 . Gies ring

IMG_20200330_0001.jpg (84.25 KB, 432 downloads)
IMG_20200330_0002.jpg (87.59 KB, 428 downloads)
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
S
Offline
S
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
It is extremely difficult for anyone to make an accurate judgment by photos only, especially when they are not of great quality, and even more so, if the ring is worn significantly. I will say that in my opinion, the Gies ring that you posted has a real good chance. I like what I can see and I see nothing wrong with it from those photos. This is my opinion.

Chris

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
Chris,,Members...
See what I'm after is some sort of a standardization [if possible].. If there ever is going to be a big market again for these rings there must be a way for authentication..

What I would say is -

1-,,,there is a big difference between the early and later pattern. Big difference is the shape of the band. Early is flatter,,later, more convex outer shape.
2- that just by coloring and wear characteristics there is also a difference between the material alloy of a early and later pattern.
3 - Both rings appear to be a band with a separate skull soldered on.
4 - The early pattern [33 to 39] does not have the flaw at the bottom of the Left Sig rune. Only 40 to 44 does.
5- The early pattern the swastica has a more squat or elongated appearance.
6- There seems to be more hand work done on the later patterns.

Members whether you want to discuss something else here thats fine,,,BUT, can we at least agree to the 6 points above? And,,if you are aware of other points that should be added please add them here. Thank you..

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
S
Offline
S
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 10
I agree with all of your points, (except that I can't confirm or deny #2, as I only paid attention to the 40's style rings).

I would add, #7: All original 40's style rings have a sloped/angled skull when viewed from the top or bottom, (ring laying down flat on the table, and you are looking straight down on it).

#8: There were three different engravers that engraved the originals, each having a slightly unique and distinguishable appearance, (sometimes in size), while each engraver still used similar styles of blade strokes to make each of the similar letters and numbers.

#9: Heinrich Himmler is rolling in his grave, due to the fact that all of us are making such a big deal out of collecting his beloved TK rings.

Chris

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 7
T
Offline
T
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 7
Gaspare
I agree on the 6 points

Chris
You sure have that right on #9!

I am not sure of Antonio's motives. On the extreme close ups, I think the visual intent is lost. He sure is obsessive in his study of these "flaws". If he has the time and money to pursue this, then go for it. We indeed may never know the true answer on the production of these rings. My own opinion is to enjoy the collecting of them and history associated. What ever your position is, accept it and realize there will be differences of opinions. There is nothing wrong with that .
My opinion for whatever it is worth:)
Ron

Last edited by Tanker; 03/31/2020 03:32 PM.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 29
Offline
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 29
and in early type of 30s , too was many hand works )))

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 493
Likes: 6
R
Offline
R
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 493
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by SScollector
Well, we can agree to disagree here, as we all have our own opinions. That is all that any of us have, opinions that are based on facts and observations that we have made over the years of studying them. Unfortunately, we will never reach an agreement on this topic, I'm afraid, but I wish you good luck with your project.

Chris


Hello,

first my apologies for my absense in a debate that involved myself a lot in the past, mainly on WAF.

I see that positions didn't change, so we still have die cast supporters and die press supporters.

I belong to die press party and all arguments offered by die cast supporters never changed my position.

So waiting for evidences that still I don't see.......like already said by Chris : we can agree to disagree.

Ric






Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169

Ric,, Antonio posts on the prior page [21] are VERY interesting.

He is showing rings of the same date/year yet there are too many differences to all be from the same die..

I know 100% most PP rings were made from a die. Simple, easy on labor and procedure, less waste, good profits... But the HR IS a different animal especially the later pattern.. Don't think we're going to find period proof the HR was die struck. Mainly because the secrecy involved with the ring and that Himmler wanted something special,,,but we'd all love to see something, anything on them being struck..



Ric., so what do you think about the '6 points' above and the addition Chris added.?



Last edited by Gaspare; 04/04/2020 02:04 AM.
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 493
Likes: 6
R
Offline
R
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 493
Likes: 6
G,

after a debate over the past year, with tons of pics showing casting evidences versus opinions built over the years by comparing original rings with repro ones to support die press theory, I sincerely think that the more we debate arounds microscope pics the more everyone stay on their own position.

I have no reasons to believe to theory that Gahr used a revolutionay way of production dedicated to SSHr just because ordered by Himmler.
In my opinion Gahr made his rings by the way which granted the best quality...so die pressing them.

Ric

Last edited by Ric Ferrari; 04/05/2020 03:59 PM.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
Ric, Thats fine..

