UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum I think Craig trade copy of SSHR

http://www.cgmauctions.com/detail.asp?id...-Xavier-Schwarz

%)
4000 $ for copy, be carefully

Can someone explain to me what the difference is of a low opening bid and no-reserve is?

Hey Zorro,

Low opening bid is simply that the item in question will open (start bidding at) at below market value.

No Reserve, just means that the item will sell for the hammer price. (highest bid)

So if your consigning something with an auctioneer, and don't want to get bent over, you put the reserve at the lease amount you will accept for the item. That way either it won't sell, or you'll get the least amount or more for the item.

If you have a $5000.00 dagger and put a $3500.00 reserve on it, the bidding might start out at $500.00 but until it meets the $3500.00 reserve or goes higher it won't sell. Without that reserve, the owner of the item is at risk because if there is only one person at the auction that wants that item he may get it for $50.00, or $100.00 bucks.

A reserve just keeps the item from selling too inexpensively protecting the owner of the item, and the reserve is usually set by the owner of the item.

One more thing. If your the cosigner you also have to factor in the auctioneer's percentage. (payment)

Hope this helps

Rich

[quote=Pitbull63]Hey Zorro,

Low opening bid is simply that the item in question will open (start bidding at) at below market value.

No Reserve, just means that the item will sell for the hammer price. (highest bid)

So if your consigning something with an auctioneer, and don't want to get bent over, you put the reserve at the lease amount you will accept for the item. That way either it won't sell, or you'll get the least amount or more for the item.

If you have a $5000.00 dagger and put a $3500.00 reserve on it, the bidding might start out at $500.00 but until it meets the $3500.00 reserve or goes higher it won't sell. Without that reserve, the owner of the item is at risk because if there is only one person at the auction that wants that item he may get it for $50.00, or $100.00 bucks.

A reserve just keeps the item from selling too inexpensively protecting the owner of the item, and the reserve is usually set by the owner of the item.

One more thing. If your the cosigner you also have to factor in the auctioneer's percentage. (payment)

Hope this helps

Rich

[/quote Rich I can tell you are trying to be helpful and I thank you for that.But there is really no differents in the two they both do the same thing.If an ad says no reserve then if a $5000.00 gets a $50.00 bid that is what it should sell for $50.00.If it has an owner applied bid that is a reserve because it takes a certain amount of money to get it.No big deal but it might be one of those things I will never understand.P.S I am not going to let my question overtake the original post,so I am going to drop it.

Evgeniy,,, That ring belonged to an old member here many years ago. It is a old rare ring. Only 4 that are known!.
The ring when it was brought back to the USA after the war had the skull taken off and a diamond was put where the skull was!
After Craig bought it a few years ago he 'restored' the ring by making a skull for it and having it soldered on.. Personally,, I loved how it looked with the diamond on it! I used to have a photo of it like that but its long gone,,,anyone have the photo??

So its a very rare authentic ring with a new skull put on to restore the ring to 'how made' condition...

i see you
but text look too - very strange
or i mistake ???

I'd really love to see it before restoration.

Ric

I do know that I lean wide out of the window. First I want to state that I like the outer appearance of this certain ring and the story when it is, which I do assume, proofable.
But what I never liked on this "Schwarz" ring are the obvious tracings of casting (fine vertical lines eg. within the "z" and the "VII" - there are some more). This leads us to several other segments concerning TKrings and it´s manufacturing process in general and Craig´s book (which I generally do appreciate very much! It gives a lot of insights to the collector community). As to my best knowledge and common and general knowledge of jewelers and serious collectors here in europa the rings were 1.)stamped NOT cast) and 2.)the engraving ALWAYS was done at the closed, finished ring and NOT on the open band.
All details of known period TKRs show us that they were stamped, special sharp lines, the exact prominent flaws and some certain other features never could occur due to a lost wax mold. Yuo can do these observations especially and best on really unworn rings - how many are around, which average collector has ever owned/handled/seen one himself?. I have personally spoken with old and over decades experienced engravers and none of them ever had heard nor thought of engraving an open band ring.... When you have knowledge in engraving and especially in ring engraving you can also see from the engraving lines and "shades" that the engraving was done at the closed ring.
This opens the question what those by me mentioned fine lines are (as said imo traces of casting) and why they are there. I never could observe them on any unquestionable period ring.
I am open to any discussion, just mentioned my observations and experiences.
Regards,

