SS TK honor ring

[11C]

Where is Don Boyle in all this discussion? Why has he chosen not to comment? Does anyone know what his thoughts are on how these rings were made? Somebody educate this newbie about the politics of this argument........please.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Don's absence should not be interpreted negatively, as I don't believe he comments on forums anymore. I also prefer not to comment on the circumstances surrounding why he panned what I believe to be a good ring. I prefer to discuss rings, not politics. The great thing about the forum is that intelligent and informed people can meet, discuss, and agree/disagree on a variety of subjects. Deductive reasoning based upon the rings we have to analyze and the testimony of jewelry artists has led me to believe that rings such as FRANK, PRIESS, and SCHMIDT were cast as rings in a rubber mold, and not flat strips. It's how rings have been made for centuries, it's what jewelers conclude after analyzing rings, it's how the new high-quality reproductions like Josias' are being made, and it just makes sense to me. I have laid out the details of my hypothesis in my book, and on the forum, but I highly respect anyone's right to agree or disagree. I look forward to seeing everybody at SOS!

[11C]

Thank you for the reply. This cannot be rocket science. A simple double blind test by an established, agreed upon, jeweler should determine how these rings were made. We can then better discuss why the difference in rings exist. I would think that Don or Craig could set this up with known original material. Am I missing something here?

[Craig Gottlieb]

You hit the nail on the head, 11C - this is not rocket science. I performed this inquiry during the research phase of my book, and my results are easy to reproduce. Anyone with a ring collection can do the same thing.

[Ric Ferrari]

Proven can be a tough measure in this hobby.....

Well, it seems it was of some help to start the ball rolling and for your knowledge I opened (on purpose) the same discussion on another Forum where Don does usually post : I'm sure he will provide an interesting contribution to the discussion and without falling in a unproductive polemic.
By the opinions posted it's obvious the truth hasn't surfaced yet and in spite of any effort to support different thesis.
That's a big trouble since leaves many questions unanswered to how definitively detect super fake rings from original ones (if both are the result of a lost wax molding) : Craig and Don disagreement on Frank's ring simply offer the last confirmation of it.
As you know I'm a student here but in my field I'm considered by some people an "expert" even if I personally think it's hard to call someone expert if referred to III° Reich artifacts.
So, here's an example of what I mean when I say proven facts :

since a while many (if not all) SS collectors were pretty convinced the SS EM alu buckles were manufactured by casting in one piece, that widespread belief was "strongly" supported by "obvious" evidence and the main US author on Belts & Buckles papered that certitude by a well known specialized book in 2 editions even (btw, others did the same before).
Well, in the meanwhile an advanced German collector/researcher (Christian U.) was able to interview an old man at that time worker in a Nazi factory manufacturing that kind of buckles.
Since that interview the community certitude had to change like night with day : the SS EM buckles by alu were definitively die struck by a well described technology by the old worker.
Nowadays specialized collectors have no longer doubts about it and all the obvious "evidence" supporting the early opinion did become strong arguments to confirm the testified truth.

Best

Ric

[Robert H]

Since when is the Frank ring anyhow in the US??
What is the history about it? It should not be difficult to chase it down as I assume this ring is only some -5 years in the US. Was it directly family aquired or directly from the vet as he survieved well the war when I am not wrong about it. I am pretty sure some others have more infos then I got even when I was living back home in Germany and tru to chase the stuff down.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Ric: Great post, and I commend you for your efforts to bring Don into the discussion, even by proxy. With regard to truth-claims, I wish to correct something I have said on numerous occasions, and offer a small apology for the confusion (this is embarrassing because I graduated from an Ivy League with an honors degree in Philosophy). Anyway . . .

I have been using the term "Deductive Reasoning" in the earlier discussion. This is not an accurate term. What we really use is Inductive Reasoning, in our pursuit of information about Third Reich Antiquities, in cases where documents do not exist, or living people don't exist anymore.

Inductive reasoning is when I make observations about the world, and develop a hypothesis to explain these observations. An inducitve argument does not prove anything as certain - it only yields a hypothesis. It's conclusion may be very compelling and may be highly probable, but it is still only conjecture. The strength of the hypothesis depends on making a good argument, and digging up as much evidence as you can. The more tests you can perform, the more evidence you can provide, the stronger the hypothesis. Inductive reasoning is very useful, and we use it everyday. And when faced with an inductive argument, it is not useful to defeat it by saying "so, it's not a proof." It's not mean to be one. It's the best we can do in the absence of eye-witness accounts or other testamony-evidence such as written documentation.

Your belt buckle example is a great illustration of inductive reasoning that turned out to yield a wrong hypothesis. I would argue that inductive reasoning has yielded a fairly strong argument in favor of rings being cast from molds created from one master. Is it proven true? No, but it's still a strong workable hypothesis.

[Gaspare]

Craig,,,Interviews, theory?.. Did you interview Herr Peichl? Is he still alive?.. He worked for the Gahr firm during the war and knew exactly from start to shipping about the HR. I know Don knew/knows him well for a very long time....

