TK honour ring - comments needed

[OU812]

Hi

I'd like you to take a look at this Totenkopf ring.

Please notice that the size of the ring at some time has been altered.

Please also notice a bit of rust or corrotion behind the skull.

I'll look forward to your comments.

Thanks !!!

[OU812]

2

[OU812]

3

[OU812]

4

[Ric Ferrari]

Hi

I'd like you to take a look at this Totenkopf ring.

Please notice that the size of the ring at some time has been altered.

Please also notice a bit of rust or corrotion behind the skull.

I'll look forward to your comments.

Thanks !!!

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=456118

Ric

[Gary Symonds]

I believe this is an original ring. It has all of the die flaws in all the proper places, inclluding the "craters' in the eye sockets.

[ChrisJ]

Late....but good

[Gaspare]

well definitely butchered up a bit. - check out 2nd photo of post #3,,is that an 08 inside top of left sig rune?

[sgstandard]

Ring

That's just in the design, I believe. You ALWAYS want to hold in hand, but from photos, looks OK.

[sgstandard]

Needs a 2nd look

Compare these 2 photos to the first 2 photos of the thread. I have photographed my ring in roughly the same position. Pay particular attention to the top border between the Sig-Rune and the Swastika Rune. Also compare the border area near 11 o'clock of the Ty-Rune. Though my ring is heavily worn in places, the border, though not perfect, has a continual flow - NOT like the ring in the thread. I guess it's possible that this is just the photograph, but I don't think so. I've included other photos to compare, as well as an above shot. A photo of the Hofman ring from directly above would be helpful. The inside engraving looks very good - I have to admit. The "re-sizing" or whatever it was, doesn't mean it's an original ring. It could be a screw-up that the person who made it desperately tried to fix. Die-flaws alone don't prove ANYTHING nowadays. I will now change my assessment from "probably good", to now "probably NOT good".

[sgstandard]

2nd Look

Other border areas to compare -

[sgstandard]

2nd Look

Last pics - My main point was to show the continual "smoothness" of the border lines. ASSUMING it's not just the photo, how does a virtually mint totenkopfring with jagged borders magically transform itself to having a SMOOTH border after heavy wear? It just doesn't work that way. Having the ring in hand could prove me wrong, but it's more likely that it would just confirm my suspicions.

[sgstandard]

Post #3 - 2nd photo - Look at the border right above the "H" in Himmler. That's all you need to see.

[sgstandard]

2nd Look

Other observations: 1. The Himmler engraving looks heavy-handed compared to other 1944 rings I've seem. I admit that the engraving is very good, but if you look closely, lines that SHOULD be continual are NOT continual. Examples: The horizontal cross-stroke in the "H" of Hofmann. The top of the "a" where they tried to connect it. The place where they "slipped", and made the "n" too long. And the shape of the number "4" that's out of proportion. Engraving on originals is VERY FINE, and done in continual strokes, not herky-jerky, and with the numbers and letters executed evenly and proportionate. One other thing I forgot to mention - The top of the circle on the Ty-Rune on the Hofmann ring looks like whomever made it, tried to stretch the design vertically so it touches the border. Compare THAT shape to the Koehl ring, where the circle is almost perfectly round, and didn't need to be stretched. There was an original ring posted by another member that shows all the things I'm talking about even better. It was the Neuber ring posted some time ago. I asked the owner to post it again here. For anyone looking to buy a 1944 era totenkopfring, and you're not completely sure what it should look like, just study the Neuber ring in detail. Wasn't that easy? Could the Hofmann ring be original? Of course - but you just have to ask yourself why it doesn't look like the other 2 originals?

[JR.]

The ring is of the 3rd Reich period, and obvious at that.