Announcement

**JR.** · 10-13-2010, 06:03 PM

Bob, Your statement on another thread on the construction of SSTK's.

Gahr used rubber molds, which were made around the master flat bar, that was the ring, when bent to circular form on a mandrel. The rubber molds were made to cast wax copies, which were then hand finished. These wax pieces were then set into an investment material, in a clay or plaster cup, with a sprew added to allow the silver to flow, when the wax was burned out of the hardened investment material.

Now, there are three ways to make the silver ring, in the investment material:

1. by attaching the crucible in a centrafuge which spun as the molten silver was poured into the sprew, thus filling the mold,

2. by placing the crucible into a vacuum chamber which allowed the molten silver to be poured into the investment mold, or

3. by pouring the silver into the investment mold and when filled to the top of the sprew, applying a water saturated piece of leather, with pressure, to the top of the mold, using the steam pressure to force the silver into the mold to take a clear cast.

These are the three processes used in the investment, or lost wax, casting process. In each and every copy made, the resultant silver bar will take the impression of the wax model. Because the wax needs to be hand detailed, after it was taken out of the rubber mold, there can, and will be, slight differences in each piece. Then, when the wax is burned out of the investment material, the silver must flow perfectly, filling every detail of the investment cavity. If the silver captured an air bubble, or did not fully fill some crevice, hand work is needed to clean up the silver bar, that will become the ring, once formed around a mandrell.

Lost wax is not alchemy or involving the black arts, but has been used since the Egyptians made jewelry. It is the method that is currently used to make most jewelry, today. it is the same system that dental workers use to make a replacement crown, of gold, silver or any of the porcelins.

You must allow for differences due to two stages of handwork, on the wax model and on the silver copy of the wax model.

Bob Hritz

**Bob Hritz** · 10-13-2010, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by JR. View Post

Bob, Your statement on another thread on the construction of SSTK's.

Gahr used rubber molds, which were made around the master flat bar, that was the ring, when bent to circular form on a mandrel. The rubber molds were made to cast wax copies, which were then hand finished. These wax pieces were then set into an investment material, in a clay or plaster cup, with a sprew added to allow the silver to flow, when the wax was burned out of the hardened investment material.

Now, there are three ways to make the silver ring, in the investment material:

1. by attaching the crucible in a centrafuge which spun as the molten silver was poured into the sprew, thus filling the mold,

2. by placing the crucible into a vacuum chamber which allowed the molten silver to be poured into the investment mold, or

3. by pouring the silver into the investment mold and when filled to the top of the sprew, applying a water saturated piece of leather, with pressure, to the top of the mold, using the steam pressure to force the silver into the mold to take a clear cast.

These are the three processes used in the investment, or lost wax, casting process. In each and every copy made, the resultant silver bar will take the impression of the wax model. Because the wax needs to be hand detailed, after it was taken out of the rubber mold, there can, and will be, slight differences in each piece. Then, when the wax is burned out of the investment material, the silver must flow perfectly, filling every detail of the investment cavity. If the silver captured an air bubble, or did not fully fill some crevice, hand work is needed to clean up the silver bar, that will become the ring, once formed around a mandrell.

Lost wax is not alchemy or involving the black arts, but has been used since the Egyptians made jewelry. It is the method that is currently used to make most jewelry, today. it is the same system that dental workers use to make a replacement crown, of gold, silver or any of the porcelins.

You must allow for differences due to two stages of handwork, on the wax model and on the silver copy of the wax model.

Bob Hritz

JR,

You are absolutely correct that I posted that, some time ago. I have since found that the use of vulcanized rubber molds was not commony used, during the period. Also, the rubber mold centrifugal casting system is of much more modern origin. I can find no records of any of the medal makers using the rubber mold or and I can find no former jewelers who used this vulvanized rubber molds during or prior to the war. Prior to the war, wax patterns were used in investment (lost-wax) casting, but not using rubber molds. Rubber molds are used for current reproductions and they can be found, on ebay, from time to time.

It is not impossible that honor rings are investment cast, but highly impractical and far less time and cost efficient than using a single die and die-forging each ring in a bar.

My research has led me to better information that I had when I made that posting.

Bob Hritz

**sgstandard** · 10-13-2010, 06:27 PM

Rings

I completely agree. The last posts by Mr. Hritz, PAB Collector, and James M. really illuminate, not only the possible methods, but their advantages and disadvantages. The commander of the Dirlewanger Brigade, as we affectionately like to call them, has failed to explain a single advantage to "Gottlieb Casting", which would lead one to conclude that there AREN'T any. Lest anyone forget, the original topic wasn't REALLY about a difference of opinion about TKRing construction, but a concerted effort to discredit Mr. Boyle's expertise. This, too, has failed, as not one person has come forward with an example of a questionable ring Don B. has EVER sold. Ric Ferrari was right when he said that will probably never happen.

**Bob Hritz** · 10-13-2010, 06:28 PM

Probably the finest modern made honor rings were produced in Tennessee. They were made using all home made equipment and a hand madewax model.

I have one and it is too nice to wear. They were made by centrigugal casting and I have the DVD showing the process. Of course, they were marked as copies.

I have attached photos. This was made in the garage by someone who had never been involved in jewelry making or any other form of casting.

The honor ring is too easy to fake.

Bob Hritz

Attached Files

**Bob Hritz** · 10-13-2010, 06:33 PM

I don't look at this as any personal battle. I believed the rings had been made by investment casting, using wax models. Craig believes this also. I have changed my opinion and until someone can prove which is correct, each is entitled to do their own search for information.

I do not care to participate in personality battles and I have no problems with Craig or Don. I would hope they have no problems with me.

We have evolved because we learn and grow from that learning. This is what the forums are all about.

I couldn't authenticate an honor ring if my soul depended upon that.

Bob Hritz

**sgstandard** · 10-13-2010, 06:36 PM

Rings

JR - I also once believed that TKR's were lost wax investment cast before I really knew about the other methods. I came to accept I was wrong, just as Mr. Hritz obviously now does. But if Mr. Hritz and I still clung to that same theory, all three of us would probably be wrong. This way, it's just you. Ha-ha.
Seriously, though, just explain the advantages of "Gottlieb Casting".

**JR.** · 10-13-2010, 06:53 PM

I have no idea nor true desire to search out the manufacturing process of the Gahr produce SSTK's. The topic of the thread was the Klohn ring and box. To address Gaspare question, I've believe that I've seen one SSTK that was void of one of the more common flaws normally seen in an SSTK. I can't remember which panel it was associated with. But on the Boyle certificate it states that 2 of the Gahr die flaws were missing from the Tyrune panel as I recall. Then Craig posted the close-ups of that panel and showed them there. That was going to be a question I know to Boyle, to point out those missing flaws. But he made it clear the 1st day of the show, that he would not debate what may have been a loosing argument over the box and the missing die flaws.

**blackdagger** · 10-13-2010, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Bob Hritz View Post

I have always believed (my opinion only) that the rings were die forged into a flat die. This would make the rings much easier to engrave, and they could be made as long as necessary and cut down for the necessary size. This would have required only one die. The reason I believe this is from the oblong circle with runics and life rune, on the reverse of the first pattern rings. Had the circle been round, on the die, the bending of the ring, into shape, would have stretched the detail, making the round circle into an oblong oval. This would have been corrected on the second pattern, by creating a die with the circle tall oval oblong, which would stretch to round, when the ring was engraved and bent to shape for soldering.

The length of the leaves, where the skull is soldered, tell me that all rings were once long bars and the leaves ends were cut to make the ring the proper size. All one would need, to turn a flat bar into a round ring is to heat the bar, and shape it with a rock maple hammer, which would not mar the silver. It would be bent around a mandrel of the correct ring size.

This is only my opinion from having studied the techniques (academically only) of working with metal.

Even though I understand the methods of medal and badge making, I still have made mistakes, and will probably make more before I am finally hauled away and forgotten in Decaying Oaks Retirement Home.

Bob Hritz

This IMHO is exactly how they were made. Only 1 thing to add. There is a machine/tool used by jewelers that is bench mounted and hand cranked that will form the flat band into a near complete circle. Any advanced benchman or "setter" would confirm this and know the name of this tool/machine. This is why one of the "flaws" looks like it is smudged or smashed a tiny bit, from being cranked thu this tool/machine and formed into the circle. This would also explain why the flaw is found on all original rings, as the same machine was used to form them all.

**Bob Hritz** · 10-13-2010, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by JR. View Post

I have no idea nor true desire to search out the manufacturing process of the Gahr produce SSTK's. The topic of the thread was the Klohn ring and box. To address Gaspare question, I've believe that I've seen one SSTK that was void of one of the more common flaws normally seen in an SSTK. I can't remember which panel it was associated with. But on the Boyle certificate it states that 2 of the Gahr die flaws were missing from the Tyrune panel as I recall. Then Craig posted the close-ups of that panel and showed them there. That was going to be a question I know to Boyle, to point out those missing flaws. But he made it clear the 1st day of the show, that he would not debate what may have been a loosing argument over the box and the missing die flaws.

I think everyone agrees the Klohn ring and box are completely original and in wonderful condition.

Bob Hritz

**JR.** · 10-13-2010, 07:26 PM

Thanks Bob.......... appreciate your posts. Did you look at it during the show ?

**Bob Hritz** · 10-13-2010, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by JR. View Post

Thanks Bob.......... appreciate your posts. Did you look at it during the show ?

I never got a hands on, but I spoke with several collectors who were thrilled with the condition and authenticity.

I have a passion for all cases and boxes and own one of the standard types. In my life, I have owned 3 boxes, but never the ellusive black/silver piped variation. I have studied the few I know of and the box was perfect, in my opinion. It matched every nuance I would expect and would be a thrill to have with an original ring.

Bob Hritz

**Gaspare** · 10-13-2010, 11:56 PM

Vulcanized rubber molds were not used on mass produced rings during the period.. I personally own a couple master dies to period 3rd Reich military theme rings and have interviewed a couple period German jewelers that confirm so that ends that.

Jim, we're all getting hung up on terms to a degree, and yes it gets confusing..
Die struck is like a US coin, and HRs are not die struck.. Hapur uses warmed metal and and uses a strong press to have his hand cut die make the design into the ring, ,forging ..

The 2 schools of thought for the HR are as Bob mentions:
*Die casting is when molten metal is injected into closed dies, which are opened after the metal has cooled.

*Die forging is metal heated to a plastic, malleable state and pressed into the die. When cooled, it is removed from the die.
Both use a master die or 'model'.

* IF, anyone believes there are authentic HRs without the die flaws you can all forget the market for the late pattern rings,,,it would all be over guys.!

**Gaspard** · 10-14-2010, 03:46 AM

I've always thought that the best "copie" was the Peichl's one.

**John Pen.** · 10-14-2010, 04:50 PM

I have been thinking..... wouldn't the weight of a ring help to i.d. it as either "investment cast" or "die pressed"? The latter would surely be more dense and therefore weigh more. Of course ring size would have to be taken into account, but the difference in density could be determined with mathematical formulas using wieght and mass. Coin collectors (and assayers) have been using this method for centuries in determining counterfiet coins.
Could it not also be used here?
Just a thought. Please excuse me if this has already been stated(I haven't seen it mentioned here yet)

Jp

**JamesUS** · 10-15-2010, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Gaspard View Post

ROFL. I don't need credentials to say that the post above was off-topic. Do you think 5000+ posts are synonymous with knowledge ?
I have read many books and articles about ss militaria especially THrs.
Nobody here think that Mister Boyle is a gangster. We just think that this story would need (and deserve) a "better" end.
Now, as i posted earlier, i prefer now to see this thread closed as 95% of members don't even allow others to have a small doubt on COAs master.

No one cares what you prefer - And you might at least try to be consistent with your "halting English" ploy.
Can anyone take him up on his offer to debate in French ?
I'd bet he'd post a bablefish translation as a reply.

My view, its all but certain that Don was expertly set up to look stupid - And, if such is true, its seems pretty obvious that the agenda, profit motivated man with the axe to grind and the books to sell is behind it all.

Announcement

HR and box

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread