UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum HH ring - today discovered

Different angle-

Date-

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Thanks!! That's much better. Here's a "K" and a date to compare:

Oh, Josias, I am not that experienced but why the beginning of the date looks so small to me?

And last pic - full name...
BTW, could anybody give some info on the wearer himself please?

Jan

Generally, the numbers were taller than the small case letters, and shorter than the tall ones. The numbers on my ring are smaller than usual, but I judge more on the style and crispness of the engraving. Don Boyle once told me that he attributes the smaller dated rings to those engraved by Otto Gahr himself. Whether this is theory or fact, I can't say. The Koehl ring came from Mr. Boyle originally.

One last note. The vertical scratches that are prevalent on the inside, behind the skull and elsewhere, are not normal, unless someone tried to sand the inside of the ring. These appear to be file marks made when the wax model was carved. The wax blanks come with a small hole that has to be enlarged with a file. Then it's sanded, and eventually smoothed out by using a rough cloth. This is painstaking, and often one becomes impatient. This is often the result. My overall assessment of this ring is that it's very likely a reproduction. This is in no way meant to be disparaging to the poster. Any analysis has to be critical to have value. I would be interested to hear other evaluations, even if they differ.

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
One last note. The vertical scratches that are prevalent on the inside, behind the skull and elsewhere, are not normal, unless someone tried to sand the inside of the ring. These appear to be file marks made when the wax model was carved. The wax blanks come with a small hole that has to be enlarged with a file. Then it's sanded, and eventually smoothed out by using a rough cloth. This is painstaking, and often one becomes impatient. This is often the result. My overall assessment of this ring is that it's very likely a reproduction. This is in no way meant to be disparaging to the poster. Any analysis has to be critical to have value. I would be interested to hear other evaluations, even if they differ.

Josias, your oppinion was expressed fairly and straight, I appreciate it.

Jan

Thanks!!

Counterfeiters are way past putting 0s in the date..

Jan, I know you know/understand diggers and don't always trust them 100%.. I think you are smart to question this ring..
Dug rings are a problem,,but they should still adhere to the basic criteria for authenticity.. I'm not really liking this ring from these photos..

I do not want to offer an opinion concerning this certain ring here in question as my knowledge is not so much specialized. But in my opinion it is highly dangerous to compare the engraving and especially parts of the engraving with ONE other kind. First GAHR did empoy several engravers (it is said at least 4) and the hand engraving, which it is, for sure does differ from person to person. Second it�s for sure a difference if a ring was engraved 1940 or 1944 even by the same person. One special letter (eg. as the "K" compared here) might even vary from one ring to the next one even by the same engraver.
Against insistent general erroneous "knowledge" these rings were not engraved in "open" state (as a band) but in closed state (as finished and soldered ring). So this also needed skillful work which might also differ from the length of each name in connex of the angel for engraving.
This all said I again will point out again that I cannot make a statement about the ring here in question.
Regards,

Wotan - Point well taken about the inscription. However, If other problems weren't apparent with this ring, the inside inscription wouldn't bother me nearly as much. EVERY 2nd style ring I've ever seen has leaves that either touch the borders, or are very close. This is also true of the frames that hold the runics. The border is always well defined, but on the ring in question is quite irregular. There's not a hint of the blackening compound usually found in the recesses of the leaves. It's possible it disappeared from being in the ground, but I would expect the opposite to be true. These traits are constant from ring to ring. No one can explain the flat bevel on the inside edge of the ring. Then there's the vertical scratches that suggest an improper finishing method. These things add up, and you then have to make excuses for everything. The engraving then, is just the icing on the cake. Taking all these other things into account lead me to believe that the thicker than normal inscription engraving is the result of an engraver who was unable to duplicate the fineness of the later style engraving.

Thanks for all your comments and oppinions folks, there is still so much to learn.

Jan