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

I agree , I've only seen 10 or so HRs close up,,,but I too have not seen a skull with big porous opening like that..

My friend!
I have other shots of this ring and they are very convincing in terms of originality
This is original ring and I have shot of onother early ring (style 30s) wher in skull too present the same holes

I'm sure a lot more interested members would purchase this book if it was in English. I know I would.

- Evgeniy, imagine that ring shown even 5 years ago,,no one would have considered it! How is the seam behind skull?

- Mikee,, your right ,,,but even though not in English its a very good book with a lot of interesting HRs in it,,,Sepps, Wolffs, the 'Diamond Head' Schwarz ring that Craig restored and many others..

Really, it should not be here. I will start its own topic and take the above post away in a couple days...

seam behind skull - not 100% garanty about original ring
My rings not all have seam, but everyone gathers as it should, by shortening the leaves under the skull and soldering on top of the skull, I just have a cleaner solder and after polishing, it is not always visible, the Germans obviously did not solder in silver, in general this is not proof at all, you need to look comprehensively and not cling to the little things

E. , no no,, just wondering about the seam,,,seems nothing is 100% with these rings anymore... There are HRs out there now that would have never passed years ago..

So as it stands,, here we have no real clear consensus.. - For me where is the standard?, Which ring? We have been sticking with the later pattern.. Can anyone pick a late pattern [2nd type], any year,,and say this is a no brainer,,a HR that others can be measured up against?!

Hi Gaspare, nice to hear you received the book (thanks to Jan "Lartiste"). I?m open to discussion on HR rings. In my book you can find all answers, but in Czech, so you can?t understand...

SS Totenkopfrings were 100% die casted. In my book you can find, how it was done. There is also die struck method in the book, but just for the sake of the fact that this method is being discussed.

The furrow under the Sig rune is not casting flaw. It is a trace of the modification of the matrix (master piece) from 1938-1940. Let me tell you a little secret.
The model from 1938-1940 is mistakenly called the transitional type. But that's not the case! This is the same pattern as 1940-1944. Only the matrix was modified in 1940 by an engraver.
This modification, which aimed to deepen and sharpen the details, created a typical groove under the Sig rune. I compared many rings from 1938-1940 with rings from 1940-1944 and differ
only in microscopic detail - pebble background Sig runes, groove, etc. In my opinion, an engraver who repaired a matrix (probably bronze) had cut his tool too deep . It would be very difficult to create
a completely new matrix (which of course would look completely different, because at that time could not make an identical copy), therefore, at Gahr decided to ignore the groove and rings from 1940-1944
were already with this cosmetic defect.
The Sepp Dietrich ring gave me proof that the matrix was being modified over the years (see below). It bears the date 1933, but was cast from the matrix, which was used also later, in the years 1934-1938.
But there is little difference! On the Dietrich ring there is a spot that is missing on the later rings! Otherwise the design is 100% identical! How is it possible? The matrix was modified in 1934 and the patch was removed.
Here is an overview of dates when the matrix was tampered with or completely new:
1933 - Ring Schwarz + Bach Zelewski
1933 - Ring Dietrich
1934 - 1938
1938-1940
1940-1944
I have all the evidence for my claim and present it in my book. I studied the 26 rings (almost all published dates), which I had in the collection, then many rings of other collectors.

I do not think that my conclusions would help persuade the stubborn supporters of production by struck, because this debate has been going on for years
and they are still unwilling to accept any evidence of casting. However, it is my duty to publish my conclusions.
Thank you,
Martin Toman
author of the book "SS-Totenkopfring Himmleruv prsten cti"

Hi guys, let me please summarize some points (I don't go on personal attacks, because they worth nothing):

we have here guys that studied these rings for years and never noticed
- the distance between leaves and band edges are different,
- that mixed up die stricking with die pressing,
- that mixed up bijouterie production with jewelry production,
- that never shared a single evidence,
- that invented some totally absurd production methods (of course not present in period documents like the ?multiple dies of Gahr?!!!!),
- and that never read any period magazine.


I think If we want to talk about a period production the first thing we should do is to study period documents and understand the production methods.

So, for those believing jewelry was die struck, can you show us period documents talking about this process? If this process is not present, that is for sure a bad news for you...