Please don't tell everyone your findings are from interviews of jewelry from the "The Jewelry Exchange" in SD.!!
I've been working on a book about private purchase rings on and off now for 6 years.. I brought 2 period rings to firms in NYC's diamond district [jewelry capital of the world] you know what they said?!? The same as your guys,,rubber mold... *Problem is,,I own the original metal dies that produced the ring! When shown to them they apologized and admitted they were wrong.

Military themed commercially made for retail rings 90% were made flat... The HR has its own special problem with that and Craig you disagreed with me on GDC about something else. I conceded to myself then that you must be right because you have evidence to show.. If you don't and no period documents,, period jewelry supply catalogs, manufacturing machinery of the period and your going on interviews there is going to be way more collectors disappointed with your new book than me..

[Gaspare]

Don does still occasionally post on a forum.. You'll sometimes see him posting here and other forums of this site.
http://worldwarmilitaria.com/forum/f...splay.php?f=65

*

[Craig Gottlieb]

I'm sorry Gaspare, but if you read my post above about inductive reasoning carefully, you will understand that the process (inductive reasoning) is perfectly acceptible in scholarly circles until some hard documentary evidence surfaces from which we can DEDUCE fact. It would be great if someone remodeling a building in Munich opened up a time capsule with the original TK ring production materials and a guide to making rings. But we don't have that luxury right now.

If you choose to be disappointed by hypotheses generated by inductive reasoning, then you would be a skeptic by nature. There is nothing wrong with this intellectual posture, but realize that a lot of what we think we "know" in life is derived from inductive reasoning, because often, it's all we have. Just please don't demand proof where no proof currently exists, and in a process where proof is not the goal, but hypothesis is.

By the way, my interviews took me to Munich, not just San Diego (where I interviewed a variety of jewelers, including an old Jewish guy who didn't have a lot of patience for me and my Nazi Rings). I thought of going to the Diamond district too in New York, but I felt my reception there would be even less pleasant.

I am very excited about your book, Gaspare - do you know when it will be coming out? Great story about the ring and the dies that you showed them. Just goes to show that inductive reasoning, while a very effective tool, can sometimes be wrong. That is why you don't see me forcing my view on others, and belitting those who disagree. In this debate, while I do believe my explanation to be the best explanation, there is certainly room for disagreement. That is the nature of induction.

[Gaspare]

Craig,,if you read my post carefully you'd see that even if you went to the NYC jewelers that they would have told you the same,,which was, and is wrong....

Did you get in contact with Mr.Peichl? Is he even alive? How about Arthur Meyer of the SS silversmith book? 2 people you wouldn't have had to make a hypothesis... I know Don knows exactly how the ring is made also. He is a sly old fox who holds back more than most people know,,even if he agrees to help with someting..........

Please don't mis understand me,, I'm glad you wrote the book. It is needed. BUT, you can't go around stateing your opinion based on interviews etc. as fact then.
And, as far as Dons CoA,,,it seems you love them when the ring comes back fine,,but when papered a fake you disagree,, he must be mistaken,,, and long posts explaining why the ring is good,,or posts from friends posting peoples personal emails about some story about the ring .. The ring is either good or bad.. Don amd most say bad,,,you and JR disagree,,o.k. fine..leave it at that.....

[Craig Gottlieb]

Gaspare: absent documentary evidence to support a truth claim, it is not possible to say in this argument "you are wrong" or "I am wrong." It is merely possible to provide as much inductive evidence to support a hypothesis, which I have done. I have never stated that my hypothesis of ring production is fact. I would never dare make such a claim, given my reliance on inductive reasoning in this particular case (there is plenty of fact in my book, and when it is fact, it's stated as such and supported by the documentary evidence necessary to make such a claim). With regard to TK ring manufacturing, a hypothesis is all we can currently have on this subject. May the best hypothesis gain traction until such time as documentary evidence surfaces to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In history, some inductive hypothesis turn out to be true, and others false. As for the FRANK ring, we can certainly disagree, part ways friends, and let individual collectors make up their own minds concerning both subjects.

[John Pepera]

The SS Totenkopf Ring<O
No Facts but “A hypothesis of Deductive Reasoning uh, no Inductive Reasoning”<O<O></O>

“The SS Totenkopff Ring, a Picture Book By Craig”<O

[kingtiger]

Why worry?

I would not be concerned about the rings that Don Boyle said were straight up bad. They are covered by a "Lifetime Guarantee of Authenticity". Am I wrong on this point?

[Niblet]

Post #85 Paragraph 3 last sentence, quote

"I thought of going to the Diamond district too in New York, but I felt my reception there would be even less pleasant."



If you feel your reception in the "Diamond district" would be less than pleasant, than you should hear what is being discussed off these forums in regards to you and your books reception.

Mr. Boyle in a direct quote stated that JR had sent the Frank ring in because he had concerns about its authenticity. JR stated "I had doubts on the swastika and the die flaws were to shallow and short" these two noted issues were in fact not listed on the certificate as the other issues were enough.

It also also being stated that you sought to have the cover ring authenticated by Mr. Boyle when you heard the original ring was still with the owners family and would not have been available for your use. When asked by Mr. Boyle for additional photo's or the ring to give a proper opinion before he would make any opinion, you are quoted saying " I missplaced them and cannot find them"

How do you lose the photo's for the ring on your own cover?.