UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum Incredible Coincidence

I posted these photos yesterday, but some may not have seen them. One is the "Tost" ring that has been discussed, and the other is the "Quirin" ring currently on Craig's website. Even though the 2 skulls are different, the teeth are EXACTLY identical. What are the odds of this? Especially since the Tost ring is now considered fake, this Quirin ring needs examination. Same ODD shape, same spacing-everything. In the interest of fairness to prospective buyers, I think the Quirin, Kraemer, Diddens, and other rings on that site should be discussed. Here's the Quirin:

Tost ring:

Hmmmm, good points Josias. Don had once told me that no two skulls are a like due to their hand finishing and the teeth on both these skulls goes against this. Yes, more study is needed on these rings.

Josias,
So what you are saying is the 3 rings on his site are
fakes,,,along with others??? Which ones do you think are no good??

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

Josias,

I just went to his site and looked at the 6 different rings he has listed,the only name he has that you mentioned is "Diddens"

The names listed are:

Diddens,Wohlers,Gerstenberger,Salisch,Muller,and
a No Name.

They all look Right As Rain to me.

Who has,(had) the "Tost" ring for sale??

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

Sepp, sorry that i bust in but in my belive Josias have some real nollege and if he stated that the HR menitoned are fakes than we can trust him, we are here yust discusing original 3 Raich rings which we love so much and after seeing so much originals posted almust daily here and on other militaria forums we all have some nollege how an original Honor ring must look like and if any of you ( who dont poses the original HR ) hade oportunity to hold an original HR in his hands, i am sure that there are very slim options that we coud be tricked by such ovies ( lets be pulite ) questonable Honor rings! Until we are asured by Honor rings guru Don that this HR are original, they will adlist stay questonable if not f...!
That is my humble opinion and to be completly onest i woud like to see that i am wrong, since this rings are realy amasingly weal made and to found out that there was another original Gahr HR production stayle woud moust surten turn this amasing hooby upside down, but hey even more strange things are happening, on daily basis.

Hello Rogi,

The only ring that has a paper from Don Boyle he has listed is the ring with "no name"

Do You Know who is selling the "Tost" ring?

Please tell me what you see wrong with those rings on his site.

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

Craig Gottlieb at one time sold the Tost ring I'm not sure if it's for sale again, maybe the new owner isn't happy with it.

I would like to ask again, where did the fake ring on Craig's site come from?

Your asking to the wrong people..Please go to his site and there is contact information and ask him directly.. Thanks , G.

Josias,Rogi,

I have not studied these rings long,so when I got home from work I got out my book(by Don Boyle) on these rings, and compared the pictures of the early style (30's)and later (40's) to his rings and I do see several things that are not the same,as those showen in Don's book.

From other topics I have read on this site over the years about "C G's Big Ticket items does this really suprise anyone.I am pretty sure there well be NO response from him on this subject.

Sepp


GDC 0292 Gold

Please understand that I've no axe to grind with Craig's website. This is brought up merely to save a prospective buyer possible heartache and regret. There are rings popping up all over the place, especially mint ones. Many of these jump out at you by their polished and "over-sculpted" appearance. Another troubling aspect is rings where the skull protrudes too high from the band. I can't stress enough that you should compare mint rings with the rings in Don's book. Apparently, the rings I mentioned were on Craig's "Gallery" page. The "Sparwasser" ring looks perfectly fine, and is a good example of how the engraving should look on a 1944 ring. The Quirin ring is fake. The Kraemer ring is questionable. I'll look at the rest later.

The ignorance, misinformation, and attitude on this thread is amazing. Here are some Don Boyle Certificates on Quirin and Tost. Kraemer has one too, but I don't have a copy handy.

[IMG]http://www.craiggottlieb.com/catalog/gallery/843/843(4).jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.craiggottlieb.com/catalog/gallery/487/487(10).jpg[/IMG]

I apologize to Craig Gottlieb in that I was in no way inferring that he would knowingly sell items that are not authentic. We merely disagree. It should be understood that my, or anyone's, personal opinions about items given on this forum are just that. It is up to the readers to discern whether statements have credibility. The only ignorance displayed is when a collector plunks down his or her hard earned money for an item blindly. With the preponderance of stone-mint rings suddenly appearing, as if by magic, one would do well to tread carefully, as all that glitters is not Gahr. The rings I mentioned are not for sale anyway, as they are "Gallery" photos. Since Don Boyle is considered the definitive expert worldwide, I'd be curious to see his reaction to the gallery rings. I would be happy to assess each ring and tell you why I feel as I do. This is no reflection on Craig in any way. If he doesn't want his items critiqued on any forums, he should inform us, and I'm sure everyone will comply.

