HR and box

[james m]

Quote
"The HR was not investment cast just this factor alone dispels this misinformation. It was not die struck either. Those that know say they were die cast,,,anyway we're getting ahead "

If by "die struck" you are referring to the method Hapur demonstrated on this forum as well as GDC I agree Gaspare that your statement is correct. The die striking method he demonstrates creates a nice sharp looking copy but the surface is unlike any period TK ring I've seen and this has been confirmed by others.
Perhaps at some time someone will accurately describe the procedure believed actually used by the Gahr's from end to end.
Jim

[Ric Ferrari]

I am curious why everyone gets spooked by totenkopfrings, when virtually every high priced Third reich item is reproduced, and in some cases, quite well. I STILL contend that if you post a decent original TK ring that hasn't been altered, on the forum, that most experts will agree that the ring is original. I hate to reiterate, but ever notice when heavyweights like John Pepera post their beauties? Do you ever see the turmoil that surrounds some rings? NO !!It's been at least a couple days now, and there is STILL no one coming forward with a questionable ring they got from Mr. Boyle. Since Don is apparently the devil incarnate, SOMEONE should be able to produce a ring he sold that is questionable. Still waiting.....................

I sincerely doubt it will happen

Ric

[Boru]

OK. Mr. Boyle's COA mentions two missing die flaws. Mr. Gottlieb has posted images of die flaws present on one of the rune panels.

Was Mr. Boyle referring to that specific rune panel and associate flaws? Or was he referring to other flaws he may use (and keep to himself) to authenticate. Are there not multiple die flaws (or casting flaws) per ring?

I love these rings. But I'll stick to simple stuff like SS cloth for now!

And P.S: wouldn't an Xray easily determine if the silver was die-struck or cast? I am sure there are tests that can reveal internal metal structures. I do not know if they are non destructive or not.

The standard "slice & dice" mounted and polished would reveal
whether the structure is cast or wrought.Unfortunately destructive but would silence "Mr Expert" once and for all.
JMO
Boru.:

[sgstandard]

Rings

I admit I do NOT know the difference between "die-cast", and "die-struck" that Gaspare mentions. Maybe he will explain. Regardless, are we on board that they were NOT made using LOST-WAX INVESTMENT CASTING, as Mr. Gottlieb insists?

[sgstandard]

Rings

Since the "FRANK" ring is obviously authentic, and beyond reproach, let's cut THAT ONE in half and find out how Totenkopfrings were REALLY made!! And while we're at it, we could cut a RING BOX in half so they all match. This, then, would be the Totenkopfring by which ALL OTHERS would be judged. COA of porosity included.

[Seiler]

I admit I do NOT know the difference between "die-cast", and "die-struck" that Gaspare mentions. Maybe he will explain. Regardless, are we on board that they were NOT made using LOST-WAX INVESTMENT CASTING, as Mr. Gottlieb insists?

Affirmative.
Seiler.

[blackdagger]

I don't think silver would be a suitable material for die casting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_casting

Badges were made this way, as they were made from zinc.

I still say they were die struck, and hand assembled and finished.

[sgstandard]

Rings

I agree. My assertion all along was that totenkopfrings were manufactured by being "stamped" out, or whatever that is called.

[sgstandard]

Rings

I guess that is called "die-struck".

[Bob Hritz]

Most any metal can be die forged: gold, silver, iron, or zinc. This method was used for a myriad of badges. Aluminum presents a problem and must be mold injected (die cast) because it will oxidize in the environment, when brought to a molten state.


All die forged means is that the metal is heated to a plastic state prior to being forced into the die. The softened (not molten) metal better fills the die with less pressure and less chance of being defective, when the item is rather thick, like a badge.


