UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories The Honor Ring Forum SS Totenkopf Honor Ring manufacture Debate

We all know that PP were made by a die struck, then rounded seamed and finished.......period. Almost all (if not all) rings in our collections prove this way.

Someone already made his attempt to convince that PP were made by casting, but we know that's false.

Now the same person is working by a supposed scientifical approach to prove SSHr were casted even if it appear at least anomalous, considering all PP rings were stamped.

I don't know if a new book will prove the way SShr were made, but so far no proofs, just opinions and a lot of warning about next incredible news (just perfect to promote next book sale).

Ric

Ric., members, , a while ago when Odal was still alive he and I went in on a expensive load of period trade booklets [ jewelers, engravers, retailers]. A gold mine of ring line drawings, jeweler advertisements etc. They were in Germany and Odal showed me a few quick scans and I asked him to send me 5 or 7 booklets I really needed..
We had all the time in the world..... I wanted Odal to have his pick. It was a no loose situation.. The he shows me a diagram of a very weird manufacture method. The more I looked at it the more I realized this could be for the HR... I asked Odal for that issue and he said no problem he'd send it with my half [30 more issues!] in a couple weeks.. I modified the diagram and sent it to Antonio.. Of course he flipped out. He had already been working on something that was leading in that direction! Some emails and photos and I do not believe the HR was made from one die.. or at least the 2nd pattern... Antonio has been spending lots of time and a big expense sending samples to labs etc. He;s got something and he's putting it in print and hopefully this year we'll see for sure..

* The trade guilds/booklets,, A couple weeks later Odal passed away. I never got the books. I sent a nice condolence card to his wife [not mentioning the books]. I was going to wait then ask. Then suddenly a member here shows me Odals rings on a auction. Not fluent in German I asked the auctioneer to contact his wife and just ask IF she had seen the books. I got it loud and clear,,,,leave her alone. Forget the money, the books, she lost her husband and father to their children. It's all ok,,,R.I.P. brother..

Very interesting and I sincerely hope we will definitively know how Gahr made SSHr, but what I read since the past year is very different : a cast theory based mainly on observation and analysis performed by a microscope.

I proved by a very simple test (on WAF) that a certified die struck ring like Hapur's SSHr repro under strong magnification show features and details that we can also see on a cast ring.

In addition you reported the technical reasons why it may happen.

Ric

I have also been collecting these books for a number of years. It is very interesting stuff that I for one reason or another kept close hold.

WRONG.
No need microscope to see the differences between each ring - Anyway I remember you that first you said that microscope analysys:


And differences (and casting flaws) cannot be explained with your "die stricking" theory. Isn't this true? Isn't this an evidence?
In fact you NEVER answered to any question, and NEVER shared any proof about your fake theory. In what you believe if you have no evidences?

If you want a serious discussion I show here some pictures of rings with some questions, and you explain how they are possible in die struck rings.



I report my words: you can't judge any ring with only one picture. YOU NEED MANY PICTURES. One picture can fool, I always said that.
Can you judge a belt buckle by only seeing a close up and nothing more? Of course no. If this is a test for you, I will show you some close ups of various buckles and you'll tell us if they are cast or die struck. Ok?
The only thing you proved is exactly what I always said: one picture is useless. Can you judge something from one, bad made, picture? Of course not.
Quite simple.

Put 10-20 pictures, under real magnification, and even a child will find out the difference between a cast and a die struck item.

Fact is this: you believe in a theory but you can't prove it. So your theory is pure trash. I don't believe in any theory, I simply understood that die stricking theory cannot explain anything in TK rings construction. All what we knew is FAKE.

If you mix pp rings with TK rings it means you understood absolutely nothing. Half of the pp rings production is bijouterie production (and in period magazines you can find also dealers that offered "Bijouterieguss" items... But I know you never read any period magazine). PP ring and TK rings are 2 different fields that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common. There were pp rings cast and pp rings die struck, there were tens of different patterns and tens of different makers, from Afrika to Norway.
TK rings were exclusively made by one jeweller, and the reason was because they were too complicated... Probably no one wanted to deal with RFSS and a so complicated ring.
His meaning was so deep that we have never understood what we were looking at.
For those interested I can tell that finally the meanings of the runes and the whole ring, are revealed, in the book there will be at least 30 pages of an incredible study, not made by me (I don't have the necessary knowledge for it), made by a friend who was helped from one of the most knowledgeable authors on TR esotheric/runic world (and indirectly involved one of the last Weistor pupils). And everything matches with the TK ring construction.