Ric, and other members that maybe did not see the post;

what I'm after is some sort of a standardization [if possible].. If there ever is going to be a big market again for these rings there must be a way for authentication..

1-,,,there is a big difference between the early and later pattern. Big difference is the shape of the band. Early is flatter,,later, more convex outer shape.
2- that just by coloring and wear characteristics there is also a difference between the material alloy of a early and later pattern.
3 - Both rings appear to be a band with a separate skull soldered on.
4 - The early pattern [33 to 39] does not have the flaw at the bottom of the Left Sig rune. Only 40 to 44 does.
5- The early pattern the swastica has a more squat or elongated appearance.
6- There seems to be more hand work done on the later patterns.

and Chris /SS Collector added these:
"I would add, #7: All original 40's style rings have a sloped/angled skull when viewed from the top or bottom, (ring laying down flat on the table, and you are looking straight down on it)."
#8: There were three different engravers that engraved the originals, each having a slightly unique and distinguishable appearance, (sometimes in size), while each engraver still used similar styles of blade strokes to make each of the similar letters and numbers."

Members whether you want to discuss something else here thats fine,,,BUT, can we at least agree to the 6 points above? And,,if you are aware of other points that should be added please add them here. Thank you..

Last edited by Gaspare; 04/06/2020 01:56 AM.
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 493
Likes: 6
R
Offline
R
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 493
Likes: 6
G.,

Although debate around "the way Gahr made them" raised a bit of confusion and tend to disorientate new comers on what-to-look-at to distinguish a good one from a repro, I notice that consensus about textbook rings originality is still easily reached by some known SSHr collectors.
On the other end, heavily worn or ground dug rings with erased engraving may represent an issues to authenticators, if they must judge them by pics alone.

I guess that in the future it will happen what already seen on almost all militaria artifacts, textbook rings will have no issues to raise interest, while problematic rings will be discharged.

Of course super fake still remain the actual issue.....because few people had a chance to check one of them in hands.

To end, your six points are absolutely correct and represents a basis knowledge to begin with

Ric

Last edited by Ric Ferrari; 04/07/2020 10:34 AM.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 430
Offline
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 430
This discussion like is useless. Every few years shows up somebody why wants to push cast rings as originals and starts new discussion about manufacturing methods. I remember at least three discussions like this here on this forum.

In short - Rule of thumb - Germans at this time frame did not use any other manufacturing method but die striking for mass produced rings, second - Otto Gahr firm did use only die striking (there are no known Gahr's products made by casting.)

Long version - everything in details has been said here in previous discussions here more than 10 years ago.


There are less original rings than you think, much less...

www.totenkopfrings.com
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
I agree 100% As far as most PP rings there is nothing better than a die and a press. Less material waste, better product, less waste of manpower, most efficient..
But the HR for sure isn't the standard PP ring. I'm thinking in the least the 2nd type is unorthodox in some way.. Antonio made some good points in his last posts [pg21]. Guess they were either ignored by most not bothered to be read or there was just no comment..
I think Antonio has found some interesting things hopefully we'll be seeing soon..

I disagree with your rule of thumb. Gahr did cast. Nazi pole tops was but one of their cast items. As far as PP rings,,true most pressed with a die. But there were other unorthodox methods used. These methods weren't popular, didn't last long, some very complicated and soon forgotten but they were tried and rings produced.

IMG_20200330_0003b.jpg (17.06 KB, 270 downloads)
Last edited by Gaspare; 04/23/2020 02:33 AM.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 430
Offline
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Gaspare


I disagree with your rule of thumb. Gahr did cast. Nazi pole tops was but one of their cast items.


Casting aluminum is completely different story. Different technology and completely different equipment involved. Still have not seen any cast jewelry piece from Gahr.

Originally Posted by Gaspare


But there were other unorthodox methods used. These methods weren't popular, didn't last long, some very complicated and soon forgotten but they were tried and rings produced.


If you refer to pic you posted in previous post it is not unorthodox process it was common thing for die struck production. I also do use it for some signet ring manufacturing on regular basis

P.S. I would love to learn about "complicated and forgotten methods" smile Please point direction where to look for them.


There are less original rings than you think, much less...

www.totenkopfrings.com
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
As usual, nothing new. Many questions, with evidences are posted in this thread, and no one answer from die striking supporters. Of course, ignore everything is not the best way to be believable, anyway you can go on with the head under the sand...

