SS Honor Ring

[Luca Ongaro]

Hi friends,
could I have please your opinions about this totenkopfring?
Thank you so much in advance for your time and help.
Luca

[Luca Ongaro]

1

[Luca Ongaro]

2

[Luca Ongaro]

3

[Christian76]

More and better pics from the symbols, engraving, TK....are necessary.
Looks promising so far.

[Ric Ferrari]

By the pics posted, I don't like it.

We need better and well detailed pics to definitively judge

Ric

[Antonio Scapini]

Luca, it's a total crap, stay away.

You no need to take better pictures, it is a clear, very poor, cast ring.

[RUHL13]

Very crude

[Luca Ongaro]

Hi guys, thanks for your time!
Luca

[Ric Ferrari]

Luca, it's a total crap, stay away.

You no need to take better pictures, it is a clear, very poor, cast ring.

"It is a clear, very poor, cast ring" ??? .....weren't you supporting die cast theory ?

So, what's the difference between a die cast original ring and a die cast repro one ?

Were you able to determine by those pics cast flaws are not compatibile with an original die cast honor ring ?

Ric

[Robert H]

copy

[SScollector]

"It is a clear, very poor, cast ring" ??? .....weren't you supporting die cast theory ?

So, what's the difference between a die cast original ring and a die cast repro one ?

Were you able to determine by those pics cast flaws are not compatibile with an original die cast honor ring ?

Ric

That is exactly what I was thinking, Ric. If all of the originals, as well as most of the best fakes are ALL crudely cast, then why even bother mentioning the word "cast"? Any visible casting defects shouldn't even matter. According to Antonio's theory, no two original TK rings are even close the same anyway, so if this cast ring was actually made out of four or five sheets of laminated silver CupAl metals, (this not being visible in these photos), then why couldn't this ring be an original, or any other cast TK ring for that matter? Maybe this one just didn't come out as nice as most of the casted originals? If the engraving looks accurate, and the ring is of multi-piece construction, (and I'm sure that the newer fakes will be this way soon, if not already), then why couldn't ANY casted TK ring can be considered original, regardless of how it looks on the outside?

Just my thoughts,

Chris

[salzmann]

Please take a second look at the oakleaves...

That is exactly what I was thinking, Ric. If all of the originals, as well as most of the best fakes are ALL crudely cast, then why even bother mentioning the word "cast"? Any visible casting defects shouldn't even matter. According to Antonio's theory, no two original TK rings are even close the same anyway, so if this cast ring was actually made out of four or five sheets of laminated silver CupAl metals, (this not being visible in these photos), then why couldn't this ring be an original, or any other cast TK ring for that matter? Maybe this one just didn't come out as nice as most of the casted originals? If the engraving looks accurate, and the ring is of multi-piece construction, (and I'm sure that the newer fakes will be this way soon, if not already), then why couldn't ANY casted TK ring can be considered original, regardless of how it looks on the outside?

Just my thoughts,

Chris

[SScollector]

Please take a second look at the oakleaves...

Yes, I saw plenty of horrible looking cast flaws upon first glance. This is how I always come to my own opinion on a TK ring and would have quickly and easily dismissed it for what it is, imo. What I do not understand, is how Antonio did the same thing, but he supports the die cast theory. Those that do support this theory should not be unable to use cast flaws to determine originality. This does not make sense to me. Even the high quality reproductions that Antonio made himself are of better quality than this one, imo, but apparently he is unable to tell the difference between an original cast TK ring and the ones he made himself, (if it weren't for the multi-piece construction method and engraving). Antonio has said that noone can tell his repros simply by looking at the outer details because any cast original ring could have sloppy casting defects just like on his cast repros. Apparently, the same goes for the originals, which can also have sloppy casting flaws in numerous places from one ring to another, just like on the fakes.

So basically, there should be no need to even look at any of the details, but only at the multi-piece layers, (which requires a microscope, I guess).

Chris

[Ric Ferrari]

Yes, I saw plenty of horrible looking cast flaws upon first glance. This is how I always come to my own opinion on a TK ring and would have quickly and easily dismissed it for what it is, imo. What I do not understand, is how Antonio did the same thing, but he supports the die cast theory. Those that do support this theory should not be unable to use cast flaws to determine originality. This does not make sense to me. Even the high quality reproductions that Antonio made himself are of better quality than this one, imo, but apparently he is unable to tell the difference between an original cast TK ring and the ones he made himself, (if it weren't for the multi-piece construction method and engraving). Antonio has said that noone can tell his repros simply by looking at the outer details because any cast original ring could have sloppy casting defects just like on his cast repros. Apparently, the same goes for the originals, which can also have sloppy casting flaws in numerous places from one ring to another, just like on the fakes.

So basically, there should be no need to even look at any of the details, but only at the multi-piece layers, (which requires a microscope, I guess).

Chris

Ric