I really don't care what you think Ric, I'm sure at 100% you cannot have a serious discussion and offer evidences. This is clear since years. The best you can do is a personal attack. Exaclty like one that has nothing to say.
I'm not nice, I know, you can have tens of friends here, but this doesn't erase the fact your posts are empty.
When you'll be able to have a serious discussion, I'm here, and I'll be happy to change my mind.

The first question that hurted you was: there's a single evidence supporting TK ring were die struck?

BTW: I MUST publically thanks Gaspare, because in these last years he spent time answering my emails, sharing his knowledge, discussing about various possibilities, and following almost step by step what I hope will be something important for all the community.

I really think it is thanks to people like Gaspare, with an open mind, if we can go on and make new discoveries.

Have a nice days guys.

I accept your offer of a serious discussion (with polite behaviour) but to begin with, may you please post some well detailed pictures of this ring offered by your site ?

http://phpstack-500133-1583587.cloudwaysapps.com/~germand2/ubbthreads.php/topics/345347/silver-heer-ring-original.html#Post345347

Thank you in advance

Ric

First thanks for posting it, you and everybody know I highly appreciate if someone find an item on my site that is fake.
Ring is already removed and put in the dust bin.

Anyway I mean a discussion on TK rings, not on the items I sell.

If you want have a serious discussion we can start from the beginning. You and me only, a public discussion, with Gaspare as mod.

And of course the first question for a serious discussion is always the same: any evidence support the die stricking theory?

I agree that we must start from the beginning, so let's start from above statement :

may you show PP ring example made by casting ?

Ric

P.S. reason of my request : if we disagree about corner stone for any rings collector, there isn't chance to have a serious discussion but just a dialogue between deaf people.

There's no corner stone.

PP rings are another field, I think no one collector would ever mix pp rings with TK rings...
And I'm not for sure the best person to talk with. I never made deep studies on them, never analyzed, and I'm not interested to do it; but got confirm from Gaspare that some patterns are cast.

I'm not interested by pp rings, and I know most of them were die struck. But PP rings are also civil rings, not only skull rings, pp rings were also wedding rings, sympathizers rings...
Most of the wedding rings were cast, and so the round sympathyzers rings (TK rings have much more in common with these patterns than with pp skull rings); some female rings were die struck, exactly like most skull rings...
Some firms bought cast bands from other makers and prepare their rings on cast bands, other bought pressed bands....
I can tell you makers like Carl Zachmann of Pforzheim produced cast bijouterie (and so cast pp rings in "poor" metals), Fried W. Muller of Pforzheim produced cast models for pp requests, Hermann Schumann of Pforzheim used "Feinguss" (investment casting) for pp articles.... and again: Karl Klink of Niefern offered all the necessary tools for the creation of seamless rings after the casting process and after the pressing process...
This field is complex, much more than what you think.

So, on what we have to agree about pp rings? Are for you pp rings the only you see here on forum related to Army world? If yes I agree with you. Gaspare confirm this. So no problems.

[u]That said: PP RINGS have nothing, NOTHING in common with TK rings.[/u]

So, can we talk about TK rings now?
What is the proof of your famous statement "TK rings were die struck"?

PS: Furthermore you made a lot of confusion mixing the words "pressing" and "stricking" several times; they are different processes. Anyway we can go on without considering this.

You guys are more than welcome if you want to offer your findings, theories, research etc. about the Honor Ring here..

There is the old theory of the HR being die pressed,,and some say die struck which is quick almost violent like a coin..

And,, then the new alternative offering which I'm really not exactly sure...

But I can tell you both to please lets keep it polite and professional as I know you both can be.. I can promise there will be many around the world reading it!

When I'm referring to PP rings I'm considering mass produced rings not custom ones, so do not consider wedding rings or something like that.

