Thanks Gaspare.
We encourage discussion, including robust discussion, but ask that the language be as neutral as possible so as to concentrate on the items and not raise tempers.
When a person writes conflicting answers, it is usually a sign of learning. I have done it myself over the years.
I suspect that you are right, Mr. Scapini, in saying that today's good copies will be tomorrow's original. That is nothing new in our hobby, unfortunately, but buyers want accurate copies. Look at SS uniforms.
Everyone make mistakes, me first. What I find ridiculous is to denigrate something you don't know without offering anything but nonsenses.
That said, I will show a copy I made for the book some years ago, that is still sitting on my desk. Less than 100 euro and can fool in pictures and in hands too. But people seems to not to understand it, that is why I always say "we must check rings with good magnifications or microscope", it is no more time to believe what you see, like Chris said "
There is simply too much money at stake to rely on hearsay and handshakes".
So, what are the point left to resolve?
First we always have to keep in mind the different parts of the ring.
One is IMO impossible to resolve, and it is regarding how the inner layer was added (because different ways can lead to the same result). IMO was a long tube made in the "doublè" way, then cut in several rings. On the book there are some examples of rings (WW1 and WW2) that have a inner layer.
The second is about the engraving. Different tools were used, not only burins, so we have 2 types of writing, one that shows the grooves left by buring, and another made with something that left the surface like it was "cast", but as far as I know, nothing used in '30-'40 could work that way...
The third is about the wooden frame for the certificates, it existed, it was produced, it was delivered, but we know nothing about...
Another is about the prototype box...
....
There still are some interesting aspects to be studied.