Otherwise we have tens of articles talking about casting methods (several and different). I can report some words from one talking about casting of rings that litterary says: "with impeccabe results". That is for sure disturbing for die stricking supporters to know the germans called ?impeccable? something... it means ?perfect?.

Anyway I think, too bad, that they never post any article or anything period related to the die stricking production... And this means they haven't any period document.

Furthermore there are tons of questions die stricking supporters cannot answer, since they are totally uncompatible with that kind of production preocess.
Here are some:

1) Why there's no one '30 style ring without hand finish? But all, ALL, '30 style rings show so much hand work?!? Anyway you can find them in almost all the '40 style too, see pictures.
So, why do rings show hand finish (scooping marks, file marks...) if they were die struck? A die struck item no need so much hand work after it was struck. This is totally uncompatible.

2) Why is the distance between leaves and band edge always different? (in die struck rings it is impossible, you can clearly see it just comparing serveral Hapur rings; I did it, and all them are exactly the same).
Another uncompatible point with the die stricking (and no, Gahr didn't invent any fantasy multiple dies machine as Ric suggested ? the die used from 38 to 44 is exactly the same, as correctly suggested by Martin, and in a precise date, ecxactly on 9.11, it appeared some flaws on the die ? and this means the die used was only one, and at the same time, dismisses Ric's fantasy theory, that of course has no evidence and no period documentation). PICTURE 1

Not only a different distance, but there are also minor variations in the shape of the external designs. Of course this is absolutely uncompatible with a die stricking production. PICTURE 2

And what about the picture 3 where is the "?" ? Different distance and different shapes...

3) Why each ring shows unique features (casting flaws) and Hapur die struck rings show exactly the same features? PICTURES 1 and 2

Have you ever asked why mint rings show the flaws on PICTURE 3, 4, 5? Of course a die struck ring don't show all those flaws, they are totally uncompatible with the production process; on die struck items you can find some flaws due to the dirt, to a small movement of the die, but of course not something like that!

I would add some more questions, even much more interesting of these, but they would reveal too much about these rings, and I prefere to keep the big surprises for the upcoming future... ;-)
Anyway, if someone supporting the idea these rings were pressed or die struck is able to explain, showing period documents and pictures and comparisons, all these questions, I will add some more questions...


It would be nice to see posted some real evidences, some photographic replies, something we can believe at, but, too bad, in these years we clearly understood a thing: is under everyone's eyes that die stricking supporters only have words to spend, but no one evidence to share. And what they cannot explain, they simply ignore it.

Of course the train of die stricking theory is derailed in the same istant someone doubt about this theory, because there's nothing, nothing supporting it. All is against it, from a simply analysys, to period documentation. Anyway, as always, I'm open to change my mind.

Food for brain guys.

2 equirhodont
thx you for sharing to us this interesting information!!!

Martin if not secret where from you take so detailes about matrix
I correct understand you, that always existed one matrix , from 30s year , that was then in 40s modified ?

Hello, TO ALL those casting-theory followers (I too don't go on personal attacks, because they worth nothing). I can tell you that you are -unfortunately- on the wrong way. The wrong way especially because you do open gates for fakes which are always cast as no other process than casting can produce good (but still no perfect) fakes (which in a funny way is itself a proof for that the rings are die struck).

Only same few points:
You all still do compare well worn rings with more or less wearing and time traces, even ground dug and even ugly and without skills restaurated, against each other.
You all still ignore the obvious and most logicical needs of the manufacturer and the rings itself.
You all still don t understand the fundamental jewellry manufacturing processes.
You all still don t see and compare the most obvious analogies and disparities.
You all still can t and don t understand the myths and thoughts of the era the original rings have been manufactured.

You can take it or leave it and I in no way want to support any author in writing a crude theory book and make money with my personal knowledge by prooving the facts each of us could reveal by doing CAREFULLY the NECESSARY HOMEWORK (each collector of items should do their own homework, it is fundamental to differ FAKES from ORIGINALS and CAST honor-death-head-rings are ALWAYS FAKES).

A very nice proof for totally misunderstanding of a manufacturing process is eg. concerning the description of CIT. -created a typical groove under the Sig rune?.. In my opinion, an engraver who repaired a matrix (probably bronze) had cut his tool too deep . It would be very difficult to create a completely new matrix- CIT END. The really obvioulsly misunderstanding is the mixture of negative and positive forms. The GROOVE in the RING indeed is a BAR in the FORM which could have been EASILY removed eg on a bronze form - IF it would not have been in a special steel hardened die struck form(!).

