TK Ring Microanalysys

[Antonio Scapini]

I was asked various times to explain how I work on TK rings, and since only few friends know it, I decided to show here what I developed. Sorry only to not say the "definitive proof", because I don't want fakers read it.

In these years I was lucky enough to handle tens and tens of TK rings.
Since I was not satisfied from the "normal analysys" based on die flaws, 2 pieces construction and type of engraving, I tried to develope another way to study these rings based on the microanalysys.
I tried also with metallurgical tests, but they didn’t work as a definitive proof because the % of different metals was very variable also in original rings (from '30 to '40 style rings I saw a difference also of 3-4% that is really too much).

I also tried to copy these rings in various ways, and most of the so called "important" things are reproducible, including the seam line or the type of engraving (but we all already know this).
I was assisted by a jeweller, and I have to say that cast copies with resoldered skull and restored engraving are among the best results.
Other attempts reached high results too.
BUT they always miss something.

Below a comparison of the seam area behind the skull made with originals and fakes. Sometimes it is impossible to distinguish the good from the bad with naked eyes or magnifier.

[Antonio Scapini]

The analysys based on microscope revealed details that fakes can’t show for several different reasons:

1) measurements are the first step: cast fakes loose a variable % in dimension (but also heavily worn ring can loose their original dimensions);

2) types of metals used for soldering: cast fakes usually don’t have 2 (or more!) different types of metal;


Cast rings can't have micro areas with sharp details in relief or small fissures because the melting process compact metal. Only originals can.
These areas aren't visible with a normal magnifier or with eyes.
Below a comparison of the same area from the ring in question and a top fake.

[Antonio Scapini]

3) microscopic analysys of metals: this analysys reveals what naked eye and magnifier can’t; it is really important to see how the time worked on these rings and the signs like microcracks present;

A couple of examples af a crack due to the time.

[Antonio Scapini]

...and a sharp detailed area.

[Antonio Scapini]

4) microscopic analysys of the engraving: a lot o details here must be seen: type of tool used, age visible thanks to the sediments present within, to the scratches, to the wornd down and other aspects... (sorry but it's hard to explain everyting in english for me).

Below some exaples: first shows scratches over the engraving, second the compatible patina between the engraved letter and the rest of the ring.

[Antonio Scapini]

An area with 2 mixed metals. Usually the bad-good-and very good fakes don't show details like this.

[Antonio Scapini]

5) ….. sorry but this is a "secret" that is the definitive proof and I can’t share it here to avoid fakers know what is IMO the last step!

I tried to explain in a simple way the process, of course, as you possibly know, it is a little bit more complicated and need hundreds of pictures taken for comparisons and a lot of time of research. Anyway I hope it can clear there are other ways to authenticate rings and I think it can help our collectors community.

[galizien41]

Thanks for all your research and time spent on the subject. Very important info. Also, I appreciate you not mentioning the point 5. We don't want the fakers making supreme fakes, indistinguishable from originals.

[weissthor]

Fantastic and very interesting thread!
Thanks for.
I real want to read more.

[GiuseppeC]

Antonio:

Bravo!

A very good analysis on microscopy, and as you say, there are certain aspects of original rings that shouldn't be posted online.

Best,

Andre

[Triggerself]

That's so great! From all Third Reich Ring community and group on FB want to say THANK YOU!

Regards,
Sergey

[Antonio Scapini]

Thanks guys!
Really appreciated your words.

[Wim Vangossum]

Antonio, you did the right thing to work with a microscope. I guess that will be the future and they only way to distinguish the good from the bad pieces...

PS: based on the very good pictures it's not a cheap type of microscope like my Bresser.

[Antonio Scapini]

I absolutely agree with you Wim.
In the Totenkopfring field IMO nowdays is the only way to be 100% sure of.
I spent a lot of time and money to find out this analysys, but I'm very proud and happy of it. Copies can be made in different ways and as I tried to understand in deep the differences with an original, we all know fakers do it in the same way. And we see it every day.

Pictures are very important so I prefere use good tools.

[Mike TM]

Very interesting thanks

Mike