Years ago a member did calculations about engraving on a flat band. It showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that very little distortion happened after ring rolled and soldered. IF anyone would like the calculation I'll show here with sample if anyone would like.. I am not saying that is how it was done only that it could have been done like that..

The original owner was 'Marc' a member many years ago here. The ring was given to him by his Mother. It was either his Fathers or an Uncles brought back directly from the war. He brought it to a jewler and had a triangle put on front where skull is and a diamond in the triangle.. It looks great. That year he brought it to the MAX. We [some members] got to see and handle the ring.. Don handled it and authenticated it.. It was a real beauty and should have been left 'as is' in my opinion..

That's all I can tell you. Maybe Marc will see this and have the original photo,,[mine lost 2 hard drives ago!] , or another member has photo.. I don't remember seeing it in Craigs book as I only flipped thru it so don't know what happened or what..

It's enough to make a grown man cry.

A "parts" ring?

a "parts" ring should bring a "parts" price,wouldn't one agree?

My father told me that his older brother brought home an SS honor ring and took it to a jeweler to have diamonds put into the eyes. The jeweler "lost" the ring and it was never found. I have a luft belt and buckle that my uncle brought back and gave to my grandfather. My grandfather filed off the swastika, drilled two holes and mounted a ruby. The ruby has long been gone. I guess it was common for vets and or family members to deface these war trophies and mount jewels on them.

lol ...with non period parts.

What I find most interesting is how an inanimate object has increased value because it was once owned by a certain someone.Or should I say some parts were owned by a certain someone?

Well I asked a few 'old timers' here.. And guess what? surprise , surprise, [BIG Thanks J.P.!]:

New and Old,,which do you guys like better?

Unusual looking H in H Himmler.If one is going to change the ring .I like the added skull look.Might as well change it to look original.

Since I belong to "leave them as found" party I prefer the old way, but I understand who vote differently.

Thanks for pic, G.

Ric

Hey G,

Thanks for the picture. Is it the picture or does the ring with diamond look more worn than the ring with repro skull?

I think it would have been a better idea to use an original skull.Taken from a ring with the inscriptions removed from the inside .I'm sure Craig would have had no problem finding one worthy of the cause.

I prefer it before it was bastardised. Without fake skull for me. Hell why not buy it and have the fake skull removed [maybe Craig still has the stone etc and it can go back to how it was ....

Although I would prefer this ring with a skull. The diamond had/still has more of a connection and history than this brand new reproduction skull and since the diamond was/is still historically linked to this ring, the diamond should've been offered with this ring at auction Imo and have no problems with the originality of this ring.

Wontan, Good eye. I was wondering about those lines or cracks myself. I find it very interesting, I wish we had it in hand and could take a loop to it. But what I find really weird and very interesting is in most of the areas where there is a crack you find the engraving stops, nothing, gone and it looks like it was never engraved beyond those cracks or lines. Do you think these lines, cracks, whatever they are were present before the engraving? I don't know, so I didn't call them casting marks because sometimes cracks can be caused by extreme pressure. Thanks.

I don't really know about rings, but if Gaspere sais this is original with a replacement skull, I accept that. I also would vote that the original modification with the diamond should have been left alone.

However, I have a hard time puttin this all in perspective.

So, say this was an Army dagger with a de nazified cross guard after the war. A seller replaces the cross guard with a post war reproduction. Is the Army dagger with the post war crossguard worth the same as the original. Or, what percentage of the value of the item is lost. 50%, 60%.

So, if the starting bid on this is $4,000. What would be the value of a similar ring, with similar documentation and rank be valued at. Would it be worth $10,000??