I will take only one of the fundamental ignorance you beat like a death horse and which shows me the totally lack of fundamental knowledge on jewellery generally and death-head-rings in special, by giving a simple hint (yes I still do no proof although I could, make your homework, find it out yourself!): CIT. -the distance between leaves and band edges are different (in die struck rings it is impossible- CIT END. Where is the superfluous material by a ring after the die struck process??? ? (which is, if you know and understand, a proof for that the rings are die struck in itself).

Imho the somehow aggressive form of detailed developing and defending the -casting theory- against obvious facts serve two directions: The making money with -the new theory- and finally making money with fakes that suddenly became originals due to the settlement of the crude casting theory.

Furtunately the crude theory obviously is not able to gain ground between SERIOUS collectors and experts, that is what I am told by what is going on behind the curtains. But the danger is that unexperienced collectors will loose a lot of money (death head rings are not among the cheap collector items) and truly original/period rings will loose worth because of an insecured mass of collectors.
All this said this is my only fact comment here because I did not write for the matter of discussion, as said, I don t want to give away knowledge on this matter for free. Hopefully you take it (and understand it) or leave it.

Regards,

1) I posted a couple of pictures taken from untouched TK rings, complete with their documents, their Gahr paper with the diameter written by hands on it, delivered to the owner. I handled and personaly exhamined rings from ground dug to untouched.

2) The manufacturer methods are described in period magazines. an you show us some articles about the die stricking process? I promise I will show 2 about casting for each one you post.

3) Manufacturing processes are described in period magazines and also in jewelry manuals (that I read several in these years!). Again, you are talking about something without any proof.

4) ?1?

5) If you know how original rings were manufactured, why don't you show us some period papers about that manufacturing process? Or why don't you answer my questions?




This is something of course wrong, but it is not my statement.



I showed not only the distance, but also the shape of the designs changes. And in die stricking process the female die already has in it the complete band engraved. So it is not possible to produce different distances or "move" the design.
Furthermore I posted a couple of pictures where you can clearly see casting flaws. If they are not casting flaws, can you show us how it can be possible to obtain them in a die struck ring?




Of course, when you have nothing to say you must go into personal attacks... making money.... sell fake rings... Blah, blah, blah. Actually until today I'm the only one that spent so much money in scientifical tests on these rings, that I should sell several fakes for many thousand $ just to have my money back... But sorry, I no need them. I spent my money just to let collectors know how many lies, without any proof, few guys told us in all these years. I have no interests, just want to find out the truth and let collectors free from few guys use their brain to find out a fake from a real TK ring. And facts are under everyone's eye: no one of you die stricking supporters has EVER, EVER, EVER showed anything interesting. You have no answers for my questions, and they are only the beginning, the BIG SURPRISES are yet to come.



Can you tell me who are the "experts" and the "serious collectors"? I know many serious collectors that stopped believing the fake die stricking theory (it has of course no one evidence!) and only a handful still believing on it, but I know no one "expert", except you and Don...

I'm very sorry to say all what you wrote, too bad, is an empty post that doesn't answer to any of the question I made, and support what I said: you have nothing supporting all your statements. Nor period documentation, nor the possibility to explain ANY of the details I posted.

Another time is under everyone's eyes, the total failure of the die stricking theory in this field. And this is only the beginning.

First I'd like to thank everyone for participating, you are all gentlemen and good members.
- It is frustrating as we haven't period documents,drawings and actual dies like we have for PP rings.. Hopefully progress will be made..

So we have Germany, English, Czech Rep., Italy, Russia all present here and with this much info we must make sure we are all on the same page with terminology..

*- Martin, Just to make sure I and the others are understanding.... - You believe the HR is Die Cast:

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


Basic die cast animation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1543I_5XMJo

Antonio,,
In this photo you've shown,,,, Original HR on right,,and is that Hapurs HR on left?

Looks like you don?t understand casting method. There was ONE BRONZE MATRIX (with deep groove).
From this matrix was RUBBER FORM made. From this RUBBER FORM was WAX RING casted - you can cast 50-100 pieces from 1 rubber form. First wax rings are sharp, laters are not sharp and you need to hand finish them by tools.
From WAX RING was SILVER RING CASTED. See images...
There were 1.500 rings casted per every year - 4 rings per day. Very easy...

Martin, "There was ONE BRONZE MATRIX (with deep groove)."

Just to keep everyone with same terminology. In the above answer to Wotan your referral to 'MATRIX' here in the U.S. is called a 'model'. Some steel, brass etc. and were used to make another rubber mold when one worn out or got ruined..To keep items looking consistent this model usually didn't change but could be if needed..

A good animation on the investment cast process. Lots of work and time... This is NOT die cast process - [refer to animation in my above post]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4WuKJF_76c

Excellent information, Martin. Thank you so much.

))) nothing news

hi evegenly
nothing news is the right words a waist of time all the men that worked for gahr could have answered all these questions but in reality thier lips are silent they all are dead but guess some of the members here just wont say hey guys this hunt for the real truth is over caput finiga last american its over thanks for nothing accomplished andy militarynut

So what? That's all?

Antonio, if this is only advertisement on your upcoming book, then just please inform us when the book will be out and when and if you are willing to provide your answers to questions you raised. Otherwise in my humble opinion this discussion does not make any sense.

Chris
Welcome aboard and I agree with your assessment. This is one of the few forums I still follow because of the environment. Thanks to Gaspare and Mike, they do a great job!.
Ron

Guys,,there are a lot of things happening around the world right now.... Hopefully we'll hear back from everyone..

For me,,I would be happy to see a 'standard'... A later type HR,,, that is what we would ALL agree is a one looker!
A HR that even if we took just by the ONE year and date that could be the 'measuring stick' so to say,,,the standard which others can be measured of that year and date...

Any HR,, from 41 to 44 lets say.... Anyone own one? or have good photos from your files/the net?

standard - what do you mean ?

A HR that everyone would agree on is 100% authentic. A later type/ 2nd pattern,,pick a year and date..
A comparison HR to compare other HRs to of similar year and date.

Wouldn't the same year and date HR be exactly the same as others of the same year and date? , [other than different size size]

need ask them , who have mint condition rings
but what do you wanna do with this shots ?
all rings have a little differents in all elements, comparison with other rings, too almost imposible
plz explain

E. , yes there should be some little differences.
I'm thinking lets say a 9/11/43 in very good condition should be very similar to another of the same date and year,,again, yes some minor differences but still should be basically the same..

So, you produce a excellent copy HR by casting. You see how Hapur makes his ring,,and, you own a HR... After seeing all this what do you think? Cast or pressed?

he makes a fantasy ring, which och remotely resembles the original ring.
We all saw minor improvements on all the rings, these are usually the cut edges of the leaves, the differences in turtles are small. All this suggests that the rings were completed manually, but we know that such improvements would not be necessary if the ring comes out of the press. therefore, my conclusion, it was casting, I was convinced of this when I got a 44-year-old ring and when I created a copy of it, I was able to study it very carefully. I also noticed that some types of rings wandered from one year to another, for example, I saw a ring of 43 years old, completely identical to my ring of 44 years old, which says that there were several models of skulls (because usually the rings differ in different skulls). The method of casting for me personally is still open. Because There are definitely differences between the original rings and my copies. So the casting method itself was not casting using wax (as I do). By the way, from those rings that I saw in discussions and sold on the Internet, I saw 3 rings (2 rings - 30s and one 40s) that have defects (either bubble or even large non-spilled areas), which again speaks about the theory of casting, otherwise they would not exist (I personally have not seen stamped rings with similar defects). But as I wrote, it seems to me that Garr had his own way of casting, I think it can be understood if you read the literature of that time about the methods that existed then. Just as it seems to me there is a difference in the production of rings of the 30s and 40s.

This discussion doesn't make any sense simply because you are not able to answer to my questions or what?

IMO this discussion perfectly shows the actual knowledge of the "old guard" and the die stricking supporters on this field: ZERO.

Have you ever seen a real evidence about the die stricking production? Any period documentation? Any comparison? Of course not.

So, why is this discussion without any sense if revealed some important details and so much important questions never raised before?
Maybe because it was better to have only few "experts" that decide what is good or what is bad without any real sense or knowledge?

Very nice to see the "Experts" confusing production processes, being speachless in front of evidences, inventing new impossible production techniques, having nothing to show... This is what happens when you close your mind and trust a "revealed" (fake) truth.