Is under everyone's eyes that they have nothing to say, they simply can't answer in a logic way point by point. And we are not talking about microscopic pictures, we are simply talking about evidences (like distance of leaves-ring edge, hand workings,...) no one has ever pointed out since now. This discussion shows elements NO ONE has ever investigate before. And instead try to understand why, you simply write some non senses. But that's a well known behaviour.

It is clear you don't want talk on ring, simply keep your eyes closed and go on. If you really wanted to discuss this matter, then you should have posted documented answers as I did.

Let me say one think: period sources confirm rings were mostly cast - comparisons show differences totally uncompatible with die stricking theory - hand working is uncompatible with die stricking theory - casting flaws are uncompatible with die stricking theory.

Furthermore: you NEVER, NEVER posted ANY: evidence, period source (I repeat: period sources DON'T show die striking/pressing but almost only CASTING production processes for jewelry and bijouterie).


Below you can clearly see the differences between an assumption of revealed truth (without any document, reference, proof and logic...) and what really period documents say. Be smart guys, if you don't want to live with the head under the sand, open up your eyes!

Hap1_0.jpg (48.74 KB, 307 downloads)
Hap1_0_1.jpg (53.44 KB, 303 downloads)
Hap_1.jpg (53.04 KB, 298 downloads)
Hap_31.jpg (48.73 KB, 293 downloads)
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 7
T
Offline
T
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 7
Antonio Scapini
I wish you would post without the condescending tone/attitude. I know you write a lot in your postings and some may be good but when I see the "holier than thou" tone and unwillingness to see a different side just makes folks not take the time time to fully comprehend your intent.
I may be wrong but this is just my opinion and how I view it.
Ron

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 29
Offline
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 29
One question to Hapur
How many time you hold in ur hands, original rings ?
IMO no one :)
And I agree with Antonio, you cant give to us any proff about that Otto Gahr made sshr with die struck method, this is just ur own idea without any real facts )))

Last edited by Evgeniy; 04/23/2020 04:41 PM.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
- The fact is that Gahr had the capability to cast and did. And, we really don't know what he made. The Gahr silversmith book is not a catalog of his work and erroneously leads collectors to think the SS culture mark is a Gahr hallmark when it is not!

- As far as other methods. The ad I posted produces a hollow band ring, not a standard method.. Antonio shows a hodge podge of methods in his posts including cast ring method. These and more are in the period trade guild booklets for engravers, Goldsmiths/Silversmiths and enamelers...
- It is true though,,most PP rings were done with drawn silver, in a press, with a die,,to me the best,easiest,most profitable method back then.

Something is unorthodox going on at the least with the 2nd type. .
As Evgeniy mentions. To date here or anywhere no one has offered one bit of proof or even a explanation on how the HR was made and why the discrepancies in like rings!. . Antonio has provided something at least..

Opinions are great guys,,and we know most PP rings are pressed. The HR is not PP. Yes mass produced but made for no profit, not advertised, like year rings with discrepancies..

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by Tanker
Antonio Scapini
I wish you would post without the condescending tone/attitude. I know you write a lot in your postings and some may be good but when I see the "holier than thou" tone and unwillingness to see a different side just makes folks not take the time time to fully comprehend your intent.
I may be wrong but this is just my opinion and how I view it.
Ron

I'm sorry Ron you read my post in this way.

I simply posted 2 screenshots with categorical sentences: "Made exactly same way as Gahr did" and "All germann WW2 rings are die struck" and one pictures with a "collage" about what really period sources said.
And IMO it is absolutely funny to see someone supporting something without any evidence.
No offence, simply a funny picture to highlight the difference between a nonsense and a real evidence. I don't trust nonsenses, I prefere a solid rock proof. And the evidece says: most of TR rings were cast.
Anyone of us can believe to a theory without any sense and proof, or to start making some questions.

Ask a die stricking supporter to show you some comparisons, and you'll find out he has never made a decent one.

My posts wanted simply to raise some questions, this was the purpose, but you can clearly see the silence, lack of knowledge, of the die sticking supporters. Many questions, no one answer.
The truth is that I have so much data in my files, that I could post them for months. And the way a TK ring is made has really something "unhorthodox" (as Gaspare already said many times), but part of this "unhortodox" method was also used for other rings production... of course everything is written in period sources (and this is important), exactly those period sources the die stricking supporters have never read. They said so much nonsenses, from the elongated symbols due to the rounding of the flat band, to the multiple dies of a die pressing machine. They cannot answer to any question, they have no proofs, but they KNOW (HOW?!?!?!?) TK rings were die pressed (or die struck?).


Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 7
T
Offline
T
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 7
No problem Antonio, I just read it the wrong way. That is the trouble with electronic media. The intent/feelings are difficult to convey.
Ron

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by hapur

In short - Rule of thumb - Germans at this time frame did not use any other manufacturing method but die striking for mass produced rings, second - Otto Gahr firm did use only die striking (there are no known Gahr's products made by casting.)

Long version - everything in details has been said here in previous discussions here more than 10 years ago.


3 statements, 3 big falsities.
2 of them dismissed with a simply collage of period documents.
The last fake information is: "there are no Gahr's products made by casting".

Here we go: dagger/sword parts in Silber or Neusilber / Thorhammer in Silber (Guss) - Werkverzeichnis Nr. 16 - / Ehering mit Runen (not the famous TK ring) in Silber / Necklace pendant in Silber or Gold (Gegossen) - Werkverzeichnis Nr. 27 -. (Do you know the difference between "Guss" and "Gegossen"?)
Some reference to my statement can be found in "Otto und Karolina Gahr, die Silberschmiede der NSDAP und der SS".

THIS IS THE WAY I THINK IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE:
Good statement = verifiable proof.
Nonsense = no proof, no reference, no period source.

So Hapur, how can it be possible you made 3 statements and all 3 are falsities? You is one of those repeated these falsities for years and years...
How can we believe what you and the die stricking supporters like Ric say, if you write falsities, nonsenses, totally invented methods, childish mistakes and so on?

Don't you think it is time to move a step back and try have a serious discussion?

Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,536
Likes: 4
JR Offline
Offline
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,536
Likes: 4

Antonio has undertaken a serious in-dept study on these rings, and backed it up by scientific evidence to show the same. Time and again he has demonstrated a multitude of casting flaws and dependencies and explained how each vary, from ring to ring. On the other side of the discussion there has been nothing: no manufacturing evidence, no answers to Antonio's questions when asked, no lab scope study, no ring composition study, no experts in the science world, or no jeweler expertise. The die press proponents have presenting nothing other than: "they are die pressed or die struck, because I said so". OK, show us how these rings can be manufactured under striking or pressing, and explain the reason why every single example is different?

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,557
Likes: 8
Offline
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,557
Likes: 8
JR, I have to agree because of the evidence shown, So far the evidence leans heavily on Antonio side imo..It really does look like these HR rings were NOT struck or pressed. Casted and hand finished, Thanks to all for the discussion and to Antonio. I wont say what type of ring, but I wish I can get my hands on it because it looks like the same or very close to same type of process as the HR. I have noticed it for many years. Best!

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
Just to update the IMO VERY INTERESTING questions and the answers we got:

1) Which evidences do you have to believe rings are die struck?
(Best answer: there is not, but we think so...)

2) Why there is a so much variable distance between leaves and the edge of the ring band if the dies for the die struck rings are "female" and the distance between leaves and edge of the band in die struck rings is always the same? (see post #345367#345367)
(Best answer: Gahr invented a multiple dies system with multiple die for die stricking...)

3) How can it be possible not only the different distance between leaves and edge, but also some big flaws? (see post #345423#345423)
(Best answer: none)

4) How can it be possible to obtain variations in the external design with the die stricking process? (see post #345798#345798 picture 2)
(Best answer: none)

5) Why each ring shows unique features, while die stricking rings are all, always perfectly matching? (see post #345799#345799 pictures 1, 2)
(Best answer: none)

6) Why mint (or in good condition) rings show big flaws, totally uncompatible with the die stricking production process? (see post #345799 pictures 3, 4, 5) ? (see also the metallic protusions showed on posts #346180#346180)
(Best answer: none)

7) Why so much hand tooling on TK rings if they were die struck? Why Hapur (and all the rest too!!) die struck rings (and not only rings!) don't show ANY hand finish on them? (see post #345797#345797)
(Best answer: none)

8) How many different types of hand tooling we can find on TK rings?
(Best answer: none)
See attached picture: many, many, rings (especially '30, but '40 too!) show hand toolings like those showed on picture. Can Hapur or Ric replicate in a die struck ring this, and explain which tools are needed, the meaning and the utility of a sokind and of so much work? Never seen in all my life ANY die struck item (badge, ring, ornament,...) with scooping marks like those.


I would like you, die stricking supporters, could elaborate and post a serious, documented answer using also PERIOD documentation.
I would be happy simply reading a documented answer for only one of all these questions.
Each one of the above questions is alone enough to dismiss the die stricking theory.

