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

I'd be VERY surprised to find that Don blessed this ring as it is. If he DID bless it, is it possible it was monkeyed with later? Also, considering that there are many fake Don Boyle certificates floating around, did he REALLY authenticate it? BEAR WITH ME HERE: The date suggests it is a transitional period. That could account for the early style skull. Germans are extremely traditional. Even though the ring was changed at one time, the basic pattern remained the same. Why would they make an experimental design, ESPECIALLY with leaves that don't even look like leaves? Even if that were the case, then where did the Ty-Rune go? I GUARANTEE you that this ring never left the Gahr factory with leaves that look like this. I would love for Don boyle to look at this ring and see what he says.

Josias,

You are posting some heavy duty assessments and accusations in this thread.

Please tell us who you are and what experience you have to be able to make these judgments with such confidence.

Dave
Admin

Opinions expressed on this forum are just that. No one accused anyone of anything. And if someone DID ever sell something that turned out to not be authentic, I automatically assume that it was NOT done so knowingly. This scenario is entirely possible, since no one is perfect in every assessment they make. It is a fact that Don's certificates have been faked and circulated. Therefore, the fact that a Don Boyle certificate accompanies an item, doesn't automatically prove it's authenticity. I don't question Don Boyle, only whether his certificates that are floating around are actually his. Collectors and prospective buyers post items and would like honest assessments, and that's what I gave. If there are those who think I'm wrong, they're free to tell me I'm full of crap, and hopefully, they'll at least give a reason. I've studied WWII artifacts for over 30 years, and the Totenkopfring for 25 years. That doesn't prove anything necessarily, but the totenkopfring is a well-sculptured work of art. As an artisan myself, I feel comfortable in saying with certainty that the outside of the Ebeling ring is in no way consistent with Gahr workmanship. Study the design carefully. It's not only poorly executed, but it doesn't even make sense. I've NEVER accused anyone on any forum of being dishonest, and have stated that if they don't want their items assessed on a forum, they should say so. I was under the impression that all opinions were welcome. Send the photos of the Ebeling ring to Don Boyle and ask him if he authenticated this ring. If he says so, this will be the first time I've ever disagreed with him.

Who are you ? You seem to be on other forums with other names. If you are that certain of your pronouncements, why not step up to the podium ?

Well perhaps it's time for me to help clear up this situation, as I am the current owner of the ring in question...the Dr. Ebeling ring.

Being a physician myself and a student of TR items, Honor Rings in particular, I had been on the look-out for a ring conferred to a doctor. This one popped up about two and a half years ago on Gottlieb's site, so I was naturally drawn to it. Craig's pictures as well as an in hand inspection revealed that someone had quite sloppily attempted to darken the deeper recesses of the ring. This was subsequently removed with acetone.

All of the concerns expressed here regarding the unusual appearance of the external portions of the ring, were also looked into. One does not spend that kind of money without proof of untampered with authenticity. Naturally, Don Boyle was contacted. I personally spoke with Don on the telephone at least ten times regarding this ring. He assured me that this ring was all original(except for the garbage that was removed with acetone). In fact, Don being Don, re-papered this ring in my name following an inspection after it's acetone bath. The ring has been in my possession since that time with its' original CoA, its' updated CoA and two other Honor Rings papered by Don. I personally would not own one that was not blessed by Don.

The line of ownership on this ring as best as I can remember is as follows...Andy Legere--->Craig Gottlieb--->Ed Augustine--->
Craig Gottlieb--->me.
Where the horrible attempt to darken the burnishing was made is anyone's guess.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt I needed to straighten this out and defend one of my items.
I will post some better photos momentarily.
Derek

G:
Not sure why but I keep geting error messages when I try to attach photos. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Derek