Finally, this is not an advertising for a book, I no need to advertise anything. If you don't understand that making a book, a serious one, costs MUCH MORE than what you'll ever earn from the sales, then it is clear you know nothing in this field too. I make research simply because I can, I have time to do it, and I try to give collectors some help. I will never get back all the thousands $ I spent to make analysys, buy period documents, find sources, and all the years I spent to study these rings.



PS:
One important thing: during the Third Reich they never used rubber molds, they only used plaster molds and investment materials.

Antonio,, well Martin [Lartiste] and Evgeniy both believe the HR is cast. Just not exactly sure.
It is not a standard investment cast for sure..Die Cast [ sometimes called Permanent Mold] is a possibility. What ever it is it is unorthodox, unique..

For the die struck/pressed guys.. We know PP rings were mainly pressed. But the HR isn't a PP ring for sure,,but it was mass produced.. IF anyone would like to show or explain why they believe they are/were pressed please go ahead and post here. No opinions/beliefs will be suppressed here. It is all interesting and we all learn one way or another....

Dear Antonio

you raised two interesting questions:

1. why the distance between leafs and edge differ; and
2. why massive hand tooling was not necessary in respect of 40's rings.

to be honest I would like to know the answers ... .

I never said, that you need to advertise the book and that you will get rich. To publish a book is definitely not the way to get rich and in this case even to reimburse costs.

I will be happy if you will provide your answer to aforementioned questions and also f you will provide information when your book will be out.



Jan

1. why the distance between leafs and edge differ; and


--- everything is very simple I found that there were at least 2 ring shapes,

For me I see a distinct difference in shape/form between the early pattern and the later.. Also just by coloring I see there would be a difference in material alloy in the early and late pattern..

Well it seems that a few members believe the HR was cast .. But cast how? Die cast? Investment cast? something else?

- and there are those who believe it is die struck or pressed. Much of the kitsch type jewelry [PP rings] was die pressed .. But other than explanation that it is easier and thats how it was done we really haven't seen much of a good explanation why they think it was pressed [?] IF you have a theory why you think the HR was pressed please make a post here. All opinions welcomed.


. [Sorry for my confusing terminology.. When I was younger I worked in a machine shop. The machine Hapur uses is called a 'Press', thats why I say Die Pressed.
Technically both could be correct.but lets keep it as 'Die Struck'..]


Pictured is Robin Lumsdens old HR.. This piece confuses at least me . This appears to be a one piece band, skull separate. It also looks to be from a solid billet, drawn. And looks like when a struck ring gets extremely worn [smooth] Cast pieces usually get a pock mark or three and when worn the marks get bigger.. A interesting HR!

As requested, here are some photos of my vet acquired TK ring. As I mentioned, most of the rings that are considered original, (probably about 99% of them all), are just high quality casted reproductions that have been changing hands for years. First, notice that the flaw marks within the leaf veins in the first photo comparison, (top ring, from Antonio), do not appear on the original, (bottom ring, top photo). In the second photo, you will see that area in the eye sockets are completely smooth. There are no eye craters on the original, as some books have mistakenly shown as proper. There are tons of differences between original 40's style TK rings, and the other 99% of rings that are shown as original in books and forum threads, that are simply not original. Hope this helps. Perhaps, this is a start.

Chris

Here are some other photos of my ring. I apologize for the quality, but these are the best that I could do with my limited camera.

Chris

Dear Chris many thanks for your input! Since my knowledge of English is not perfect and this is difficult topic for me to be discussed even in my language, can you please a bit elaborate what you mean that the eye socket are smooth and that there are no craters? Please refer to particular book if practicable, I keep all of them.

Many thanks!



Jan

Thanks, Jan. The first time I heard of this claim, was in Craig Gottlieb's book on TK rings.
Do you have this book? If so, I can find the page if needed, but it is in there. Then, several others have stated this on other forums and websites. I have never liked nor believed in the authenticity of those rings that have strong craters in the eye sockets, nor would I accept rings that have those sharp vertical lines within the leaf veins as I showed in the first photo. Usually, these two features, (among others, such as sloppy crossbone and skull details), will all be found together on these strange, and obviously cast TK rings. These are my honest thoughts, and in my opinion, like it is with any other rare and expensive SS item, fakes are everywhere and true mint originals are very hard to find.

Chris