So far nobody knows how Gahr made SSHr , differently we don't need to debate the matter and the two opinions/theories (stamped or cast) are still on the table and no definitive proofs supporting one of them have been provided.

That being said, the discussion is still open to any serious contribute.....

Ric

P.S. thank you G. for your welcome, polite behaviour is my habit, so no problem to be myself

Ok, now there are no evidences for both the theories... Good starting.

So, if rings are, as you say, die struck, how can it be possible they show different position of the leaves on the ring body band? (see distance of the leaves from the top of the band).
Even rings produced in the same date.

Dies for the die struck rings are "female" and the distance between leaves and edge of the band is always the same (with minor variations, but never so big variations as in TK rings).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have to make the same question :

So, if rings are, as you say, die cast, how can it be possible they show different position of the leaves on the ring body band? (see distance of the leaves from the top of the band).
Even rings produced in the same date ?

Ric

If you finish a ring by hand tooling you cannot have all the rings measuring exactly the same height. No questions about. Height of TK ring is always the same. The band was no hand cut or hand worked.

If you mean hand tooling on the leaves, on the 3 rings I posted there are no hand toolings around the leaves, you can see checking the perfectly matching details of the 3 rings. No hand work on those leaves (on most of '40 style rings the hand tooling around the leaves is few when absolutely absent - on '30 is almost always present and very invasive - and there's a reason).

Please don't change radically what you write and answer the question. When you'll give your answer I will give you mine, and I'm sure you will be amazed!
Of course the position of the leaves has nothing to do with the hand tooling, since you deleted your reply I understand you understood by yourself you wrote something totally wrong. Good.

BTW: this is only one of the questions I asked myself when I started this research and one of the many questions are uncompatible with the die stricking production.

I deleted my post where I was mentioning hand tooling, because based on wrong reading of your post.....so do not consider it.

Of course we agree that hand tooling do not modify position of leaves compared to band edge.

Ric

Absolutely yes.

Please, we go on in this discussion, I'm sure many are following with interest.
We can talk as old friends as we were.
This is not a war, I have nothing to win exactly like you.

I'm also sure if you give your answer, you'll be amazed reading mine.

This is only the first point... There's a lot to talk about.

PS: if I don't reply is why I have to go.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

That's my answer

Ric

I hope you can give to my add my info about method of made SSHR : In the process of restoration and restoration of the ring model of the 40s, I noticed that there were at least two ring models (maybe there were 3 types), they appear in different years, from 41 to 44, many rings have traces of processing, it can be seen it is easy in the areas between the triangle and the bones of the skull, there the leaves are always cut by a calmail by hand and each time in a different way. And a very large number of skulls, there are many varieties, even the skulls are identical at first glance, they differ in little things(how teeth look and areas around teeth look like eyes socket). This does not speak at all in favor of a stamp where everything will be the same. From this I concluded that the stamp theory is misleading.
I try show yellow likes where need look

one art of examples
too u can see different in bones
this all told to us , that its not was stamp method - IMO

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hello Evgeniy,

absolutely correct in pointing out that many SSHr were hand tooled to highlight some band design features.

However such features does not support neither cast theory nor die struck theory in my opinion, because the band out of casting/stamping process was a standard one then hand tooling could modify it one way or another.

Ric

if the rings were stamped, then so much work on finishing the rings would not be required, as we see, the stamp suggests that there are very few improvements, because there is a good relief. But here we see everywhere improvements and even in the skull, eyes, teeth and the area around them, bones (cuts on the bones).
I make my copies by casting and there is one size and there are very few finishing touches.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello Evgeniy,

first you say : " if the rings were stamped, then so much work on finishing the rings would not be required, as we see, the stamp suggests that there are very few improvements"

then you say : " I make my copies by casting and there is one size and there are very few finishing touches"

So you're saying that both casting and stamping don't need much hand finishing........am I right ?

Ric

.. I am going to attempt to move the debate from a 'fake HR warning'..

Done!,

Thank You for the help Vern!

Good morming all!
Thank you all for some very interesting reading. And I must say, the only reading on this site any more.
I am not a ring guy, but have really looked forward to reading this about these rings.
Thank you all!
Ed

Guys, let me say one thing: please, talk of one topic per time, being a forum we have to focus on just one topic.
There are tens of things to talk about before to understand something in a serious way. If we put different arguments on each other this discussion will turn very fast in a complete confusion and so, useless.


Almost each ring has a different distance between leaves and band's edge.
Design of the leaves/runes is perfectly matching (where no hand toolings are present of course), it means the die used was only 1 (actually 2 for the leaves/runes, 1 for the so called '30 and one for the so called '40... but we should also talk about this...).
So, or Gahr had an endless number of dies, or the die stricking process has nothing to do with them.

Of course this is not possible for investment casting, nor for die casting processes in the way we normally consider them.

On my side it is incredible to see that a so important detail was never discussed, never considered in all these years.




Hello Evgeniy,

in this case the areas you are considering are different due to the hand tooling and because they are not the same area (some rings are bigger and so the last "leave" is longer and different).
I agree with Ric, if 2 pieces are different, no way they were die struck/pressed or die cast. But, I repeat, in this case you are cosidering hand worked areas (and some different), most of the areas you highlighted are hand re-worked.






Yes, a die struck piece no need any hand finish. Check for example Hapur rings: no hand tooling on them. All the die struck items no need hand tooling, from awards to jewelry. No questions on this. PP rings that were die struck don't show any hand tooling and so no other items in all the jewelry production. All the books/reports/period papers on the subject report that.
At the same time a die cast item no need hand finish; only an investment cast item can require some minor working, but nothing in common with all the work we see especially on '30 style rings.

This is another point that no one has ever pointed out, but very clear to dismiss a construction by die stricking/pressing and also die casting.
From my side absolutely important and one of the first things to consider.

I add another important detail: check the whole TK rings production: can you see where/when Gahr made more hand toolings on the rings?
On most of '40 style rings the hand tooling around the leaves is few when absolutely absent - on '30 is almost always present and very invasive.

So why should Gahr spent so much time in hand finish rings (especially in '30) if they were die struck/die cast?
This is a very important questions no one has ever asked... And of course there's an answer.

Do you see in few posts how many unanswered questions? Just only looking at the rings, without any magnifier or microscope. With a little of common sense, simply considering these 2 questions (distance of leaves from band's edge and hand tooling) you can dismiss everything said on TK rings until now.
And these are only 2 questions. There are tens...

In my experience hand finishing on leaves to modify their appearance is not the rule but an exception, most of SSHr show the exact same features on outer band.

The same we can say about increased distance between leaves and band edge, it's not the rule but an exception.

Believing some exception like a rule could drive us to wrong conclusions, so it's better focusing on standard features IMO.

Ric

ok, a lot of things going on.. It will settle.. IF a point has been raised / a question, lets try and get to a answer if we can.. I realize there are multiple questions on this subject but lets try and be clear and concise [if we can!]


Some basics .. This not only applies to rings/jewelry,,but other items we collect both in authentic and reproduction...

1st we have the term 'Lost Wax Cast' - see link below. check history , procedure , the steps involved etc. *Something to remember,, the LWC we have now is a bit different then back in the period of 1920 to 1940....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting

another is the term 'Die Cast'.. a good process but not exactly towards silver, gold.. Yes possible. During the 3rd reich much experimenting was going on with ALL these methods...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_casting

Again,,check the history etc..

and another,, 'Die Struck' or Die Pressed'.. A great process and during the 3rd reich much jewelry and other items was manufactured by this process.



http://www.jabel.com/die-struck-jewelry-qa/

And,, on this one too see history, and check out the cool movie labeled 'watch our documentary' from their site below!..

http://www.jabel.com/jabel-documentary/

Thank you, G......it's a pleasure to have such a Mod.

Please help us to be clear and concise.......in viewers benefit.

Ric

no no,, its my pleasure..
The HR has been a mystery for so long.. When you have someone commanding a answer to you with confidence you believe.. Years ago guys collected everything they could get their hands on.. Something rare, unfamiliar, you'd go to the expert.. They giv you the cert and your done.. There's no one to blame it's just how it was done back then..

OK so far we have this:

, if rings are, die struck, how can it be possible they show different position of the leaves on the ring body band? (see distance of the leaves from the top of the band).
Even rings produced in the same date.

