Evgenyi, that method cannot explain many points I already mentioned. One for example is the famous distance between leaves and ring band edge.
Anyway, please pay attention of what follows, I'd like to share a couple of other interesting points that were never investigated before (actually nothing on these rings was ever investigated to be honest!).
We know the famous "flaws" on runic panels.
1) Focus on the "Sig" runic panel, where, under the rune is "missing" a piece of metal. We know this flaw "appeared" in 1940 (I know the exact date when it appeared). We know the die used was the same from 1938 to 1944. So: if the ring was die struck or die cast, how can it be possible this? Here's Hapur video on making a die struck ring. The die is "female", and a protusion on the die makes a recess on the ring (like the one under the "Sig" rune). Very simple. But if we know the die used was always the same, you clearly understand it is not possible to add any piece of metal on it to generate a protusion on the die with the aim of creating a recess on the ring.
2) Another point: look at the pictures below, smudges are visible even in worn rings. But if these rings were die struck, who was that idiot engraver that made a steel die with all those useless smudges (typical of casting process), instead making a well made (and much more easy to do!!!) design (like Hapur did for example!)? Have you ever seen a die struck ring or badge, or item, with those smudges? If you have, please, show it to me too.
Food for brain guys... If we really want investigate these rings, we have to stop thinking as we did before.
