Announcement

**John Pen.** · 08-23-2010, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by JR. View Post

As asked for, the photos of the fine- lined engraving of the Frank ring to including all of the letters, numbers, and signature, as well as the executed joiner seam. The original burnishing still intact in the engraved characters.

JR,
Thorsten B. has a good point. Start a new thread if you want to discuss your ring. It is confusing to readers to get off the focus of the o.p.
I understand your point(and the frustration), but the discussion here is about another ring and accompanying box.

Jp

**tanker** · 08-23-2010, 06:13 PM

I think it is a good idea for JR to post his pics here. I thank JR for doing that. It has been noted that the two rings have a similar engraving trait and the only way to evaluate is to have the two rings posted.
This ia a learning experience that all collectors, new and old, should follow. It has been a nice civil exchange of thoughts.
Ron

Originally posted by John Pen. View Post

JR,
Thorsten B. has a good point. Start a new thread if you want to discuss your ring. It is confusing to readers to get off the focus of the o.p.
I understand your point(and the frustration), but the discussion here is about another ring and accompanying box.

Jp

**John Pen.** · 08-23-2010, 06:27 PM

Fair enough..... if it helps discussion.
Jp

**JR.** · 08-23-2010, 07:04 PM

Actually I'm not interested in starting any new topic on the Frank ring. My photos were posted on this topic, from another site..........not by me. That site showed the very close similarities of the engraving of the Kolhn ring to that which is seen with the Frank ring.

The topic of this thread is the Kolhn ring/box in which the ring was agreed to be of the 3rd Reich period, by both D. Boyle & C. Gottlieb. Although according to the coa and the letter, the value of the ring was degraded because of alleged lack of die flaws.

The box that came with the Kolhn ring on the other hand was declared as being post war in the coa. And the coa on the Frank ring declared it to be post war all together, with one of the contentions being "improper engraving with flaws".

You have 2 different rings, issued the same month, same day, and same year, sharing many engraving characteristics pointing to the same Gahr jeweler. The Kolhn ring declared good by a coa.......... and the Frank ring declared postwar in a different coa, by the same individual.

You have 2 rings that match closely in engraving characteristics, and a ring box that matches know period examples. And also have 2 coa's by the same individual, calling one ring period and one ring post war. The common factor that ties these pieces together is the coa's, and what was stated on them................................ and therefore the Frank ring is relevant to the discussion.

**John Pen.** · 08-23-2010, 07:42 PM

Now I understand.
This thread now is even more fascinatating than I previously thought. Gotta love the WAF!! Thanks to all for the info and pics!

\Jp

**Craig Gottlieb** · 08-23-2010, 08:00 PM

There are several things to discuss, all of which I hope can be discussed with civility and with an eye toward learning. Everyone agrees the Klohn ring is real, and because of that, it has bearing on the following points of discussion:

1) Why is this out of the woodwork box purported by Don to be a "poor quality fake," especially when it matches other boxes known to be real. I will be glad to contribute a side by side photographic analysis - I'll contact Larry and see if he won't let me borrow Teply again. I did take excellent pictures of it for my book, but I think it's relevant to shoot photographs in the same light, at the same time, to render a forum-readable comparison. It will take a while to accomplish this, but I feel it's valuable as a learning tool for us.

2) Does Klohn, due to the extreme similarity in the engraving to the Frank ring, add further support to the notion that Don was wrong about the Frank Ring, in which case JR becomes a very happy camper. I say further, because Kelly Hicks and David May performed laser testing on about 10 rings we sent off, to develop a baseline metallurgical fingerprint for TK rings, and the Frank ring conformed to that finger print (it was one of the 10 tested).

3) What flaws are missing from the Klohn ring, that caused Don to write that in his expertise on the Klohn ring? Maybe he knows about additional flaws that we do not. The seller told me that Don said it was the major flaw under the double-runic panel, but it's there plain as day. To give Don benefit of the doubt, maybe someone can ask him which flaws he thinks were missing. The ring had some dirt on it when I received it, but with a standard loop, these flaws were very easy to see. I will also do a side-by-side comparison (a photographic study) between the Khlon ring and another original ring with no controversy, in order to compare rune panel to rune panel, so we can perhaps see what Don saw? By the way . . . I use the term "flaws" but I don't really believe that is an accurate term to describe the details we're studying. However, I won't muddy the waters by discussing this subject.