Dies for the die struck rings are "female" and the distance between leaves and edge of the band is always the same (with minor variations, but never so big variations as in TK rings).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ same question :

if rings are, die cast, how can it be possible they show different position of the leaves on the ring body band? (see distance of the leaves from the top of the band).

SO, now the real question or answer is: How is it possible to have the discrepancy in distance of leafs from top of body?

You all are doing very well,,and thank you Evgeniy for the photos so we all could see the oddity..Please continue guys,,,,,,,,,,

ALL the '30 style rings have hand finishing. ALL. Including yours. I know 3 of yours, and all 3 shows heavy hand tooling. Feel free to post them here, and let see if it is the rule as I say, or an "exception" like you say.

This is not an exception, this is THE rule. I can also tell you the exact year when Gahr stopped to make hard hand tooling on the leaves.

Please find an untouched 30 style ring and post close ups here. In all the years of research I spent I found only one. And that way the key to understand MANY things...
On my side I have at least 50 different rings I can show here.

If this is you point of observation, if you have noticed that ALL the rings are hand finished, I understand many many things... And, of course, if you try to dismiss an evidence like this without any proof, it is obvious where you want to lead this discussion.

Or we talk and show evidences, or we talk about opinions.



Are you kidding?
Almost all TK rings are off center, the variable distance from leaves to top edge is THE rule.
Look at the rings posted by Evgeniy, they exactly show what I'm saying.

Post all your '40 rings please, so we can see if they show all the same distance. This is better visible in '40 style rings, since most part of '30 style rings have the leaves hand re-worked; anyway you can see it in '30 rings too, very well.


I repeat: I know 3 of your rings, and all them show what I say. So, or you never watched at your rings, or you are saying a lie.

In the meanwhile I show you what are the real standar features, I can use 2 of your rings, just for example. Both shows hard hand tooling all around... Seems these "exceptions" are not "exceptions"

I can add some more evidences.
A quick comparison between Ric's ring "Giessler 21.6.39" with 3 other rings of the same production period.
It is well visible that the position of the leaves in the 4 rings is different.

Antonio, please can you give name to each photo?

Thank you very much.



Jan

Even those rings that look to show the same distance between leaves/runes and band edge, seen under magnification, they haven't.
Very precise measurements were taken during the tests.
Here an example: you can see the different distance between leaves/runes in ring 1 and in ring 2. Of course both of the same type.

Hello!

My englisch is very bad, I know - sorry.

Possible solution:

1. Create a mold made out of metal
2. Fill the mold with some wax. This will result in a wax made model of the ring.
3. Carfully extract the model from its mold.
This sometimes wont work without the model being damaged since the wax sticks to the metal.
4. Fix the damaged spots by hand before continuing the process
5. Cover the wax model with some fire resistent material and let it dry
6. Remove all the wax before the burning process. Burn the whole thing. By that all the water inside the fire resistent material (covering the wax model) should evaporate. This step is necessary to make sure that it won?t be destroyed while casting later on.
7. Now fill the hollow mold with silver.
8. Uncover the ring. The outer mantle will be destroyed in the process.

The rings differ by the means of manual work in step 4. However the still look similar, being made from the same Mold (step 1) as a reason for that.

Regards,
Dierk

Hi Jan, yes, privately, because all these rings will be published in the book with names and dates and I shouldn't post them...
Everything will be shared at the proper time.

Hello Dierk, with investment casting (lost was casting) you can obtain some minor variations, is right. But this process cannot explain all the off center leaves/runes and also the big variations of the distance between leaves/runes and edge band. Using an original metal die the wax model is always the same.
And don't forget a ring obtained with lost wax process (exactly like for one sie struck or die cast) no need the big hand tooling we see (especially in '30 style rings).
Furthermore lost wax casting is totally uncompatible with other important characteristics of the rings I will reveal in future... ;-)

I am not in any case expert concerning ring construction. But would like to share my opinion. Last week I spent 2 hours to observe my rings again. My opinion, which logically explains also your question, is that early rings consists of 3 parts (totenkopf, inner ring, outer ring) and put together required big hand tooling. Latter Gahr simplified the construction and the rings consisted only of 2 parts (totenkopf, ring).