Mr.Gottlieb please understand that this discusion is only abouth Honor rings and what we think abouth those that are curently on sale, not yust on your site but also on others, such as HR with Franks ingraving that looks very diferante than any other Honor ring produced in Gahrs yulery and it is steal advertised as original honor ring! I realy hade no intentions to ofend you in any way, like some people over on MCF, i woud only like to hear your tots abouth this so colled mint Honor rings, that are all over lately! I have high respect towords you and your work as a collector, site owner and study of 3 Raich militaria and i hardly waith to get your new book on Honor rings!
The fact is that original Honor rings are very expensive and there are not many collectors that can afort an original one, so when they somehowe manage to safe enough money to buy one i am surten that they will be very carfule from whom they will buy one and you are considerd an autority regarding original Honor rings and that is why somethimes you have to "yump in to the post" and explain your tots!

That is only my humbel opinion and i realy hope that i didnt ofend anyone with my posts, since that was never my intention!

quote:

Originally posted by Craig Gottlieb:
The ignorance, misinformation, and attitude on this thread is amazing. Here are some Don Boyle Certificates on Quirin and Tost. Kraemer has one too, but I don't have a copy handy.

[IMG]http://www.craiggottlieb.com/catalog/gallery/843/843(4).jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.craiggottlieb.com/catalog/gallery/487/487(10).jpg[/IMG]

Hello Craig,

and thanks for sharing Don's papers : now everyone know the honorring man opinion and may end any blah, blah, by supposed experts.
I'm a student of this amazing matter and have to say too many "experts" do not help to understand what's legit or not in a Gahr's TK ring.

Regards

Ric

PLEASE.....You bring this on yourself!!!!!

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

And, another one for the Kraemer Ring, which either Sepp and Josias in their wisdom, have deemed a fake.

The Quirin ring is fake, says Josias. Oh well . . .

The Tost ring is now considered fake, says Josias. Oh well, somebody better tell Don!

Now thats is cleard, the HR are original with Don Boyle blesing!

But thats not changing the fact that there are some very expensive SS Honor Rings on the market which have not beeing issued Don s cetificat ( ither they will ever be ), for example SS Honor Ring with Frank ingraving, that one sure is not only questonable but in my eyes its a fake ring ( i belive its sold already )and few others which steal neads some clarification! This days, with economic world wide crisis, with ( for me adlist ) to much so colled mint SS Honor Rings on the SS regalia market and with realy high prices, all this SS Honor Rings listed for sale must have proven background and certificate issued by Don Boyle, otherwise they are considerd adlist questonable!

Please be fare here guys, how can you demande 12.000$ or even much more ( for some "super mint" SS Honor Rings ) if you dont have any prove what so ever in your hands that the Honor Ring is 100% original!
I have no intentions to cose any problems for SS regalia dealers ( i am also buying stuff from them, whenever i can becourse of high prices that is very rare ocasion ), becourse they are also hit with economic crisis and they strugle to stay under the wather as all of us, but when it comes to highly expensive SS regalia and SS Honor Rings are among this than this must be taken much more sirius, its not enugh ( any more ) yust dealers statemant that the HR is original and that he gives life time guarantie for the HR but he must also provide back ground ( if there is any ) and Don Boyles certificate, so that the deal can be made without any later problems !

I belive and hope that you all agree with me on this!?

Craig i sincerly apologise for my distrust towords some of your SS Honor rings and i openly admite that i was wrong and i truly hope that i didnt cose you any problems with my posts!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Sepp:
PLEASE.....You bring this on yourself!!!!!

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

.....keep silent.....PLEASE!!!!!!

Ric

Bone check your mail.

Sepp

GDC 0292 GOLD

Now we need to see the COA on the COA.

OK - Let's talk COA's. These next pics are from a post I revived on Jan. 7th ("Honor Ring 1939")
This ring has a COA from Don Boyle, and you stated with certainty it hadn't been tampered with. If this monstrosity got a COA from Don, it was before it was ruined by retooling. You've got to be kidding me. The teeth were re-tooled as well. From the engraving, it looks like an authentic ring. Please don't insist that the ring hasn't been reworked by some fool.

More seaweed design..

Heavily worn skull - but perfect teeth. More retooling.

The top row third tooth from the left has a crown. Remember kids brush after every meal or you will leave a bad looking totenkopf. (:}X

The Diddens ring. This ring was supposedly re-sized because he lost weight due to serious injuries received in 1944. So after he recovers, he's gonna have it enlarged again?? You've got to be kidding me. The ring may be authentic, but SOMETHING happened to the engraving along the way.

Referring to Dr.Ebeling's ring and looking at the Hagal rune, to say one, it's more likely a totally new die.
About it, I'd love a comment by the actual owner, or an help to search it among past threads.

