Himmler hr 'upside down' skull

[historyguy]

Really? I need a new job then with my $70 camera !

That is some very nice photography!

[inimicus]

ring's now on the 'stand. of course buyer gets boyle's analysis and coa.

[sgstandard]

Ring

THORSTEN - "I told you this ring is good." The photos posted by Mr. Fish are of a different ring. I have zero doubts the last ring was posted is original. All my comments were directed towards the ring that started the thread. It's probably good as well, but the photos are VERY limited. You've GOT to see ALL the inside engraving.

[sgstandard]

Ring

Here's the problem. A ring is posted, with an invitation for comment. When the comments are received, we're told that it was analyzed by Mr. Boyle, but no mention of what the comments were. Why are they a secret? Was Mr. Boyle just being secretive when he didn't identify the Peichl ring when I asked him about it? Perhaps. I've known Don for quite a few years, and although I never doubted his expertise, his answers were often ambiguous. He has seemed hesitant to divulge information for whatever reason, and he even mentioned that once to me. But why you would be secretive when discussing the Peichl ring with a collector friend? I have no idea. I couldn't care less whether a ring posted is original or not. Totenkopfring engraving is difficult to photograph well, and often difficult to analyze. The 2nd ring posted gets a free Forum COA to go along with any other COAs it may haveProfessional photos like just posted make it possible to analyze a ring from photos, IMO. But trying to evaluate originality with a limited number of less than professional photos is not prudent.

[Thorsten B.]

I am refering to my comment 9 and therefore to the ring of inimicus.

[inimicus]

hello again, 'standard.


'secret'? hardly. go look at the advert. I'd already posted a pic of the c.o.a. with the full text of boyle's evaluation for all to see - with boyle's blessing. (he certainly never asked me to keep mum. I mean, why would he?)

the operative, and to me, really the only useful phrase of your latest post is this one concerning boyle, '... I never doubted his expertise....' in this you speak for the vast majority.

that you apparently admire boyle, yet don't consider him entirely up front is, indeed, your 'problem.' no one on or off this or other forums appear to share your view. instead, what I find everywhere is praise and respect.

now, you've falsely accused me of keeping things 'secret,' (in league with boyle?) which goes to my integrity. I don't appreciate that to say the least.

very well. I think it's past time we all knew - as you've written at fulsome (even tiresome) length about this and other rings, and voice faint suspicions of boyle - exactly what is your expertise and experience? if it's even remotely the equal of his, I think we're unaware of it. kindly cue us in.

I'll just conclude by saying as unambiguously as possible: for me the matter of THIS ring is settled.

and because my thread has become speculative, tortured, insulting and pedantic, I think the mod should consider closing it.

it's been interesting, but then that's the word I use for scallops; and I'm allergic to them.

david walsh

Here's the problem. A ring is posted, with an invitation for comment. When the comments are received, we're told that it was analyzed by Mr. Boyle, but no mention of what the comments were. Why are they a secret? Was Mr. Boyle just being secretive when he didn't identify the Peichl ring when I asked him about it? Perhaps. I've known Don for quite a few years, and although I never doubted his expertise, his answers were often ambiguous. He has seemed hesitant to divulge information for whatever reason, and he even mentioned that once to me. But why you would be secretive when discussing the Peichl ring with a collector friend? I have no idea. I couldn't care less whether a ring posted is original or not. Totenkopfring engraving is difficult to photograph well, and often difficult to analyze. The 2nd ring posted gets a free Forum COA to go along with any other COAs it may haveProfessional photos like just posted make it possible to analyze a ring from photos, IMO. But trying to evaluate originality with a limited number of less than professional photos is not prudent.

[sgstandard]

Ring

I have examined the entire thread and can't find the part where Don Boyle gives his analysis on the initial ring posted. What number post is it?

[inimicus]

you needn't have read the entire thread, 'standard, endlessly fascinating tho it must be.

b/c is it isn't there.

the clue is in the word 'A D V E R T ' in the opening line of my last post - as in 'advertisement.' see, the ring is for sale on the estand. I thought you might've figured this out.

to quote me to me:

"secret'? hardly. go look at the advert. I'd already posted a pic of the c.o.a. with the full text of boyle's evaluation for all to see - with boyle's blessing. (he certainly never asked me to keep mum. I mean, why would he?)"

suggest you visit the ad/advert/advertisement:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=580241

I have examined the entire thread and can't find the part where Don Boyle gives his analysis on the initial ring posted. What number post is it?

[sgstandard]

Ring

The idea that I don't like Don Boyle for some reason and want to smear him is ridiculous because I NEVER, EVER criticized him in the past. But if you offer Don's COA as proof of authenticity, it's only fair to question his Peichl assessment as well. The only conclusion I can draw from his Peichl ring assessment is that he was either wrong, or he didn't want to tell me, or he never looked at it. None of those choices really worked out, so here we are. I can't really accuse him of being dishonest, because he really didn't say much of anything. "Oh, that's one of Peichl's rings", or, "Hey - that looks like the rings Peichl used to make", OR "It's a Peichl - no doubt about THAT!" are some examples of what one might expect in such a circumstance. Remember - I only gave you the facts about what transpired - and it's up to you to evaluate the information. Keep in mind that it's not just me - there are others that aren't completely on board. No one's said it's fake, they just want more info - like more pics of the inside. (And I never did find Boyle's detailed analysis of the ring on this thread.)

[sgstandard]

Ring

I thought you meant the original thread - didn't know it was on E-stand. I have absolutely no problems with the ring at all. The "re-sized" area looks MUCH better on these pics for some reason, and doesn't look as sloopy as the other photo. Re-sized, She-sized, doesn't matter as long as the ring is good, which I now proclaim it to be, IMHO. I never said the ring wasn't a good one, I just wanted more photos to solidify my usual brilliant analysis

[inimicus]

thanks for that, 'standard. good hunting, david

[sgstandard]

Ring

Despite my claim of not caring whether a ring is original or no, it isn't entirely true. My point was that I didn't have a dog in the fight. I'm HAPPY when I can look at a ring, and see immediately that I like it, which was what happened when I saw the last photos. A picture is worth MORE than a thousand words. PS: This is why I generally don't like to see threads closed due to arguments. I don't pretend to be the "last word", but it's helpful to the parties directly involved and others, if nay-sayers such as myself are on board .

[inimicus]

Noted with approval. Good weekend all, david

[slayer]

Does the skull being on upside down hurt the re-sale value much ?

[inimicus]

'Does the skull being on upside down hurt the re-sale value much ?'



apparently not really, given the other things going on for the ring: RARE date (less than 10 known), excellent condition and super details esp. for a '30s type.