My name is Josias, and my brother and I have posted on here many times and on WA forum as SGStandard. There is no mystery, as we have posted the same items many times. We have always tried to be courteous and helpful. I don't doubt that the Ebeling ring is authentic, just re-tooled. If Don authenticated it this way, I'm surprised, and I respectfully disagree with him. I don't know how to do this, but if someone could post a pic of a 30's ring, this ring, and a 40's ring all together with a BACK view, showing the Ty-Rune area, and after looking at all three, you still insist that this Ebeling ring exhibits Gahr workmanship, I'll stop trying to convince you. FIRST OF ALL - The dark areas are more than just blackening. The metal is clearly carved that way. Look at the 3 o'clock area on the Ty-Rune circle and notice that even though the rune area is almost gone, MIRACULOUSLY, the outer circle has a deep groove. If the Ty-Rune was this worn, then there would be no groove there. The Ty-Rune would blend into the leaves. Look at this same area on the ring I posted. Also, show me just ONE ring with a skull with this much wear that has perfect teeth. There isn't any. As for the leaves, why would a company with such skilled craftsman make oak leaves that look NOTHING like oak leaves? I can barely tell they're leaves. It's simply illogical. I take no joy in proclaiming that I think something is wrong, but if I owned an artifact, I would hope that people gave their honest opinions. I don't questioning an item's originality lightly. If I see something I question, I try to share my ideas. I thought that was what the forum was for. If you think I'm full of crap, then so be it. Are we having fun yet?

Hi Derek,,, there is sometimes problems posting photos here ,,usually goes away in a day or so. Also,,I think the photo size limit is 100kb. IF you have a photo 100.01kb it will NOT post.. I also seem to remember Andy telling me it was NOT burnished like that when he had it,,so where did it come from?[please correct me if I'm wrong here!]

*Dave,, Please let these guys go. They are all HR ring owners. A couple are even into making really nice copy rings. They have the right to question, and state their opinion,,,and they are saying why! This is still a forum as far as I'm concerned and as long as they are cool with the CoC and state their concerns all are welcome.

This ring had a good size topic about it here. It's gone?! O.K., maybe... If I remember right Don has said he has only seen this exact pattern once or twice before.. IF ,I remember correctly this is a trans ring [39?] It could very well be a interim pattern that didn't pan out. Could be Don has some sort of info on it.. Don has told me time and time again,,that even in his own book he had held out on much info,,and even in helping Craig in his new book he did NOT reveal all.....I for one am glad he does it,,,we have enough problems with copies as it is.........

G:
You are correct. Back when I purchased this ring, Don gave me Andy's cell number so that he could give all the info he had. He stated that the ring did not have this extra "burnishing" when it was his. Don, as you can imagine, also saw the ring while in Andy's possession and confirmed this.
Derek

Josias,
Thanks for all your inputs here,and Thanks to Gaspare for doing the right thing.

Sepp
GDC 0292 Gold

photos...

photos

more

more...

internals...

internal 2

last one

So in closing, is this ring somewhat different?Yes it is. Is it papered by Don Boyle as an authentic, untampered with Honor Ring? Absolutely, and that's good enough for me.
Derek

D. , spoke to Andy tonight,, I had forgotten where it originally came from.

I also remember Don spoke about this ring at a show when someone was asking about it. A super rare interim ring?? a one [?] off for a 1939 transitional?
Maybe only a few were made off the master or rolling matrix before it broke making them go to the miss matched tranny rings? Questions,suppositions?,yes,, but I like that all day long.............

dtl70-Thanks for the additional photos. The quality of the inside engraving absolutely PROVES that this is a REAL ring IMO. Whether or not I think that the outside was retooled doesn't really matter after that. Even if I'm correct in my position, the important thing is that it is a REAL SS Totenkopfring. Something Don Boyle told me a long time ago has always stuck with me. He said that one of the first things he always looks at is the inside engraving. With the plethora of "super-fakes" out there, this is good advice for all. CONGRATULATIONS!!

In my upcoming book, I deal with both the manufacturing process, and the question of transitional rings - the hows and whys. One small detail I can let out of the bag: rings were not made with a "rolling matrix" but were made like every other piece of jewelry made during the period - with a mold, created from a master ring. Molds were rountinely worn-out and replaced, but were made from one master ring. There was a master in the 1930s, and one in the 1940s, after the ring was redesigned. In the interim, it appears that Gahr experimented with several candidates before the style that we call the 1940s style, was adopted.

CRAIG - Did you know that there was a company that made daggers called "Gottlieb Hammesfahr"? They were in Solingen. Their RZM code was: M7/67
As for the Ebeling ring, I e-mailed Don Boyle in hopes that he may have any more information concerning possible transition rings. I would like to see any photos of others. I should hear from him by tomorrow.

quote:

Molds were rountinely worn-out and replaced

How could a mold wear out? I could see a die wearing out. BTW Elvis Presley's jeweler still has the molds to a lot of his jewelry from the 60s & 70s those molds are still good and still being used.