Best

Ric

Craig I know it's painful for you but I would love to know where that fake ring without the inscription came from.

b collector - In reference to the Dr. Ebeling ring, I would like more closeups, but the inside inscription leads me to believe that the ring ("Honor Ring 1939")is authentic. I'm pretty sure Mr. Boyle will verify that that there were only 2 style rings, with various styles of skulls used. Either the ring is fake, or it has been by someone who retooled (ruined)it. Notice how the Ty-Rune is heavily worn, but the area all around it is deeply grooved. Besides, just look at the leaves. NO ONE from the Gahr factory EVER would create something that looks like this. This, I guarantee you. Compare this worn ring with the Dr. Ebeling ring and you'll see the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
b collector - In reference to the Dr. Ebeling ring, I would like more closeups, but the inside inscription leads me to believe that the ring ("Honor Ring 1939")is authentic. I'm pretty sure Mr. Boyle will verify that that there were only 2 style rings, with various styles of skulls used. Either the ring is fake, or it has been by someone who retooled (ruined)it. Notice how the Ty-Rune is heavily worn, but the area all around it is deeply grooved. Besides, just look at the leaves. NO ONE from the Gahr factory EVER would create something that looks like this. This, I guarantee you. Compare this worn ring with the Dr. Ebeling ring and you'll see the difference.

Josias,

retooling an original ring band means only one thing IMO : taking away silver, but arms and frame of the Hagal rune appears more thick than any 30's or 40's ring and differently shaped.

Am I wrong ?

Ric

Good point, but take a look at the Ty-Rune on the Ebeling ring. Notice how wide the runes are from being smashed. I believe the Hagal Rune looked like this also, and they re-tooled it at that same width. I base my conclusion mostly on the fact that the inside inscription looks like it's authentic. There's no way that the person who did the outside was the same individual who did the inside. Regardless, it's a mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Good point, but take a look at the Ty-Rune on the Ebeling ring......

OK, then take a look at the Sieg Runes : frames and Runes again re-tooled ?

(pic kindly taken by MCF Forum)

Ric

quote:

Originally posted by b.collector:

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Good point, but take a look at the Ty-Rune on the Ebeling ring......

OK, then take a look at the Sieg Runes : frames and Runes again re-tooled ?

(pic kindly taken by MCF Forum)

Ric

Left Sieg Rune (pic kindly taken by MCF Forum)

I see where you're coming from, but if the ring was heavily worn, this is how it probably looked to the re-tooler. Even on a mint TKR, the right top part of the Sig-rune is touching the triangle. There's no deep line dividing the two. They didn't realize this. My theory is also backed up by the TY-Rune. Why is the area all around it crisp, but the Ty-Rune itself is heavily worn? Something that DOES bother me about my theory is the fact that the Ty-Rune does NOT exhibit normal wear in my opinion. Normally, on a heavily-worn ring, both runes actually blend together. (See my ring). Regardless, if you go back to the original post (Honor Ring 1939) notice that the inside engraving looks textbook AND the joiner line looks textbook as well. B collector, what is YOUR final assessment on this ring?

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
I see where you're coming from, but if the ring was heavily worn, this is how it probably looked to the re-tooler. Even on a mint TKR, the right top part of the Sig-rune is touching the triangle. There's no deep line dividing the two. They didn't realize this. My theory is also backed up by the TY-Rune. Why is the area all around it crisp, but the Ty-Rune itself is heavily worn? Something that DOES bother me about my theory is the fact that the Ty-Rune does NOT exhibit normal wear in my opinion. Normally, on a heavily-worn ring, both runes actually blend together. (See my ring). Regardless, if you go back to the original post (Honor Ring 1939) notice that the inside engraving looks textbook AND the joiner line looks textbook as well. B collector, what is YOUR final assessment on this ring?

Josias,

IMO too many differences compared with a 30's or a 40's ring to explain it simply by a retooling :
different skull, different runes, different leaves and btw all them not touching the edge all around the ring.

Ric

How do you explain the textbook inside engraving and textbook joiner line? Unless a ring looks OBVIOUSLY like a fake, the first thing I want to see is the inside inscription. That's something that's extremely difficult to duplicate. My point is that someone who had enough expertise to replicate the engraving certainly would have done a better job on the leaves. You may be correct that the entire ring is fake, but it's hard to explain away my last point. What say thou?

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
How do you explain the textbook inside engraving and textbook joiner line? Unless a ring looks OBVIOUSLY like a fake, the first thing I want to see is the inside inscription. That's something that's extremely difficult to duplicate. My point is that someone who had enough expertise to replicate the engraving certainly would have done a better job on the leaves. You may be correct that the entire ring is fake, but it's hard to explain away my last point. What say thou?

Josias,

you did misunderstand my position : I do believe the ring being an original one, let's say a transitional/experimental ring ?
Btw, the ring got Don's blessing

Ric