Bob Hritz

[sgstandard]

Ring

Mr Hritz - So Die-forged, die-cast, and die-struck are all different? Is your assertion that they were die-forged, then, and NOT "struck"? Thanks

[Bob Hritz]

Having not held an honor ring in years, I cannot say. However, from the work done by Gahr's shop, they did die casting and die forging. The DE poletops were die cast and the boxes were probably hand hammered with steel template letters and devices, on the reverse of the sheet brass. I haven't seen any die struck pieces, by Gahr, in my hand. I haven't had the opportunity to examine, in hand, a Gahr produced SS civil wear stickpin to see if it is forged or struck.

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.

Die striking is when a FLAT sheet of stock metal is struck by a heavy die press, forcing the sheet metal into the die. It may use cut to shape planchetts or it may just strike pieces on a sheet which are cut later. Coins and hollowback badges and pins (tinnies) are commonly die struck.

Investment casting (AKA lost wax casting) has been around for many hundreds, if not thousands of years. Today, it is the most common form of cheap jewelry making. Do a search for investment casting patterns and you will find many thousands of wax models that can be used in the investment material. That method is simple: you take the wax model and attach a sprue (another long piece of wax from which to hang it in the investment material). You mix the investment material into a crucible (disposable), you then stick the wax model into the investment material, leaving the end of the sprue exposed. The entire crucible should then be placed in a vacum chamber to remove any air bubbles from the investment material or stuck to the wax model. When the investment material is dry, you place the crucible into a furnace, upside-down, and melt out (burn away) all the was, which runs out through the hole left by the sprue. Once the wax is gone, you proceed to pour your silver into the sprue hole to fill the mold. The silver has replaced the 'LOST WAX' and you have a perfect copy, although slightly smaller from the shrinkage of of silver as it cools. You must make your wax model slightly larger (5 to 9%, depending on the silver alloy) to get a casting of the correct measurements. It is a simple process and has been used for years. I have seen demonstrations, using antique casting equipment, where a piece of wet leather was pressed over the sprue hole, after the silver was poured. The steam created, on the hot investment material, drove the silver down into the casting cavity to better fill the cavity. Once the mold has cooled, the investment material is broken away (it is brittle after the heating) and "voila' out comes the object of the casting. A little pickling, polishing and burnishing, and a thing of beauty is finished.

You can get a fine furnace, and casting material for a few thousand dollars.


Bob Hritz

[PAB_Collector]

I do not believe in Craig's theory (which he is trying to spread like the gospel by his very own hand) for a number of simply technical reasons.

Firstly, the process of die-casting creates a very dense end product, which is better suited for rings that are going to be engraved. Obviously this is an important factor given all rings were supposed to be "named".

Secondly, die-casting produces a much stronger, less porous, more durable product. "Gottlieb casting" produces a more porous product, that will wear down at a faster rate.


Thirdly, the die-cast process is more economical and cost effective method for an item like the HR. "Gottlieb Casting" was/is a very complex, time consuming, and expensive endeavor when producing a quality product. Using "Gottlieb Casting" just seems like such an illogical choice for production given these points, especially during wartime. If someone was ordering a one of private purchase piece of jewelery with complex deigns or settings, I could accept the argument for "Gottlieb Casting", but for HR's, no way.

Lastly, parts of the die cast process from many forms of rings and military insignia survived the war in Germany, as well as photographic evidence of the aforementioned process. Die casting was a known and practiced method of manufacture for pieces like the HR.

Not taking into account the other demonstrations, testimonials, and evidence produced, I do not understand how one could believe in "Gottlieb Casting".

[Bob Hritz]

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

[james m]

PAB,Bob,Sgstandard: etal

You are all really preaching to the choir here and it is well understood by the vast majority of the collecting community why the "theory" that Gahr cast TK rings in rubber molds(investment casting) is ludicrious. We have gone over and over the relevant points as to why this is the case but as with the "Flat Earth" adherents no actual facts will impact their "beliefs" in any way.
I'd suggest just dropping this discussion as there really isn't much more that's relavent this is likely to be added.
Jim