HR and box

[JR.]

7

[Craig Gottlieb]

My apologies - quite by accident,I posted a box study on the OTHER ring thread. Hopefully, a moderator can catch it, move the posts overhere, and delete this post. Thanks in advance.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Nice to see pictures of the FRANK ring again. To move back to the box pictures for a moment, please have a look folks. It's all I can do for now, until I get the Teply box in my hands to shoot more comparative photos. But you can obviously see that the box Larry Lipps personally vet acquired, and my box (the one that surfaced in private hands, here on the forum) are identical.

[Avrelio]

JR, your Frank Honor ring is outstanding and in my opinion its not missing any detail found on originals!

[John Pen.]

Great photos of the Frank ring. That is a beauty!
(pre 45 or not, I'm no expert, I'm just going by aesthetics as shown by photos)

Is it possible to see photos of the inside inscriptions?

Jp
P.s. thanks Craig for the box photos. I wouldn't exactly say they are identical, but they seem (from photos) to be both original pre 45 manufacture made by the same company...... in other words, they are "identical enough".

[Thorsten B.]

No doubt that the Klohn box is original.

[Craig Gottlieb]

John: Point well taken. I suppose the more accurate thing to say is that they share the same characteristics indicative of original pre-1945 manufacture. Or, in plain-speak, they're as identical as any cheap cardboard box can be!

[John Pen.]

............ Or, in plain-speak, they're as identical as any cheap cardboard box can be!

cheap AND hand-assembled.

Jp

[Craig Gottlieb]

That is correct, John. Hand made. In my study of ring boxes, I've come to the additional conclusion that they were probably made by the same company - all styles. No matter what type of box you look at, they all share physical similarities and construction techniques. Why did they make so many styles? Probably because there was a war going on.

Under normal circumstances, I would not fault Don for making a mistake on the box, as he never claimed to be a box expert, and doesn't even study them very intensively in his book. However, where my tolerance does end, is when the papering of the Klohn box as "a poor quality reproduction" is on the same certificate where he judges a perfectly textbook ring to be "missing the flaws" - a set he was trying to buy. I simply don't see any micro-details missing. Again, to give Don the benefit of the doubt, I ask, what flaws is he talking about? Although the seller claimed Don specifically stated that it was the main flaw under the double-rune, I would be open to hearing Don's side of the story. We could use the Klohn ring (the only 40s style ring I have here at the moment) as the baseline for some excellent comparative photos.

I also think it might be prudent to revisit the Frank ring, an artifact that Don decided was suspect, after he failed to purchase it. I have always been a proponent of it being original. I'd be in favor of beginning a new, well-moderated thread on the Frank ring, with all parties remaining civil, and only top-quality photos (better even than JR's excellent photos), to study. The "old" Frank thread got so polluted and long, that it lost its utility as a research tool. I would be happy to volunteer my photographer for the job of taking the photos.

[Pieter Verbruggen]

...how far are we now...


is the original ring...original
or
is the orininal ring...fake?

Pieter.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Pieter: Good question. Review:

1. Original box is original.
2. Original Klohn ring is original.
3. The answer to life, the universe, and everything: 42.

[Robert H]

"No matter what type of box you look at, they all share physical similarities and construction techniques. Why did they make so many styles? Probably because there was a war going on."

For my view I see minor differences even when you say "all share physical similarities and construction techniques". So does this mean they are similar or not? Construction will probably always be the same, physical similarities I call this as very wage for differences in shape,pattern are possible.

I cannot say for sure there are different boxes out, I also would not call it a problem to get a nice copy done as the constructions is really not to hard to copy. Not sure if a war would change the style of a box or the normal used pattern for a box.

For the question how far are now, I would say not much further.

[Craig Gottlieb]

What I meant was that all 5 box variations I have studied use enough of the same materials and construction techniques to make it likely that they were all made by the same company, but probably at different times during the ring production period, which lasted about 10 years. That is, all of the boxes used the same cardboard, plus the same assembly. Sort of like a school child using a box of art supplies to make several "boxes" - all are slightly different because they are made by hand and not by a machine, but enough is the same about them to see that the same kid made them from the same box of stuff. These observations of mine come after owning perhaps 10 boxes. As an aside, I would qualify the Teply and the Klohn box to be of the same box type.

[Avrelio]

I belive the box is original ( Klohn ) but i do have one question, how come the SS markings are not iqualy deep? I am surten that they where all made in the same manner, so they shud be the same!?

[Craig Gottlieb]

The 4 striped boxes I have examined all had different degrees of "stamp depth" if you want to call it that. I attribute it to the pressure used by the person embossing it. If the guy making the boxes hit the stamp too hard, it would cut the cardboard. Too light, and it wouldn't transfer the design.