Once a "Master" ring is cast from the original wax carving, then a rubber mold is made from this Master. This rubber mold is then used to make more wax rings, which in turn will be cast into silver.This is how the copies have the same sculpting flaws that the original Master has. These rubber molds were probably good for only about a thousand copies before they wear out. Therefore, they probably had several rubber molds going at the same time, but since they were made from the same Master ring, they should be identical.

These "transition" rings bother me a lot. I understand the SS was very exacting in everything produced for their members. Why would they release these few rings without the final approval for production style? I doesn't make sense knowing how precise and specific so many of their other regalia is. ?????

11C - In my opinion, there were only 2 styles of Totenkopfrings, the early flatter style, and the later, more convex, 40's style. The only "transitional" TK rings that exist are ones that may exhibit qualities of both. For example, a 2nd style band with a 1st style skull. Or perhaps a second style band, with the earlier, larger inside inscription. I have ZERO doubts that the "Ebeling" ring is an original ring that someone tried to enhance the outer design. If someone can explain to me how the Ty-Rune is almost completely worn away, but yet the Ty-Rune outer circle and the surrounding leaves are deeply carved, I may agree, but you CAN'T. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for the Ty-Rune to wear like this. Period. Take a GOOD LOOK at the Ty-Rune, and you'll see what most of the ring looked like before it was re-tooled. The worn skull corroborates this theory. Is there someone out there who can look at this worn skull and tell me how the teeth are still perfect? It's called RE-TOOLING. Are we expected to believe also that the "beaded" effect along the edges is original also? To believe that the Ebeling ring is untouched, you'd have to believe that the Gahr factory knew how to sculpt oak leaves in the 30's, by 1939 they forgot how to make them, then in the 40's remembered again how they're supposed to look. The only thing "transitional" about the "Ebeling" ring is the early style skull on a later style band. (PS - Just for fun, I showed photos of the Ebeling ring to the members of our art department at work, along with photos of a mint original. I asked if the oak leaves on the Ebeling ring were executed by the same company that made the other Gahr TK ring. Without hesitation, to a person, they said it was impossible. They said that the leaves looked like a toddler carved them. And not a particularly talented toddler.) 11C has it right. Why would a traditional German silversmith make a ring with oak leaves, then make a special model that looks like seaweed, then go back to making leaves that look real again? This is called FANTASYLAND. For those doubters, go back and study each leaf on the Ebeling ring, and you'll see MANY things that don't make sense - half leaves, deformed leaves, etc. This is more apparent on the back of the ring where most of the design was gone, so they improvised on how they THOUGHT it should look. The Ebeling ring is a VERY RARE original ring that someone tried to restore. It's a cruel world.

I agree it's an original ring and that it has been "enhanced." That being said, I wouldn't mind having it in my collection.

I didn't mean to be so tough on this ring, but I had to call it like I saw it. My main point was NOT to discredit the ring itself, but discredit the famous "Third Die" experimental theory, which I believe has no basis in fact. As for the Ebeling ring, it's authenticity is unquestioned from Don Boyle on down.

Josias is basically correct - the molds do wear out from use, and have to be occasionally replaced. This still happens in jewelry making today. Regarding "Transitional Rings" - our belief in variation during the year 1939 is based only upon deductive reasoning from rings we do observe that do not fit into the 1930s category or the 1940s category. To learn why "transitional" products often suffer flaws and faults, look at the automobile industry. With Corvettes, for example, it is commonly known that the first year of major model overhauls (63 and 68, and 84 come to mind) produced some terrible vehicles.

these are always terrible vehicles

On the subject of The book. Is it ready too be mailed yet ?

Rings to Cars..........Duh? That's the worst analogy I ever heard. BTW I'll take a '63 split window Corvette any day of the week.

Yes, the book is now available - I received my first copies today, and the pre-orders will begin shipping next week.

And of course I freely admit, the Corvette analogy is certainly not perfect. The only similarity it was meant to draw was that 1939 was a year that Gahr used to transition to the "new body style" so to speak. Incidentally, the 63 Split Window is a great car, and I'd love to have one - despite the "new model" flaws. I used to have a 1970 (couldn't afford a 63-67 body style, which was my favorite).

That is good news about the book. I will be watching for mine in the mail.Many times one little piece of information in a book can make or save a person lots of $. (:}X

Again, I apologize for the 2 month printing delay. I was hoping to ship before December 25, 2008, but the death of Peter Schiffer senior and their printing problem in China, delayed it a bit (understandably).