TK Ring

[rove]

Hello

here are question of originaliy

i though for myself - ok

all parts speaks for a well ring

but i m here only amateur for rings

thanks for help

[rove]

2

here

[rove]

3

here

[rove]

4

here

[rove]

5

here

[JR.]

Most definitely a reproduction my friend......... absolutely. JR

[JR.]

Here's an original.

[rove]

maybe thats the reason whys so cheap

thanks for the picture

[ErichS]

I agree with JR. Not even close to an original.

[Nico C]

The style of the TK is way off.

[bnz. 42]

It is a Latvian copy. Before "nazi ban" (a few years ago) it was sold widely on eBay for around $100.

[Aeryn Sun]

It's always interesting to see how "reproducers" can produce such relatively high-quality fakes with such glaring inaccuracies--such as the skull design. In other words, as a rhetorical question, if they can do it that well, why not just do it right?
I, of course, make that comment only out of genuine curiosity. I am actually quite pleased to see any comparison in which a fake can be distinguished easily enough. Fakes that look too good only scare me!

[Milan Gard]

All Fakes, sorry

Milan S.

[Napalm]

It's always interesting to see how "reproducers" can produce such relatively high-quality fakes with such glaring inaccuracies--such as the skull design. In other words, as a rhetorical question, if they can do it that well, why not just do it right?
I, of course, make that comment only out of genuine curiosity. I am actually quite pleased to see any comparison in which a fake can be distinguished easily enough. Fakes that look too good only scare me!

Welcome but best not discuss fake's as it only give's the fakers ammo....

[Aeryn Sun]

Welcome but best not discuss fake's as it only give's the fakers ammo....

Point is well appreciated. However, with all due respect, I do not see how my particular comment, singled-out and quoted, is any more revealing to a faker than the highly clear and detailed photos which have been posted for comparison. I was only making a very general comment, revealing no further details to a faker. I certainly revealed nothing that wasn't blatantly obvious in the comparison photos and previous comments. The question I asked, only for thought, was also not intended to encourage fakers to do anything any better. I doubt that my question per se will have much influence on the production of fakes.

However, if there is something that I inadvertenly wrote that could reveal more than was already revealed, please let me know. I would never intentionally do that.

The general irony is that the common and necessary "fake vs. authentic" discussions always have the peripheral effect of revealing information to fakers. It could reasonably be argued that the presentation of any piece that is easily and quickly determined to be a fake by the collecting community could, in itself, be too much information for fakers. I simply don't know of a way to avoid it, no matter how much I think about it.

Sincerely...