Himmler hr 'upside down' skull

[inimicus]

most interesting' dolch; thanks much for that! here's the said foto from vad vashem. uniform looks to be from the 1930-32 period I'm guessing. note softt-top kepi, the early 'old fighters' ' windbreaker jacket and alternating black-white collar piping. also note the '1' on the right 'tab for munich.

http://collections.yadvashem.org/pho...s/7460821.html

and another

http://collections.yadvashem.org/pho...n-us/9206.html

and from axis history forum:

'Patzwall’s “Das Ehrenzeichen vom 9.November 1923” lists Wilhelm Reischenbeck as Blood Order winner #578 (SA-Regiment München, 5.Kompanie). He isn’t listed in the book’s index, only Ewald Reischenbeck (Blood Order winner #215).'

[inimicus]

Thanks further to this, 'dolch and ric. Pix from my pro photog friend ready early next week.....

[Craig Gottlieb]

Ring appears good, but to be 100% sure, one would have to have it in-hand.

[inimicus]

thank you. let me know when you get back to d.c.

[Wagriff]

Vady/inimucus, Unfortunately, authenticating an Honor Ring is not as simple as one person or 2 looking at it like a badge and saying "good or not good". When dealing with a 10K plus item that is extremely easily faked, things are quite different.
Your ring has a number of serious flags to it ad I'll list them below so that you can atually Ask Craig Gottleib about them specifically when you see him.

First, the Green Flags, of which this rings does have some:
1.The design is genuine and as it should be

2.The skull is applied separately

3.The engraving font and wording appear to be correct

Yellow Flags are:
1.The engraving is upside down-this is not Entirely unheard of, but is Extremely uncommon and difficult to explain

2.The Seam is off-center and to the obvious left of where it should be. These rings were made in sized molds and flat strip produced, and then wrapped around a cylinder to make the ring shape and soldered. Just How a seam could be off centered, I do not know. Being made as they were, it's hard to visualize how one "end of the strip" could be longer than the other, to result in an offset seam, but I am including it in the yellow flags, as there may Possible be a explanation for it.

3. Your research seems to indicate that this ring belonged to a man who served in Auschwitz and subsequently served time as a war criminal. It would, naturally, be simple to manufacture a ring with a real researched name in it, but to have a notorious one is always suspect.

The Red Flags, being the more serious, of course, are:

1.The Unusual Wear to the Inside The engraving is quite weak and the surface of the inside of the band is rough, where as it should be mirror smooth. When worn on a finger long enough to produce wear to the engraving itself, it should not be possible to make such crude and roughness to the band itself inside. If anything, it should be even smoother.

2.The Wear on the Outside of the band is not possible from normal wear. The 9 o clock and 3 o clock runes show virtually No wear. From contact with the fingers 24/7 on either side, these 2 runes are generally the first to show wear to the soft silver, but on This ring, the only rune to show wear is the 6 o clock rune which faces the palm of the hand. This particular rune on most rings shows contact marks from holding or grasping things, but does not come into contact long enough to cause Wear, but Your ring shows no damage but wear to it. In fact, it is the only significant wear anywhere on this ring, unless you take into account the odd Inside wear to the band. Which is the next Red Flag.

3.The Inside of the ring shows roughness and heavy wear. The Engraving is weak and the ring band Surface shows roughness. These rings all have a mirror-like finish appearance to the insides of them, and when worn for any length of time, the shininess is actually increased. Your ring, on the other hand, is rough and the engraving is looking weak. From the rest of the ring alone, this should not be possible. Look at the other rings-ones with wear-on Gottleib's site. None of them exhibit any resemblance to your rings condition.

On a whole, I would have to conclude that this ring is Not genuine but has been artificially aged. I have handled these rings for over 40 years and have owned 3 of them. There definitely seems to be something quite suspicious about this ring and the way that it has been presented both here and on the WRF forum as well.

William A. Griffith

[JR.]

A very through analysis.

[inimicus]

william - thanks a lot for writing again and for your points of view.

1. not to demean your ownership of 3 rings in any way, but gottlieb - the same dealer-cum-author whose site you mentioned and which I've of course visited - has examined, owned or sold some 200.

2. fellow members thorsten, rbt. hassler and dr. dolch among others, with no mean familiarity with these rings among them, appear to agree with gottlieb that it certainly appears real. two exclamation marks attacked to their comments, underscoring a positive belief in its genuineness. these to me are votes of confidence. of course their views are, must be provisional in the absence of a personal examination.

3. I hope to send pix to boyle for his analysis, if not meet with him face-to-face. (btw anyone have
don's contact info? thanks.)

4. beyond questioning this object's authenticity, which is well and good, explain exactly what you mean by this fragment of your concluding sentence, i.e., 'There definitely seems to be something quite suspicious about ... the way that it has been presented both here and on the WRF forum as well. just what are you saying here?

[inimicus]

yes!! but is it ...correct?

A very through analysis.

[inimicus]

'two exclamation marks attacked to their comments.' oops I'd meant 'attached'- sorry.....

[Wagriff]

ring

"Ring appears good, but to be 100% sure, one would have to have it in-hand. "

Where is it in this statement that he is giving it his approval? Am I missing something here? He said it Appears good but that he would need to See it and Physically examine it. I'll say it again-the wear patterns on this ring are Not looking authentic and I'd very much like to hear an explanation on All of the points that I am questioning rather than an indignant denial.

William A. Griffith

[DR DOLCH]

The inscriptuin is not upside down only the skull is.The reason the joint line is off center is because when it was resized it shifted and the skull placed on upside down. I just don't see Gahr making the mistake at the factory placing the skull upside down.It would be like Rolex putting their trademark crown upside down on one of their watches.I would have Don Boyle certify it before I bought it,with a written COA or it will be hard to sell without it. The thin inscription on the inside of the ring was the trate I was talking about in my first post.I like it.But again you need a known expert to certify it.

[Wagriff]

4. beyond questioning this object's authenticity, which is well and good, explain exactly what you mean by this fragment of your concluding sentence, i.e., 'There definitely seems to be something quite suspicious about ... the way that it has been presented both here and on the WRF forum as well. just what are you saying here?[/QUOTE]

What I am referring to is that you vetted this ring on the WRF and as soon as you began to pick up questioning and contrary opinions on it, you Immediately closed and locked the thread and left. As far as other members here "appear to agree with gottlieb that it certainly appears real", be that as it may, the word Appears is the key word here. Aside from a single person making a quick one line statement of "good pic-ring is good" statement, I am seeing no one else here who is saying "Yes, this ring is absolutely genuine and conforms completely to the known criteria for Honor Rings" and, frankly, I don't expect to see such. Semi-encouraging statements are not, by any means, an authentication of a very difficult and complicated subject and you should not immediately jump on them and wave them about as such.
And, yes-I have owned 3 genuine pieces over the years but I have Also handled Many many more examples also-both genuine and fake. I've been in this field for well over 4 decades, so please do not "demean" by saying something innocuous like "Not to demean,But...". Authenticating an Honor Ring, as I said, cannot be done by a cursory glance at a photo and neither myself or Craig Gottleib or Don Boyle himself can do so. So, until one of these authorities can actually handle and thoroughly examine this ring in person and can answer satisfactorily the flags I've pointed attention to, I will have to stand by my earlier opinion that this ring is an aged fake with an intentionally notorious name added to increase value. I very much would love to be shown that I am wrong here and that a historic ring has been found from the woodwork, but will wait for the aforesaid authorities to pronounce it such.
William A. Griffith

[Wagriff]

The inscriptuin is not upside down only the skull is.The reason the joint line is off center is because when it was resized it shifted and the skull placed on upside down. I just don't see Gahr making the mistake at the factory placing the skull upside down.It would be like Rolex putting their trademark crown upside down on one of their watches.I would have Don Boyle certify it before I bought it,with a written COA or it will be hard to sell without it. The thin inscription on the inside of the ring was the trate I was talking about in my first post.I like it.But again you need a known expert to certify it.

Exactly my point, Dr Dolch. This ring needs to be examined in hand by an authority before a blanket authentication statement can be made.

A quick question, though, as you seem to know about the manufacturing process-would the resizing of a ring actually result in this misaligning of the seam? The rune placements are exactly as they should be and I see no added areas on the band in the design and elsewhere. Like I said, this is not a major red flag, of course, and as such, I only placed it in the yellows, but it would be interesting to know the process! Thanks for your reply! William A. Griffith

[inimicus]

thanks, william, for writing once more.

a few points and comments -

-besides the thread responses I have private emails touching on this subject. nothing conclusive, but I won't share those unless told I can.

-that the ring really needs a personal look-see is old news. of course it does (again, I'd like don boyle's current phone and email if you or another colleague can help with those; or alternately contact him and ask him to reach me. thanks....)

-the ring might be utter crap just as you suspect. losing $ isn't fun but hey that's life.

-I'm not 'denying' your assertions about the ring - don't know enuf. which is why I'd requested assistance. questioning things is what is done here. this is a discussion thread. I loaded pix and asked for and continue to welcome opinions from all sides. all quite customary.

-the indignation involves what looks 'suspiciously' like imputations of dishonesty. kindly say just what's 'suspicious,' not about the ring (about which you've written interestingly and at fulsome length) but about my 'presentation'? are you saying that PLACING FOR DISCUSSION what you deem a forgery is somehow suspicious? if so, how?

-I value my integrity a lot. if you have something to state about my motives or anything at all 'suspicious' about me or my character, better spell it out, clear the air - which at the moment reeks.



dw

[inimicus]

thanks 'dolch -

thought you were a bit more on the 'yea' side. re the 180 degree TK, right you are seems sloppy tho as mentioned gottlieb - not that his word is gospel - says
he's encountered this a few times, still it remains an excellent point.

yes I'd love boyle to see it. how do I contact him? what's he charge? at the end of the day having that COA is pretty clearly the best thing. glad you like the inscription. david

The inscriptuin is not upside down only the skull is.The reason the joint line is off center is because when it was resized it shifted and the skull placed on upside down. I just don't see Gahr making the mistake at the factory placing the skull upside down.It would be like Rolex putting their trademark crown upside down on one of their watches.I would have Don Boyle certify it before I bought it,with a written COA or it will be hard to sell without it. The thin inscription on the inside of the ring was the trate I was talking about in my first post.I like it.But again you need a known expert to certify it.