SS TK honor ring

[Ian Hulley]

My belief, based upon rings that I have examined is that hand-detailing is likely to be found on rings that were produced with molds nearing the end of their life. I have seen all sorts of hand-work executed on rings to bring out the detail. Such practice is commonplace in the field of jewelry making. Of interest - I've seen MINT rings with nothing more than a horizontal line for teeth, and I have also seen worn rings with very pronounced teeth.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=341154

[Craig Gottlieb]

I wanted to show a comparison of the Frank left rune panel, to another ring - the Schmidt Ring, which was purchased originally from Don Boyle, along with the award certificate (the ring is, I believe, featured in his book). In addition to the previously noted mold nuances, I have taken the liberty of marking 5 additional nuances. Understand that a comparison of any two rings will show details that differ with respect to boldness of the details, plus a "masking" effect that camera angles, ring condition, and burnishing have on a photographic analysis. The best analysis is conducted by an in-hand inspection. That said, note the following:

1) There is a small square "block" that extends from the left oaklearf, on both rings. This feature is often masked by burnishing, and is also often not visible to the naked eye.

2) This is one of the nuances that is visible to the naked eye, and is something I look for when performing a cursory inspection of a ring, without magnification. It is a very easy nuance to spot.

3) Note the little squiggly piece of silver, shaped sort of like a wishbone, that extends from the top of the runic panel, to the right. Again, this is often muddled, as the detail is very delicate, and can be disrupted during the casting process.

4) Note how the left downstroke on the rune bulges out near the top, to meet a similar bulge on the runic panel. It is more pronounced on the Schmidt ring (to the right) but you can see it also on the Frank ring.

5) Note the tiny "nub" on the inside of the top apex of the triangle rune panel. Again, sorry for the poor pictures of the FRANK ring. But, despite the quality, you can still make out the nuance.

This analysis is just on ONE runic panel. If you analyzed each panel on the Frank ring, you'd find as many similarities. Incidentally, this process is something I covered only briefly in my book. Reason: I don't want to spoil the fun. If you do not have two rings to do a comparison with, feel free to bring your ring to SOS and you can use any one of my rings to play a game of "hunt the flaws."

In addition to the new nuances noted in this post (noted in blue), have another look at the red ones.

[Robert H]

I see also non similarities too, and even big differences.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Of course, Robert. I see them too. However, as is required, an in-hand analysis will reveal that any differences are a result of condition-variation, hand-finishing (which we know did occur, because sometimes these hand-finishing marks are so obvious), age of the mold when the ring was created, camera angles, etc. The most important details to consider when analyzing a ring are the tiny nuances of the type that I have pointed out, which show that the rings were built from molds created from the same master. To illustrate my point, I should post a side-by-side comparison of two rings whose existence has been known to predate the high-end fakes of today, and also that have been papered by Don Boyle. You will also be able to pick out differences. However, if the camera angles or burnishing doesn't mask them, you should see all of the above noted nuances. Again, this is the fun of Honor Ring study.

Here is just one example of a seemingly large "difference" that appears as a result of burnishing and camera angle. It is marked with a yellow arrow. Despite the poor rendition on the photos, these oakleaves are actually identical in person. I show this to illustrate the danger of conducting photographic comparisons. They can mislead.

[Robert H]

One thing for sure I am not getting dump even from pictures, I added the green lines so you see clear the differences and there are huge differences I see compared to the Frank ring. There is really not much to say about this shown Frank ring from my side.

[JR.]

It is obvious that Boyle did one of 2 things in his analysis of this Totenkopf ring:

A.) He either made a mistake in his examination and evaluation of this near mint and almost perfect preserved ring, and determined it was bad.


Or



B.) He purposely chose to write a bad certification to discredit a totally proper period ring ?

[Craig Gottlieb]

Robert: Your post reveals exactly my point - If you look at the Frank ring, you will see EACH and EVERY nuance that you pointed out, on the Schmidt ring. Of course, per my earlier commentary, the nuances appear with varying degrees of boldness, color, and clarity. But the details are there without question. Here are just three. What is important is that we remember that these rings were NOT die-struck, like medals or coins. If they were, they would be much more consistent. However, when a mold is used to cast a soft metal like silver, structures, though they should be consistently present, will be muddled with respect to clarity, sharpness, etc (not to mention differences created by shadowing, patina, camera angle, etc). Note the following:

a) In the top set, the little squiggly line is found inside the oakleaf spacing, on both rings.

b) In the middle set, the shape of the oakleaf is very square and angular. Photographs do not provide an accurate comparason in this case, but the structural nuance is clearly visible.

c) In the bottom set, you can see the slight "flaring out" of the runic border. True, in the Schmid ring, the flare appears to be stronger, but the basic form exists in both rings in the exact same place.

Once we move away from the analytical viewpoint that these rings were die-struck (which they were not), it becomes very simple to identify a real ring, as long as you have another known original to compare it to. That is why rings that have existed in the collecting community for a decade or more are the most valuable tools we have.