Oh, these are only the beginning, MUCH MORE important questions can follow...

PS: if you say in the past these rings were studied, compared... Why have we never read any answer to all these questions?

Tools.jpg (46.61 KB, 253 downloads)
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 430
Offline
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 430
My last post in this thread

Originally Posted by Gaspare


- As far as other methods. The ad I posted produces a hollow band ring, not a standard method..


Ad you showed does not make hollow ring , it makes heavily "plated" gold ring. Idea is brass core inside, gold tube outside, after die strike we have "thick goldplated" layer arround brass ring which is much more wear resistant than any plating.


There are less original rings than you think, much less...

www.totenkopfrings.com
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
G
Gaspare Offline OP
OP Offline
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,541
Likes: 169
H. , the ad does say on it 'Sole Producer' , 'Only sold to wholesalers'. There were other ways to plate jewelry and there are rings that appear solid that have a hollow band core,,, that was my point really and trying to relate to the Honor Ring and unorthodoxy..

Too bad about it being your last post on the topic.. I'm pretty sure most of us would have rather you to comment on the HR since you make them and make your HRs an old way on original equipment etc.
I'm not taking sides but you offered no theory ,idea etc. only that 'thats how rings were made. In fact in this topic and all others around the internet there is not one person that can offer why the discrepancies in HRs made the same year and even the same date in band!. That is what this topic was for and as much as I'd like to see something about a die and press we see nothing but 'thats how rings were made' by those who like/support the idea.. Antonio right or wrong [we'll see] at least offered photos and explanation,questions to ponder.

Economics,,profit, material, labor saving etc. Yes what our PP rings were made to do,,make a profit for the maker/retailer.... BUT, the HR is not sold, had only one maker. Complexity didn't seem to matter. A few thousand made and given away!,,and IF you wore it out you would get another! Hopefully one day something period will surface or some real scientific research that will explain things..,
Thanks to all who contributed /posted here!.,Gaspare

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
A
Offline
A
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 149
Likes: 9
This thread offered an overview on the TK rings world, where, when you start studying the matter, you clearly understand that ALL what is asserted in this field, is asserted without any proof and without any common sense.
Furthermore it is clear how it is not possible to have a real discussion with the die striking supporters, since (even if they are less than a handful remaining) they have nothing to say.
Sorry, they have something to say, but actually it is something totally absurd and invented like this:

Originally Posted by Ric Ferrari
Gahr probably invented a way to stamp several rings at one time, so to allow many dies working contemporarily, increasing production as requested by Berlin.


They really have no idea of what they are talking about:

Originally Posted by Ric Ferrari
I do not know the reason why some SSHr show different distance of leaves from edge band, probably because Gahr made different female dies having a different distance of leaves from edge band.


But they know the rings were die struck...

Originally Posted by hapur
Germans at this time frame did not use any other manufacturing method but die striking for mass produced rings, second - Otto Gahr firm did use only die striking (there are no known Gahr's products made by casting.)


How they know this it's a mystery... since period books, magazines, sources says exactly the contrary. But they know that and of course they firmly support each other:

Originally Posted by Ric Ferrari
Well, I believe SSHr were made by pressing a blank planchet into a die, the same way Hapur make his SSHr repro.....to be clear.


Why they believe so, is still a mistery.

And when they fall silent in front of evidences and questions they cannot answer to, then or they stop talking, or they try to move the discussion on personal attack:

Originally Posted by wotan
developing and defending the -casting theory- serve two directions: The making money with -the new theory- and finally making money with fakes that suddenly became originals due to the settlement of the crude casting theory.



To be honest at the beginning of this discussion I didn't hope or think we could have an answer from them. We know they cannot answer to any of the previous questions, even if they said they are open to discuss. But there's nothing to discuss if you have nothing to offer but your opinion sold like a revealed truth.

I'll be happy to discuss, but I (and all we reading here) need to know the answers to the questions I made! Otherwise the only thing we can discuss on is: speculation - but an opinion without any proof is not something I'm interested by (especially if they are totally invented ones like those quoted above).

It is clear you have no idea on the manufacturing processes, nor on how they were developed and made during the Third Reich era. It is clear you never read any period document, any jewerly manual. It is also clear you never made any deep comparison between 2-3-4-5-10-10-50 rings! Exactly what I did in these last 3 years.
All what I wrote is under everyone's eye. And that's only the very beginning.