Clearly I am having a hard time with the value on this.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

there are but a few 1933 roman numeral rings out there,,,they are VERY rare. And of course this is a infamous personality ring,,,$4000. , or really $3000. is a livible number.. Looks like more thna the skull,,there looks like there was some actual lenth from each side taken off,,which would mean the ring wa rolled a slight bit tihter then the skull put on...
I'm pretty sure the original owner had the diamond taken off before Craig got it [?].. Still hopeing he sees this as he occasionally looks in..

I would like to say I'm not a ring guy, nothing against them, just haven't bought any yet. I would also like to say that I agree with Mikee. I prefer these rings looking original with the skull, that's the way they came, that's the way they look the best however what Mikee said about the diamond having more of a historical connection than the new reproduction scull is on mark!!! I would have left it alone. Also, Jim W's analogy with the dagger with aftermarket, post war parts is right on the money too. I personally think the ring would have been worth more before it was messed with a second time.

Rich

The only pic I have of this ring with the diamond still attached...

dtl70,

Thanks for the picture. Do you recall if thats a line running through the name or a shadow? Thank you.

Not sure but I have always thought it was a reflection of the top edge of the portion of the ring in the foreground of the photo.
Derek

Was it actually a diamond or glass ?

The story I have always heard was diamond. No way to know for sure.
Derek

I'm sorry I missed this discussion until now. First, the opening post is a laugh. The ring, as Gaspare confirms, is both original and ultra-rare. Only 4 known to exist, or therabouts. And this is the higest-ranking ring available or even possible. I have no idea what it will go for, but I feel it'll easily exceed $10K. We'll see.

When I bought the ring, the diamond had already been removed. I got it with the hole, and had to do something. And since I was unwilling to chop up a perfectly good ring to "get" a skull, we opted to have a reproduction skull hand carved (not cast) and soldered on. Furthermore, the skull on a 1933 ring is different than the skull on a 1934 ring. So even if I wanted to use an original skull, it wouldn't have been right. This is a case of "what a shame" times a million. If there was ever a ring NOT to do this to (removal of the skull and addition of a stone) this was it! Oh well.

The auction starts tomorrow, and it'll be very interesting to see how this one lot plays out.

Craig,

Thanks for the explanation...I believe the ring is original, but would like to hear your expert opinion on these lines,cracks,whatever they are? What are they in your expert opinion?

No opinion necessary. In person, it's easy: they are scratches.

Great, thanks for the clarification rather than your opinion, some of us can't see it in person. From the pictures they look more like gouges than scratches. You are selling it and you do have first hand knowledge of this ring, reason for the clarification. Were the scratches there before or after the engraving? The engraving "looks like" from the pictures to stop at most of the scratches? This might not be the case,I don't know. Thanks for finally answering a question of mine.

Interesting discussion on value. My view is that the only choices are or would have been 1) leave the ring as found, with or without the stone depending on whether that was an option for Craig. 2) Do as he did and put a repo skull on it. 3) Put an original 30's style skull back on it from wherever. My view is an original skull back on it. Remember that the skull is generic to the ring and all VALUE comes from the date and condition and NAME, NAME, NAME!!!!! If it had an original skull back on it, this is no different than correct cross guards for a dagger. The uniqueness of the ring is then completely preserved. That is my vote. I believe the Wolf ring was the only other actual 1933 ring known. There are 3 others known by documents though, is this not correct? David

Sorry, Craig replied while I was posting. I have to bow to his opinion that even a 1930's skull would not necessarily be correct. Not too many to choose from to evaluate though. David

David: There are three additional rings that I know, for a total of 4. One of those rings was lost (Wolfe).

Craig,

Would you clarify my question as well please? Thank you

Regarding the scratches, they were there when I bought it, and obviously happened at some point after the ring was engraved by Gahr, which was not known for delivering rings with scratches! The scratches could have been from 1934, they could have been from 1994 - I have no clue.