[Robert H]

I just updated my picture with the green lines above.

I just looked up some nice rings on your website, the details are super identical to other TK rings as I like them to see, I am well aware the TK rings are NOT die struck but trust me the quality is super there that there and similar in all the details.

When you take a look to the far right green arrow and the far left green arrow it is obvious that complete sections are absolutely different. And so different that I would call it out as "fasten seat belts".

Craig, by the way do you refer this ring on the left as an original pre 45 SS honor ring?

[Craig Gottlieb]

Yes, Robert. That is clear from my posts. If you can get beyond the mindset that we are looking at die-cast carbon-copy objects, and understand that molded silver results in these variations on a common structure, it will be easy for you to see that this ring is original. To repeat: you will see the same structures, but they may appear in differing degrees of boldness, sharpness, shadow, and size. The factors that will make the same nuance appear slightly different from ring-to-ring are:

1) Age of mold when the ring was cast
2) Level of patina and wear
3) Lighting and shadow of photograph
4) Angle of photograph

What I will do now, is post two undisputed rings, and we can perform the same excercise, with one runic panel. That is, on two rings that nobody doubts, you will see these same nuances we have both poitned out, but with differing degrees of clarity and sharpness. You will also note tiny differences on occasion, that are due to hand-finishing and mold wear. By showing that the same condition obtains with two undisputed rings, I think you will understand more clearly the process involved here.

[Robert H]

Craig, for me you don't have to go further with other pictures or other ring pictures. When I like something I like it and when I don't like something I just don't like it, it is everybodys own opinion and view.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Fair enough, Robert. However, for the viewing public, I wish to make one more post, in a spirit of building community knowledge and understanding about TK rings.

Here are two undisputed rings. The ring on the left belonged to Herman Preiss, and the ring on the right is Schmidt. Both appear in Boyle's book, and both appear in my book. You will find the nuances discussed above, that are shared by the FRANK, the PRIESS, and the SCHMIDT ring, and you will also find differences between all three. However, if you remember that these are not carbon copies created from a heavy die, but soft silver objects molded from rubber molds, you will understand why you see differences (in addition to the fact that all three rings were taken under different photographic conditions, are in different states of wear, etc etc. Here are some apparent differences:

a) The oakleaves in Priess extend all the way to the top of the ring, and the oakleaves on Schimdt do not. In reality, this "difference" is attributed to both wear, and to burnishing.

b) Note on the oakleaf vein directly below the letter "B" the Schmid ring (on the right) has an extra couple of "veins" extending away from the top, and point toward the right. On the Priess ring, there is only one vein. Again, a product of wear, or an older mold used to make Priess.

c) Note on Schmidt, small pock marks on the triangular border panel. On Priess, they do not exist. Probably a one-time casting flaw.

d) Note the shape of the oakleaf cut to the right of the letter "D" - on the Priess ring it appears to point to the left, and on Schmidt, to the right.

However, a close-up inspection, despite these "differences" reveals that both rings - and FRANK ring as well - were cast from molds created from the same master, and are all three original (in my opinion, and in the case of Priess and Schmidt, in Don's opinion also). Finally, let it be said that I greatly respect Robert Hassler, and respect his right to disagree with my theories and findings.

[Craig Gottlieb]

It should also be considered (although this is PURELY speculation and I am by no means implying that I conclusively believe this) that the original 1940s master was slightly modified at Gahr to improve it, as the years progressed. This is certainly known to occur with other masters in other fields, and could be postulated to justify any true design differences found on known original rings that, due to striking similarities, can be said to have been cast from molds created from one master. However interesting this postulation may be, its veracity is by no means required to believe the FRANK ring to be original (which I do).

[Ric Ferrari]

Hello Craig, all,

at this point my obvious question is :

which proven facts definitively reveal the SS Honor rings were cast by a mold and not die struck ?

TIA

Ric

[phild]

Hello Craig, all,

at this point my obvious question is :

which proven facts definitively reveal the SS Honor rings were cast by a mold and not die struck ?

TIA

Ric

Proven can be a tough measure in this hobby. I used to be of the die struck school of thought many years ago, but really looking at these rings under very high magnification, I have come around to also believe that they were cast using some method of that process.

The rings,IMO, do not show the attributes that I associate with high pressure die struck items. There seems to be a stigma placed on cast items as being somehow inferior to other methods of fabrication and this is really a shame and certainly incorrect. It all depends on the item and the material being used...not to mention the process and the skill of the person doing the work.

To be sure some of the finest if not most all of the finest gold and silver jewelry made today and throughout history was made from casting...so there is nothing inheritatly inferior about these rings being cast. I realize that you did not infer that there was, but I have talked to others who did.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Phil - I couldn't have said it better. This subject is in fact covered in depth in my book. During the research for the book, every jeweler that I interviewed - European, American, young, and even an old Jewish jeweler from Germany who now lives and works in Beverly Hills - they all said the same thing, without hesitation . . . cast.