Last thing: I NEVER, NEVER mentioned anything about the production process used by Gahr, I only tried to reason togheter studying the comparisons.
Here I can only say one thing about the process Gahr used: it was NOT die striking, NOR die casting, and the proofs are so much that simply reading the questions I wrote above, both those processes would immediately be discharged even by a child.

At this point for you (die striking supporters) I think now it is not a matter of science or logic, it is not important to really find out the truth for the collectors community, but it is simply a matter of standing on your position until the end, and never accept anything that goes against your opinions, even if they are totally fake, simply because it is too hard to say: "I was wrong" or "Antonoio's questions have something we never investigate before, let's open our minds!". I know you don't like me, but this is NOT MY OPINION, these data I show are real, solid evidences everyone can search, see and find by himself!
Anyway this means if the TK rings will turn out to be cast, they will be clearly not able to distinguish a cast from a die struck piece... Very sad conclusion for such kind of ring experts.

Anyway, if you still want to have a serious discussion, I'm still here, ready to read serious answers and ready to share some more interesting things.

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,889
Likes: 17
Offline
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,889
Likes: 17
Hello Mr. Antonio Scarpini!
I did not intend to write any more in this thread but as you do cite me and especially as you do see this as a personal attack I feel the necessity to react. First I want to apologize for the cited passage written by me! Due to certain actions in different forums I did have this personal impression but finally no proof for it. In the meanwhile I think these are fair-minded attempts fom you due to you personal observations and personal interpretations. Anyway this was really no acceptable kind of communication from my side, so again I apologize.
Perhaps the wrong impression did arise as it looks like you also don?t read well meant hints or even explanations to at least one of your questions. Proof: In my post #345528 I clearly did refer to (and explain) what you now again show in your post #346563 (cit. post #345528: Eg. the "signs" in post #345525 do show -by experts and skilled workers- well known "Tremblieren" (this is a technical term from engravers) which either can be done by purpose or develops by chance and has not the least to do with a casting process.).

I am pretty sure if we could lead a discussion face to face, show in hands by certain rings what we are meaning, what experiences we have made and how the one and the other question can be answered we would not lead such a lengthy written, immobile discussion but would very quick come to a result.
I am not the one to educate or convince you or others, each collector has to make his homework and draw his own conclusions. Even more -imho- it is not good to write all down in public as the fakers do read with us.

But be sure there is at least one counterargument/explanation against each question you arise or each argument you set for another kind of manufacturing than die stamping. Eg. the -for you- ongoing and unanswered question -why there is so much variable distance between leaves and the edge of the ring band- can be easily explained when you know and understand the whole manufacturing process in it s steps and the tools of the time. But again, I am not the one to educate or convince you or others.

I do not want to get into a further discussion in this manufacturing the TKrings matter because my knowledge of the English language is not good enough to lead such discussion in technical matters. Btw, this might be also the reason for the fact that there is not much response to your long contributions and questions, not the lack of knowledge, argument or proofs. But I keep my personal standards to distinguish between original TKrings and faked ones.
Regards,


wotan, gd.c-b#105

"Never look for sqare eggs" as a late owner of an original FHH-dagger used to say.
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Popular Topics(Views)
2,225,763 SS Bayonets
1,726,250 Teno Insignia Set
1,088,473 westwall rings
Latest New Threads
# 39821C Imperial Shooting Cutlass
by C. Wetzel-20609 - 11/26/2022 05:26 PM
Tang Marks on SS/SA/NSKK - What are they ?
by Dave - 11/25/2022 11:00 PM
Thanksgiving
by Vern - 11/22/2022 03:04 PM
Original SS Ring ???
by Cotoroanta - 11/21/2022 06:49 PM
HJ with dedication for review
by wes_143 - 11/20/2022 07:32 PM
Latest New Posts
Finnish March Badges
by derjager - 11/26/2022 10:53 PM
Tang Marks on SS/SA/NSKK - What are they ?
by Vern - 11/26/2022 08:33 PM
Squirrelly for Eickhorns - Potpourri
by JohnZ - 11/26/2022 06:35 PM
# 39821C Imperial Shooting Cutlass
by C. Wetzel-20609 - 11/26/2022 05:26 PM
Miniature lapel awards.
by derjager - 11/26/2022 02:10 AM
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics31,324
Posts324,566
Members7,253
Most Online5,900
Dec 19th, 2019
Who's Online Now
14 members (derjager, bushido, RFI, Dave, seany, stingray, benten, Vern, C. Wetzel-20609, atis, Valkyrie1968, SpitfireVb, ed773, Texasuberalles), 112 guests, and 117 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5