SS Honour Ring Construction method

[Macca47]

Being a rainy afternoon here in Sydney I have just spent an hour or two on
a 50 page thread from (I think) 2008 about the Frank SS Honour Ring. I was mainly interested in how the ring was made.
In the end the thread provided more heat than light and I am still unsure of the Third Reich method of making these rings. Opinions seem divided between the ring being cast in the round using the lost wax method and being die stamped from flat bar then bent around a mandrel.
There was, in fact, an excellent set of photographs showing a replica Honour Ring made using the latter method. However, because a person making replicas in the 21st Century uses a particular method, it doesn't follow that was the method used in the Third Reich. Research on the web and talking to my local jeweller seems to indicate that mass produced rings are mainly made using the lost wax method. Has the construction method for these rings been resolved yet?

[N.C. Wyeth]

Research on the web and talking to my local jeweller seems to indicate that mass produced rings are mainly made using the lost wax method.

I am by no means an expert on these things (honestly, I would NEVER consider owning one after all the recent controversy . . . of course, that may discredit my opinion slightly), and have always subscribed to the thought that the TK was not intended to be a mass produced ring . . .

[phild]

Most every high end type of item in collecting has been the subject of as much or more contrversy as the HR. They are pretty tame compared to what was going on around RKs until the last few years once science and excellent research/publishing has cleared a lot of the smoke out of the way.

I don't know how they were made. I have at one time or the other leaned toward each method. There was a debate that raged for 40 years between the top experts in the world on whether G (K) 43 receivers were cast or forged. After cuting one in half and subjecting it to testing it was proven that they were in fact forged.

Either way the HRs were hand finished and detailed and reardless of if the die (or mold) used was for casting or striking, it was a master standard die.
If cast, the size was made by cutting off each end and then re-shaping would have had to occured....as it would if struck. With either process the forms (dies or molds) would have worn over time and not every ring would be 100% the same even one after the other as not all castings or strikes are 100% equal........

[Macca47]

SS Honour ring construction method

I am by no means an expert on these things (honestly, I would NEVER consider owning one after all the recent controversy . . . of course, that may discredit my opinion slightly), and have always subscribed to the thought that the TK was not intended to be a mass produced ring . . .

Thanks for your reply. I believe there were between 15,000 and 20,000
Honour Rings made, so that would make them a mass produced item. Either construction method are methods used to mass produce objects the alternate construction method, hand made, would be a nightmare for collectors, since there would be such a wide variance in the finished ring, it would be almost impossible
to be sure that a wel made replica was not the real thing.

[Macca47]

SS Honour ring construction method

Most every high end type of item in collecting has been the subject of as much or more contrversy as the HR. They are pretty tame compared to what was going on around RKs until the last few years once science and excellent research/publishing has cleared a lot of the smoke out of the way.

I don't know how they were made. I have at one time or the other leaned toward each method. There was a debate that raged for 40 years between the top experts in the world on whether G (K) 43 receivers were cast or forged. After cuting one in half and subjecting it to testing it was proven that they were in fact forged.

Either way the HRs were hand finished and detailed and reardless of if the die (or mold) used was for casting or striking, it was a master standard die.
If cast, the size was made by cutting off each end and then re-shaping would have had to occured....as it would if struck. With either process the forms (dies or molds) would have worn over time and not every ring would be 100% the same even one after the other as not all castings or strikes are 100% equal........

Thanks for your reply. You are right about controversy in regard to Third Reich
memorabilia. Some of the most heated threads I have followed concern the Anti Partisan Badge and that is hardly a high end award. I have no real interest in the ring itself, Himmler's idea of honour and my idea of honour do not in any way coincide. My main area of interest is construction methods and materials used in Combat Badges and medals and anything that can add to my knowledge is useful. What does surprise me is that 1. The artifact was made over a reasonable period of time and has had a great deal of research done on it and yet over 65 years after the war finished, no definitive answer on how it was made exists. 2. Why it has not been possible for someone like an expert jeweller to exam a genuine ring and determine construction method. Presumably the very obvious differences that exist between die struck and cast combat badges, are not present on silver rings.
I guess its back to further research.

[phild]

You raise a lot of good points and good questions. I started to point out the comparison with German badges/medals in my first post. I feel like the rings could have been easily struck in the numbers and time range made....I see little advantage in casting for that advantage.

The rings were to some degree hand made from the standpoint that they were detailed, sized, joined, engraved, skull attached and finished......but so were EKs for many of those processes.

One thing that I tend to believe is that a struck ring blank would be more suitable to be bent than a cast one.....this is very true with other metals, but I am no expert and perhaps silver is different in that respect.

[Robin Lumsden]

............. a rainy afternoon here in Sydney .....

Raining ???

In SYDNEY ???

[Military]

Robin, you made me laugh too much.

[Gaspare]

The HR is a mass produced ring. And back then lost wax was not the method for mass production. Dies were use for mass production. I own period dies for rings and a master is cut and a working die were made from it. The HR is no different.

[james m]

The HR is a mass produced ring. And back then lost wax was not the method for mass production. Dies were use for mass production. I own period dies for rings and a master is cut and a working die were made from it. The HR is no different.

I found and posted written documentation to support the die method when that thread was originally created. Additionaly, I spoke directly to a jeweler and author who is familiar with jewelry construction during the 3rd Reich and he maintains dies were used as well for ring construction of any volume. Gaspare's assertion inre. to die use for TK rings is 100% correct. There are technical reasons that show dies were used but I don't intend to re-hash that again.
Jim

[Macca47]

Ss

[
One thing that I tend to believe is that a struck ring blank would be more suitable to be bent than a cast one.....this is very true with other metals, but I am no expert and perhaps silver is different in that respect.[/QUOTE]

I can see advantages in die striking such as making the engraving on the inside of the ring easier ... and yet most modern jewellery and in fact jewellery back into antiquity was made using the lost wax method. The fact that the skull on the ring was a seperate piece that was soldered to the band leads me to think that the rings were die struck. A ring made using the lost wax method could easily have incorporated the skull into the design
resulting in the ring being one piece. However, a cast ring could be made in the round which would reduce the amount of labour needed in the ring.
Two other members have made comment that the ring was definitely die struck and it is to these members I should now like to address further questions.

[Macca47]

SS Honour ring construction method

I found and posted written documentation to support the die method when that thread was originally created. Additionaly, I spoke directly to a jeweler and author who is familiar with jewelry construction during the 3rd Reich and he maintains dies were used as well for ring construction of any volume. Gaspare's assertion inre. to die use for TK rings is 100% correct. There are technical reasons that show dies were used but I don't intend to re-hash that again.
Jim

Jim, I came upon the original thread by accident and am now unable to find it again.
Can you remember the threads title? I should be most interested to re-read your comments. The only comment I can recall about documentation was a remark that the poster had spoken to an old jeweller who had worked on the Honour Ring.

John

[Macca47]

The HR is a mass produced ring. And back then lost wax was not the method for mass production. Dies were use for mass production. I own period dies for rings and a master is cut and a working die were made from it. The HR is no different.

Gaspare. I spent an hour typing a series of questions on the ring construction since you appear to be knowledgeable on the subject. Unfortunately when I hit "Preview Post" the whole thing disappeared into who knows where. I do not have the time to redo it today but will tomorrow.
I am posting this so you do not think I am ignoring your comment.

[james m]

Jim, I came upon the original thread by accident and am now unable to find it again.
Can you remember the threads title? I should be most interested to re-read your comments. The only comment I can recall about documentation was a remark that the poster had spoken to an old jeweller who had worked on the Honour Ring.

John

Here's a link to one thread on controversial TK rings. I really don't care to revisit this subject as it has caused a lot of problems and the loss of friendships for many of us.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...353133&page=50

Read it and draw your own conclusions. I haven't attended a major German militaria show since this unfortunate occurence and I don't know if I'll ever attend one again. The cameraderie that once existed in this hobby is IMO gone.
Jim

[Gaspare]

I'd say not die struck but die cast or die pressed.. Yes investment cast has been around a long time but has shortcomings for rings produced during this period. For a commercially made, mass produced for retail rings investment cast wasn't the best option back then. The HR is no different than a WestWall ring, a Totenkopf ring, divisional/unit ring etc. they were 99% made with working dies.

Your comment of 'would be more suitable to be bent than a cast one' is 100%correct and just one of many 'cons' when the subject is discussed. Quickness, ease, uniformity, etc. are also all against the HR being investment cast. You can start getting into microcrystalline structure, density etc. but simply when I asked a few of the older guys that were around and involved [manufacturer, retailers] with jewelry during the war they all said investment cast wasn't the way to go and all the 100s of military themed rings they made or shipped or sold were from a die of some sorts..

If your interested in 3rd reich rings and jewelry I can offer the following sites.


In English:

http://forum.germandaggers.com/ubbth...oard=38&page=1

http://worldwarmilitaria.com/forum/f...splay.php?f=65

In German:

http://www.militaria-fundforum.de/forumdisplay.php?f=85

http://www.militaria-sammlergemeinsc...play.php?f=389

In Russian:

http://sammler.ru/index.php?showforum=194

http://forum.blockhaus.ru/index.php?showforum=167


Jimbo,"The cameraderie that once existed in this hobby is IMO gone" yeah to a degree it is,,but we still have a spot for you at the bar when you come back bro..,G.