My hope is that Don simply had another really bad day, and that he was NOT trying to use his expertise to pick a ring out of the woodwork at a fraction of its value, by abusing the trust placed in authors. We have seen that behavior before recently with a certain Honor Dagger and an English author. There are always two sides to every story, and I for one know what it's like to be judged unfairly, and would hope that we would all extend Don the courtesy that many now-banned members have not shown me in the past. Civility and fairness should rule the day.

I wish to encourage discussion on all of these points, and think that if we all agree to keep things civil and focused, we can develop a really good thread.

**Avrelio** · 08-24-2010, 03:10 AM

I realy enyoy my staying on this fine forum and specialy this thread abouth the one thing i love the moust, that is the SS Honor ring !

Regarding the Frank and Klohn honor rings i must add that they dont yust mach the engraving but also the runes, so they must come out from the same mold and there fore they are bouth original, dismising Franks ring as a post war copy is crazy and this mistake made by mr. Boyle must be repared, we all make mistakes and this was mr. Boyles !

Honor rings are one of the rarest 3 raich items, specialy the mint ones like Frank SS honor ring which is one of the moust beoutifull honors rings i ewer seen!

**Ric Ferrari** · 08-24-2010, 04:57 AM

Matthias Fritz among us again ?

**tanker** · 08-24-2010, 07:24 AM

Jeff
Post like this serve no useful purpose other than fueling resentment. Please refrain the personal attack. Thanks, Ron

Originally posted by Jeff V View Post

Agreed. That piece of paper is absolutely worthless. Written in the handwriting of an 7 year old with no photographs to even prove what ring we are talking about. If that is the work of the great Don Boyle, I think one is better off learning the subject themselves than relying on a crap COA like that.
best wishes,
jeff

**Craig Gottlieb** · 08-24-2010, 09:37 AM

Although I understand what Jeff and Pieter are saying, I think we should make sure to clean our comments of emotion and invective, and instead, concentrate only on facts. Furthermore, comments like Buster's should be removed (name calling), as they do not contribute to academic discussion. Lets focus only on the following issues: why did Don say the box was bad (we can all hopefully learn from this one), why did Don say flaws were missing from the ring (again, a learning opportunity), and what does this ring do to the Frank ring's reputation. As I wrote in the prologue to my book, ring study is a continuing science, and I am open to new ideas and observations. As soon as I can get in contact with Larry, I'm going to see if I can't get the Teply box on loan for side-by-side comparison photos.

**Thorsten B.** · 08-24-2010, 11:10 AM

For sure this is going to be a cultural thread :-)

Both comparisons of the rings and especially the boxes will be fruitful - we can be glad that the Klohn ring and belonging box surfaced here from San Francisco.

Everything happens for a reason.

**james m** · 08-24-2010, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

Matthias Fritz among us again ?

Doubtful: I expect this is one of the new "Toadys" posting here. Note the post count.

Jim

**Military** · 08-24-2010, 02:29 PM

Craig,

When you talked about using laser testing to obtain the metallurgical composition, what was the specific name of the test conducted and how was the post-analysis done?

Was the 'laser test' done on one specific spot for all rings and were all rings of the same date of award?

Mil.

**John Pen.** · 08-24-2010, 02:37 PM

busterz111 ,
Please don't do that anymore.

This is a serious discussion. If you have negative things to say about Craig, please start a thread in another forum. Comments like that drive people away, if that happens here, we may never resolve the questions put forward.

Cheers,

Jp

**tanker** · 08-24-2010, 03:26 PM

Thank you Jon

You beat me to it. Ron

Originally posted by John Pen. View Post

busterz111 ,
Please don't do that anymore.

This is a serious discussion. If you have negative things to say about Craig, please start a thread in another forum. Comments like that drive people away, if that happens here, we may never resolve the questions put forward.

Cheers,

Jp

Announcement

HR and box

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread