Announcement

**tanker** · 01-14-2018, 03:32 PM

I think the silence form the seller and buyer is really disappointing. I would have expected some kind of post from them.

**Jeff V** · 01-14-2018, 04:14 PM

After spending some time looking again at the pictures I do not believe these rings are the same. The first ring has much more blackening in the recesses of and around the skull. Also there are some nics and scratches on the first ring that I do not see on the second. For now, in the absence of better pics of the second ring they appear different.

**ZiG** · 01-15-2018, 01:39 AM

there are no absolute people, everyone makes mistakes sooner or later.
but you need to make mistakes. on the photo, an obvious copy....

**Ludwig vK** · 01-15-2018, 01:59 AM

The Bruns ring Antonio has compared on page 1, is not the same Bruns ring I see for sale here:

http://germanmilitariacollectibles.c...ified_ID=57002

I am not sure how relevant this is, but I believe the photos were the ones Antonio refers to, and since I have view this a second time, they have been swapped for photos of a different ring. The photos are of very poor quality but the Hagal rune is far less worn than the photos which were previously up there. Unfortunately I cannot tell if these new photos are the Bruns ring as there is no image of the engraving. Apparently "Engraving all there but hard to pick up with camera".

In regard to the rings posted at the beginning of this thread, I am now leaning towards the belief they are indeed different rings, not the same ring with different quality photos. It is all getting very confusing. So which is the real Bruns ring, and is the Bruns ring real?

Attached Files

Bruns new.jpg (90.4 KB, 541 views)

**Paul.B.** · 01-15-2018, 03:12 AM

The rings Antonio posted are most definitely 2 different rings.
Exactly the same features but different examples.

**Joda** · 01-15-2018, 05:43 AM

With all respect Antonio, but I think this forum must keep its focus on object analisys and avoid personal attacks....

Originally posted by Antonio Scapini View Post

But to be honest I started doubting since years ago, when I start seeing some doubtful rings around, but I had no the definitive proof.

My guess is: how many fakes have your COA nowdays? How many more will surface in next years?

Pandora's vase is open now. Sorry, but I don't trust you any more. I guess who still will?

I think these statements have to be better explained: it would be instructive for all collectors to see here the other doubtful rings you saw, I am sure you kept the picts of them..
This thread could turn into a fake database of MrBoyle original authenticated rings , and this would be very useful to the collector community. But picts are needed.

About the second statement, it is IMO an inference...nobody wants to be a lawyer here but this phrase is a little bit strong...

At last your third statement: who still trust in Mr Boyle? Personally I think that if he made a mistake he must clarify here. But I won’t trust in mr Boyle only after the demonstrations of many fakes authenticated from him as original.
I see here one ring under debate...where is the Pandora vase opened? I think this should be written after the demonstration of multiple frauds...now is a little bit early...

Just my opinion Antonio, nothing personal

**Antonio Scapini** · 01-15-2018, 06:40 AM

I saw doubtful rings (and I'm not the only one), but I had no the definitive proof. Please read what I wrote.
To be honest I have pictures of one, but I always said that a ring (if not a blatant fake) must be seen in hands. Doubtful means doubtful, nor good, nor fake.

Don had his possibility to answer about the 2 rings, but he preferred to stand in his position. So my question is (I think) legitimate. If he stand in his COA behind a so blatant cast fake, how many more can be made? Who knows? Since he made many without having rings in hands, my query is not an inference.
They sold a fake, with a COA (not a problem if you admit it, but that fake was so blatant that is hard to believe to Don's standing...), another ring is for sale (same fake) and who knows what is that? The same? Another as many think? For sure the silence is not the best choice here.

BTW: I think he no need a defence attorney, he is old enough to reply, but he decided to talk about himself. Did he ask you to talk for him?
I expressed my opinions, as many here, so if you are trying to move the thread on personal attacks, you made a mistake. Go on.

**Joda** · 01-15-2018, 07:02 AM

Oh nonono...as I wrote I want to avoid personal attacks...don’t worry

I hope you don’t too.
My hope is to spot every fake here.
And no need to protect Mr Boyle. Everyone who makes mistakes must “pay” for this.
I hope this thread won’t turn into something useful only to make KO mr Boyle. That’s all.
We must focus the attention to every ring posted if original or not.
Everything more is unuseful...everyone has here his own opinion about this fact.
All the best Antonio.

Originally posted by Antonio Scapini View Post

I saw doubtful rings (and I'm not the only one), but I had no the definitive proof. Please read what I wrote.
To be honest I have pictures of one, but I always said that a ring (if not a blatant fake) must be seen in hands. Doubtful means doubtful, nor good, nor fake.

Don had his possibility to answer about the 2 rings, but he preferred to stand in his position. So my question is (I think) legitimate. If he stand in his COA behind a so blatant cast fake, how many more can be made? Who knows? Since he made many without having rings in hands, my query is not an inference.
They sold a fake, with a COA (not a problem if you admit it, but that fake was so blatant that is hard to believe to Don's standing...), another ring is for sale (same fake) and who knows what is that? The same? Another as many think? For sure the silence is not the best choice here.

BTW: I think he no need a defence attorney, he is old enough to reply, but he decided to talk about himself. Did he ask you to talk for him?
I expressed my opinions, as many here, so if you are trying to move the thread on personal attacks, you made a mistake. Go on.

**GiuseppeC** · 01-15-2018, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Ludwig vK View Post

I am looking at the Bruns ring photos here:

http://germanmilitariacollectibles.c...ified_ID=57002

and they do not appear to be the same photos which I saw there on that site earlier, or the ones Antonio has posted here as comparisons. Was an error made and the same photos of the first ring, the Ahrens ring, was posted by mistake, and these have been updated and swapped on the classified?

Guys:

The original for Antonio's post came from here:

http://militarynut.com/id26.html

(Scroll downa bit, it's there)

BUT - It is the same person running the site and the ad on GMC. The real question is, are both those Bruns rings the same?

**eldenwaff** · 01-15-2018, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by tanker View Post

Something is going to have to be done to clear this up. Either someone is making fake rings and COA's and passing them as originals or not. If someone made a mistake then swallow pride and admit a mistake. If this isn't taken care of, then the ring collecting a going to take another hit. New collectors and even older collectors are going to shy away from these the same as when JR had the Frank ring and GG's problems. It happened with SS Helmet and it is happening with the rings. Lets correct the downfall.
Ron

You say that like its a bad thing.
If collectors truly start shying away from them, then prices should go down, thus offering a disincentive to fakers ,,, While the whole time, all the authenticity problems will continue either way.

**australia** · 01-15-2018, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by GiuseppeC View Post

Guys:

The original for Antonio's post came from here:

http://militarynut.com/id26.html

(Scroll downa bit, it's there)

BUT - It is the same person running the site and the ad on GMC. The real question is, are both those Bruns rings the same?

When it comes to rings , Andy has got it wrong many times , he has also admitted on other forums that rings are becoming to difficult to authenticate by himself.

**mick c** · 01-16-2018, 02:48 AM

andy didn't authenticate the rings,

**australia** · 01-16-2018, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by mick c View Post

andy didn't authenticate the rings,

I realize that but surely the person selling these rings should have some responsibility in making sure a item is genuine besides relying on a COA from a third party

**mick c** · 01-16-2018, 03:10 AM

there lyes the problem, who do you go to? I was under the impression that a coa from mr boyle was positive proof that the ring was genuine.

**GiuseppeC** · 01-16-2018, 09:22 AM

List of Things I Hate About This Hobby:

#2. People who don't pay attention in class, and jump to conclusions based on faulty information.

In my last post, I quoted somebody else, and asked a question:

BUT, are they the same rings?

Ludwig vK asked essentially the same question...

The hard FACTS are that:

The person who put up this ad, selling a "Bruns ring, dated 1939"

http://germanmilitariacollectibles.c...ified_ID=57002

is the SAME PERSON who runs this website, selling a "Bruns ring, dated 1939".

http://militarynut.com/id26.html

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THAT TELLS YOU.

(Hint: Maybe it's NOT that 'the seller' has 2 different versions of the same ring for sale; Maybe there's a much simpler, and perfectly innocent reason this happened).

Announcement

Where is the truth on TK rings?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread